Brendan O. v. Merced County Human Services Agency
197 Cal. App. 4th 586
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Maternal grandfather seeks placement of Mickel and Mallory with maternal grandparents or unsupervised visitation; maternal grandfather challenges social worker conduct and agency handling.
- Petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 denied; petition argued changed circumstances and best interests favored maternal grandparents.
- A bonding study and multiple expert reports reexamine each party’s attachments and the best placement for the children.
- Expert opinions emphasize stability with paternal grandparents, but acknowledge strong bonds with maternal grandfather, and recommend ongoing, supervised visitation with maternal grandparents.
- Trial court ultimately terminates parental rights and denies unsupervised visitation; on appeal, the court reverses the visitation termination and remands for mediation and a visitation plan, while upholding most other rulings.
- A separate concurrence notes mediation as best practice and urges court-connected mediation programs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of the section 388 petition was an abuse of discretion | Maternal grandfather argues bias and new evidence warrant change | The court weighed evidence and kept stability with paternal grandparents | No abuse of discretion; denial upheld |
| Whether termination of supervised visitation was an abuse of discretion | Maternal grandparents contend ongoing bond and need for mediation | Court believed visitation would disrupt permanency | Yes; reversal required and visitation reinstated |
| Whether bonding study adequacy and bias affected results | Expert reports show bias against maternal grandfather | Findings relied on multiple independent sources | Bias concerns acknowledged but not sole basis for holding; reversal on visitation issue persists |
| Whether paternal grandparents’ de facto status and guardianship were properly considered | Grandparents argue misapplication of guardianship findings | Evidence supports bonding with paternal grandparents | Sufficient evidence to support de facto status; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Casey D., 70 Cal.App.4th 38 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (scope of 388 relief and best interests require changed circumstances and stability)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1994) (primary consideration is stability and permanency; abuse of discretion standard)
- In re Kimberly F., 56 Cal.App.4th 519 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (change of circumstances must be significant; best interests analysis)
- In re Jasmine C., 70 Cal.App.4th 71 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (evidence sufficiency for placement decisions; credibility resolving on appeal)
- In re Justice P., 123 Cal.App.4th 181 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (court may consider comprehensive history and best interests in section 388 proceedings)