In re A.M. CA4/2, E076625

Background

Parents (M.M. — father; S.L. — mother) have a lengthy child‑welfare history: older children were removed after medical neglect and findings of sexualized conduct; parents largely denied/minimized allegations.
A.M. (born 2017) was removed and remained in foster care; M.M. Jr. (born 2019) was born with a congenital heart condition, hospitalized, and never returned to parental care.
Children were placed with a concurrent foster family (Mr. and Mrs. B.) in Feb. 2020; the B.’s sought adoption and the children became attached to them.
Reunification services were terminated/bypassed; supervised visitation was suspended and later terminated as detrimental because the children’s negative behaviors escalated after visits.
Parents filed section 388 petitions to reinstate services, sought a bonding study, and appealed after the juvenile court found the children adoptable and terminated parental rights; appeals were consolidated and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

Issue	CFS's Argument	Parents' Argument	Held
Summary denial of §388 petitions	Petitions failed to show change that would promote children’s best interests; reinstating services would undermine permanency	Parents showed changed circumstances and claimed reunification served children’s interests	Affirmed: parents failed to make prima facie showing that reopening services/visitation was in children’s best interests; summary denial not abuse of discretion
Challenge to termination of visitation as due process violation	Collateral order review was forfeited because parents abandoned extraordinary‑writ petitions; issues must be raised by writ prior to §366.26	Termination of visits denied due process and impaired ability to prove parental‑bond exception to adoption	Affirmed (procedural): visitation termination not reviewable on this appeal due to forfeiture by failing to pursue writ relief
Denial of bonding‑study request	Study was untimely and would delay permanency; visits already found detrimental and reunification terminated	Bonding study was necessary as neutral expert evidence of parent–child connection	Affirmed: juvenile court did not abuse discretion in refusing study given terminated services, detrimental visits, children’s year in prospective adoptive home
Sufficiency of evidence of adoptability	Children were likely to be adopted; B.’s willing and able despite children’s needs	Parents argued medical/developmental issues and alleged legal problems with prospective adoptive parent made adoption unlikely	Affirmed: substantial evidence supports that children were likely adoptable within a reasonable time and B.’s commitment supported adoptability finding
Mother’s claim re S.K. visitation termination (due process)	Numerous reports over years documented S.K.’s behavioral regression after visits and provided notice; mother had opportunity to object at hearing	Mother asserted inadequate notice and no chance to respond before termination of maternal contact	Affirmed: record shows repeated notice in reports and opportunity to contest at hearing; detriment finding supported by evidence

Key Cases Cited

In re Daniel F., 64 Cal.App.5th 701 (clarifies standard for summary denial of §388 petitions)
In re Angel B., 97 Cal.App.4th 454 (summary denial of §388 petitions does not violate due process)
In re J.C., 226 Cal.App.4th 503 (petition to reopen reunification must show how change advances child’s need for permanency)
In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (presumption against reopening services after termination because child’s need for permanency takes priority)
In re Hashem H., 45 Cal.App.4th 1791 (example where prima facie showing justified reopening due to successful remediation)
Caden C. v. Superior Court, 11 Cal.5th 614 (focus for parental‑bond exception: child‑centered inquiry; expert bonding evidence valuable but discretionary)
Lorenzo C., 54 Cal.App.4th 1330 (denial of belated bonding study not an abuse where study unlikely to be useful and would delay permanency)
In re Tabitha W., 143 Cal.App.4th 811 (orders made at hearings setting §366.26 must be challenged by extraordinary writ to preserve review)