In re D.R. CA1/3, A172373M

Minor D.R. II was born prematurely in April 2024 after in utero methamphetamine exposure and was detained and placed in nonrelative foster care.
Paternal grandmother R.S. (Grandmother) sought placement; she disclosed a history of substance abuse, a criminal record, prior child-welfare involvement, and recent engagement in mental-health treatment and sobriety (claimed since Nov. 2022).
The Agency referred Grandmother for Resource Family Approval (RFA) but reported concerns and later indicated a prior denial of a criminal-record exemption (June 2023) that required ceasing RFA review under DSS Written Directive §5-03B(m).
After reunification services were terminated and a §366.26 hearing set, Grandmother filed a §388 petition seeking placement; the juvenile court reviewed written materials and Grandmother’s unsworn statements but declined an evidentiary hearing and denied the placement request as not in the child’s best interest.
Father and Grandmother appealed, arguing denial of due process/abuse of discretion for refusing a full evidentiary hearing and improper failure to evaluate/emergency-place Grandmother despite the RFA exemption denial.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding no due-process right to mandatory confrontation here and no abuse of discretion by the Agency or juvenile court in declining placement.

Issue	Grandmother/Father's Argument	Agency/Juvenile Court's Argument	Held
1. Whether denying a full evidentiary hearing on §388 petition violated due process or was an abuse of discretion	Grandmother had a right to confront witnesses and present live testimony; initial judge had set a hearing	No fundamental due-process right for noncustodial grandparents absent quasi-parental bond; court may adjudicate §388 on declarations/documentary evidence	Denial of full evidentiary hearing not reversible; no parental-like bond existed and court properly exercised discretion to rely on written materials and Grandmother’s statements
2. Whether the Agency/judge improperly failed to evaluate Grandmother for emergency placement or wrongly ceased RFA review due to prior exemption denial	Agency should have authorized emergency relative placement under §361.4(b)(6) or applied the exception in the Directive to continue RFA review given her sobriety and changed circumstances	Directive requires counties to cease review after a recent exemption denial; county may continue only if applicant shows prior reasons are corrected; court has discretion under §361.4 and found placement would risk child stability	No reversible error: emergency-placement statute did not compel placement at that stage; Agency reasonably relied on Directive and denial; juvenile court permissibly exercised discretion and found placement not in Minor’s best interest

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (parental rights limit third-party visitation claims)
In re C.P., 47 Cal. App. 5th 17 (exception when caregiver develops quasi-parental bonds)
In re C.J.W., 157 Cal. App. 4th 1075 (written evidence plus argument can constitute a §388 hearing)
In re Lesly G., 162 Cal. App. 4th 904 (no hearing where court took no evidence or argument)
In re N.J., 104 Cal. App. 5th 96 (agency delays in evaluating relatives can be prejudicial and reversible)
In re Isabella G., 246 Cal. App. 4th 708 (agency’s failure to assess relative timely violates relative-placement preference)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal. 2d 818 (prejudice standard for reversal)
In re Shirley K., 140 Cal. App. 4th 65 (standard of review for §388 petitions)