In re F.M. CA4/1
D069777
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Four children (twins age 7, a 5‑year‑old, and a 2‑year‑old) were removed in Sept. 2014 after reports of neglect, unsanitary conditions, developmental delays, and concerns about Mother's methamphetamine use.
- Mother had a long history of methamphetamine use, tested positive in Sept. 2014, was inconsistently engaged with services, missed visits and appointments, and failed to complete ordered psychological evaluation and treatment early in the case.
- The juvenile court sustained section 300(b)(1) jurisdictional findings, ordered reunification services, but found limited progress; at the contested six‑month review (July 2015) it terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 selection hearing.
- Mother entered residential substance abuse treatment in June 2015 and showed substantial sobriety (over 224 days by Feb. 2016); she filed a section 388 petition (Nov. 2015) seeking reinstatement of reunification, unsupervised/overnight visits, and vacatur of the section 366.26 hearing.
- The juvenile court found Mother established changed circumstances (sobriety) but denied the petition because she failed to show the requested relief would serve the Minors’ best interests (concerns: ongoing risk during visits, Mother overwhelmed caring for four children, no post‑discharge plan, children had made substantial progress and strong bonds with foster caretakers).
- The court then proceeded with the section 366.26 hearing and terminated parental rights; the appellate court affirmed the denial of the section 388 petition and the order terminating reunification.
Issues
| Issue | Mother's Argument | Agency's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying Mother’s §388 petition to vacate the §366.26 date and reinstate reunification/unsupervised visits | Mother: sustained sobriety and program progress constitute changed circumstances and serve the children’s best interests to resume reunification | Agency: children need permanency/stability; Mother remained unable to safely supervise four children outside controlled setting and had no post‑discharge plan; strong foster bonds | Court: Mother proved changed circumstances but failed to show relief would be in the children’s best interests; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (after reunification ends, child’s need for permanency/stability predominates)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (1994) (standard of review for §388 denial is abuse of discretion; focus shifts to child’s best interests after reunification services end)
- In re Jasmon O., 8 Cal.4th 398 (1994) (child’s interest in stability can outweigh parent’s interest after failed reunification)
- In re J.C., 226 Cal.App.4th 503 (2014) (requirements for §388 relief and review standard)
- In re K.C., 52 Cal.4th 231 (2011) (order denying §388 petition is appealable)
- In re Kimberly F., 56 Cal.App.4th 519 (1997) (articulated factors sometimes considered in §388 analyses)
- In re K.S., 244 Cal.App.4th 327 (2016) (discussing standard of review and limits on appellate reweighing of evidence)
- In re Janee W., 140 Cal.App.4th 1444 (2006) (standard for stating facts in favor of juvenile court’s order)