B.B. v. Superior Court of San Diego County
6 Cal. App. 5th 563
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- H.B., a child whose parents failed to reunify in a 2013 dependency, was placed with his maternal aunt (Guardian) via juvenile-court-ordered guardianship; parental rights were not terminated and supervised visits were ordered.
- In 2015–2016 Guardian permitted unsupervised parental contact; Father engaged in ongoing drug use and brought H.B. to jail while intoxicated; drugs and paraphernalia accessible to H.B. were later found in Father’s hotel room.
- In June 2016 the Agency filed a new dependency petition under Welf. & Inst. Code § 300 (naming Mother, Father, and Guardian), sought removal from Guardian, and ultimately recommended terminating the guardianship and setting a new permanency hearing under § 366.26.
- At the contested hearing the juvenile court found the § 300 petition true, terminated the guardianship, resumed dependency jurisdiction, and set a § 366.26 hearing 120 days later (Dec. 22, 2016).
- Father filed a writ petition arguing the Agency should have used a § 388 petition to terminate the guardianship (which would have required a 30‑day hearing and, if granted, a 60‑day permanency review where he could seek reunification services).
- The Court of Appeal agreed the Agency erred by using § 300 instead of § 388 but held the error was harmless because Father could not have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that reunification services were the best alternative for H.B.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Agency’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was § 300 the proper procedure to terminate a juvenile-court guardianship? | Agency should have used § 388 to modify/terminate guardianship; § 300 was improper. | Initially proceeded under § 300; later conceded § 388 was the correct postpermanency route. | Court: Agency erred — § 388 procedures should have been used. |
| Did the Agency’s procedural error deprive Father of due process / opportunity to seek reunification services at a 60‑day review? | Error prejudiced Father by denying the 60‑day permanency review under § 366.3/§ 388 where he could request services. | Error was harmless; parents aren’t entitled to a new full reunification period post‑permanency, and Father couldn’t show reunification would be best. | Court: No prejudice; error was harmless. |
| Could Father have obtained reunification services at a post‑guardianship permanency hearing? | Father argued he would have sought and been entitled to services. | Agency: Postpermanency, burden is on parent to prove reunification is best; § 361.5 does not apply. | Court: Father could not have met the preponderance standard given prior failed reunification and recent drug/endangerment conduct. |
| Is noncompliance with rule 5.740(c)/§ 388 reversible per se? | Implied that procedural requirements were mandatory and their violation required reversal. | Procedural rules are directory; apply harmless-error analysis. | Court: Directory rules apply; apply Watson/harmless‑error standard and affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Carlos E., 129 Cal.App.4th 1408 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (juvenile court may appoint legal guardian at permanency hearing and guardianship is modifiable under § 388)
- In re Priscilla D., 234 Cal.App.4th 1207 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (procedures for postpermanency guardianship termination and obligations upon resumption of dependency)
- In re C. T., 100 Cal.App.4th 101 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (directory vs. mandatory nature of procedural rules and consequences of noncompliance)
- In re Katelynn Y., 209 Cal.App.4th 871 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (harmless-error approach to procedural violations in dependency matters)
- In re Jesusa V., 32 Cal.4th 588 (Cal. 2004) (harmless‑error standard in appellate review under California Constitution)
- In re Cristian I., 224 Cal.App.4th 1088 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (application of prejudice standard under Watson)
- People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (standard for reversible error: reasonable probability of a more favorable result absent the error)
- D. T. v. Superior Court, 241 Cal.App.4th 1017 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (postpermanency reunification rules and limits on § 361.5 applicability)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1994) (shift of focus to child’s need for permanence after reunification services end)
- In re D.B., 217 Cal.App.4th 1080 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (parents retain interest in postpermanency proceedings until parental rights are terminated)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (constitutional harmless‑error standard)