Fresno County Department of Social Services v. Cindy C.
234 Cal. App. 4th 1207
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2010 Fresno County removed Cindy C.’s three children after Cindy’s arrest for PCP use and child endangerment; reunification services were denied.
- The juvenile court placed the children with maternal uncle Frank and his wife Denise, established a Kinship Guardianship (Kin‑GAP), issued letters of guardianship, and terminated dependency jurisdiction.
- Cindy later completed substance‑abuse and parenting programs, maintained sobriety, had regular visitation, and in 2013–2014 filed Welfare & Institutions Code § 388 petitions seeking termination of the guardianship and family maintenance (or return) of the children.
- The juvenile court reinstated dependency jurisdiction for purposes of the § 388 proceedings, heard evidence (children and social workers testified), but denied Cindy’s § 388 petition as a matter of law, concluding § 388 was not the proper vehicle to terminate a Kin‑GAP guardianship and that only guardians or the state could seek such relief under § 366.3.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a parent whose parental rights have not been terminated may seek to modify or set aside a prior guardianship order under § 388 and that the juvenile court erred in refusing to consider the merits of Cindy’s petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dept/Respondent) | Defendant's Argument (Cindy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent may use § 388 to terminate a Kin‑GAP legal guardianship and obtain reunification/family‑maintenance | § 388 is not the proper vehicle once dependency was dismissed and Kin‑GAP established; termination proceedings are governed by § 366.3 and typically initiated by guardians or the state | A parent may petition under § 388 to change or set aside prior orders (including terminating guardianship) based on changed circumstances or new evidence | Reversed: parent may use § 388 to seek termination of guardianship; juvenile court erred by refusing to consider the merits |
| Whether § 366.3 compelled denial or was the exclusive remedy | § 366.3 controls termination initiated by guardians/state and requires department reports; thus, § 388 should not supplant that process | § 366.3 governs state/guardian‑initiated terminations; it does not preclude a parent’s § 388 petition to modify prior orders | Court: § 366.3 applies when state/guardian initiates termination but does not bar a parent’s § 388 petition; different burdens and procedures apply |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (California 2003) (guardianship provides stability but is not irrevocable)
- In re Emily L., 212 Cal.App.3d 734 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (permanency planning goals explained)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (California 1993) (parents retain right to petition for modification under § 388 for changed circumstances)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (California 1994) (burden on parent in § 388 proceedings is preponderance to show changed circumstances and best interest)
- In re Jessica C., 151 Cal.App.4th 474 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (procedure when guardianship is terminated and permanency planning resumes)
- In re D.B., 217 Cal.App.4th 1080 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (discretionary nature of § 388 relief)
- In re Michael D., 51 Cal.App.4th 1074 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (state bears heightened burden to remove a child from a guardian)
- In re Esperanza C., 165 Cal.App.4th 1042 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (legal error constitutes abuse of discretion)