Skip to content
Name: In re Angel S.
Case #: C054446
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/23/2007

Termination of a probate guardianship by way of a 388 modification petition was harmless error. Inez, the maternal great aunt and former guardian of the minor, appealed the juvenile court order terminating the probate guardianship because the court failed to follow the statutory procedure for termination, in that the application to terminate the guardianship was raised by section 388 petition rather than by a motion pursuant to section 728. Further, the father was not given notice of the guardianship termination proceeding. Inez contended that the errors were jurisdictional and subject to a per se reversal. The…

View Full Summary
Name: In re D.S.
Case #: C055069
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/31/2007

Appeal was dismissed where father lacked standing to appeal the denial of mother's modification petition which he did not join. Father appealed from an order denying mother's 388 petition and terminating both parents' parental rights. He contended that the juvenile court violated the due process of both parents by denying mother's petition for modification as untimely. The appellate court dismissed father's appeal, finding that father lacked standing to challenge the order denying mother's modification petition. To have standing, father must show how the denial of mother's modification petition, which did not relate to him and which…

View Full Summary
Name: In re D.R.
Case #: B196277
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/20/2007

The juvenile court did not automatically lose jurisdiction over the guardianship of the minor when he turned 18 years old. The minor was made a dependent in 2001, and jurisdiction was terminated in 2003 upon the selection of a legal guardianship with Lloyd L. as the permanent plan. Five days before the minor's birthday, Lloyd filed a 388 petition, seeking to reinstate juvenile court jurisdiction over the minor, who suffered from developmental, medical, and behavioral problems. On the day the minor turned 18, the juvenile court summarily denied the 388 petition. Both Lloyd and the minor…

View Full Summary
Name: In re M.V.
Case #: A112525
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 01/16/2007

The minor was placed with his foster parents following removal from his parents, and his foster mother was made a de facto parent. After 16 months in that placement, the juvenile court granted a 388 petition filed by the Department to modify the placement because the minor had either been scratched or bitten on the face by the family dog. On appeal, the foster parents argued that the appellate court should reverse the granting of the 388 motion because the juvenile court never specified the standard of proof it applied. They contended that the court should have…

View Full Summary
Name: In re H.G.
Case #: D048471
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/11/2006

The minor was placed with her paternal grandparents following removal from her parents. The Department subsequently moved under section 387 to move the minor from her grandparents because they permitted the father to have unauthorized contact with her. The court sustained the Department's petition, and removed the minor. Parental rights were subsequently terminated. On appeal, the parents contended that the factual allegations in the 387 petition were not supported by substantial evidence, and that the court erred when it did not consider the relative placement criteria under section 361.3. They also contested the termination of…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Terrance B.
Case #: D048200
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/13/2006
Subsequent History: Revw. den. 2/7/07

The appellate court remanded the case following mother's first appeal for compliance with the ICWA. On remand, the juvenile court summarily denied mother's section 388 modification petition. In the second appeal, mother contended that the court erroneously believed it had no jurisdiction to address her 388 petition which sought to reverse the order terminating her parental rights and to place the minor with her. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. The limited reversal and remand contained in the remittitur in the prior appeal precluded the juvenile court from entertaining mother's section 388 petition. …

View Full Summary
Name: Nickolas F. v. Superior Court
Case #: D048652
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 11/25/2006

Father sought writ review of juvenile court orders made at the 12-month review hearing terminating reunification services and setting a 366.26 hearing. He contended that the juvenile court erred when it granted a 388 petition to deny him services because the court could not modify its previous order absent a change in circumstances or new evidence. He also contended that he did not receive reasonable services. The appellate court disagreed and denied the petition. The juvenile court has the statutory authority under section 385 to set aside any previous order after providing the parties with notice…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Hunter S.
Case #: B188248
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 09/18/2006

Mother appealed from the termination of her parental rights and the denial of a section 388 motion seeking reinstatement of services based on the juvenile court's failure to enforce a visitation order, and delegating sole discretion over visitation to the minor. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the juvenile court erroneously delegated its authority to the minor, and abused its discretion by not granting the 388 petition in order to correct the error. Mother was granted visitation which she was never, in reality, allowed to have because the minor was given veto power over visits. Where the…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Madison W.
Case #: F049851
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/10/2006

Mother's 388 petition was denied, and three days later her parental rights were terminated. In her notice of appeal, she stated that she was appealing from the order terminating parental rights on January 13, 2006. The notice of appeal did not mention the January 10 order denying the 388 petition. Mother's opening brief on appeal challenged the denial of the 388 petition. Respondent filed a brief disputing the court's jurisdiction to address the 388 petition, as it was not included in the notice of appeal. Appellate counsel thereafter moved to amend the notice of appeal…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Shirley K.
Case #: D047554
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/05/2006

Paternal grandparents and de facto parents of the minor appealed the denial of their 388 petition which sought to reinstate placement of the minor in their home, or in the alternative, liberal unsupervised visitation. The minor had been placed with the grandparents almost since birth and was attached to them. Parental rights had been terminated. The minor was removed from the grandparents' custody due to a sibling in the home's use of methamphetamine, and the social worker's opinion that grandfather had an alcohol dependence issue. The trial court concluded that the Department had not abused its…

View Full Summary