In re B.F. CA5, F088850

B.F., an eight-year-old child, was removed from mother's custody in March 2023 following drug exposure allegations and evidence of methamphetamine and marijuana in mother's possession.
Mother (G.G.) had a long history of substance abuse and prior child welfare involvement, including multiple substantiated reports involving drug use and domestic violence.
The juvenile court initially provided family reunification services, but terminated them at the 12-month review hearing in May 2024 after mother's relapse and inconsistent participation in her case plan.
In September 2024, mother filed a Welfare & Institutions Code section 388 petition seeking to regain custody or additional reunification services, alleging recent sobriety, engagement in treatment, and positive relationship with the child.
The juvenile court denied the petition at an October 2024 hearing, concluding mother’s circumstances were only “changing” (not “changed”) and prioritizing the child’s need for stability through legal guardianship with relative caregivers.
Mother appealed, asking the Court of Appeal to reverse the denial of her section 388 petition.

Issue	Mother's Argument	Agency's Argument	Held
Did mother show sufficiently changed circumstances to warrant modification under §388?	Mother argued her recent participation in treatment and sobriety showed changed circumstances.	Agency argued her sobriety was too recent, her issues longstanding, and circumstances merely changing.	Court held mother's circumstances were still changing, not changed.
Was granting mother’s request in the child’s best interests?	Mother argued a strong bond exists and further reunification is in child’s interest.	Agency argued permanency and stability are paramount after 18 months; delay not in child’s best interest.	Court held stability for child with guardianship best serves child’s interests.
Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in denying the §388 petition?	Mother argued that her progress and relationship with child required the court to reconsider.	Agency argued the court properly weighed all factors and case history.	Court found no abuse of discretion in the denial.
Should the dependency court have delayed permanency to allow further reunification?	Mother argued recent progress justified delay to assess her ability to maintain sobriety.	Agency emphasized repeated failures and long delay already incurred.	Court ruled further delay not justified given permanency needs.

In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1994) (after reunification services end, child’s need for permanency and stability becomes paramount)
In re Kimberly F., 56 Cal.App.4th 519 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (changed, not merely changing, circumstances required for §388 modification)
In re A.A., 203 Cal.App.4th 597 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (change in circumstances must be significant and resolve the original problem)
In re Casey D., 70 Cal.App.4th 38 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (stability for child outweighs delaying permanency to wait for possible parental reform)