In re I.B.
53 Cal.App.5th 133
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2020Background
- Children (A.B., older, and I.B., younger) were removed in 2017 after domestic violence and unsanitary-home allegations; A.B. exhibited severe, escalating behavioral problems that included aggression toward I.B.
- Mother is legally blind, completed court-ordered services (parenting programs, domestic-violence treatment, therapy) and additional Braille Institute training; she maintained regular, lengthy visits and testified she had separated from Father.
- The case extended ~3 years with multiple placements; foster parents (who had been house parents) sought to adopt both boys; placement stability was a major focus.
- Mother filed a Welfare & Institutions Code § 388 petition seeking return of I.B. (later narrowed to return only I.B.); SSA and I.B.’s counsel opposed, arguing no true change and that separation/safety concerns counseled keeping I.B. in foster care.
- The juvenile court granted Mother’s § 388 petition, returning I.B. to her care while leaving A.B. with foster parents; court found changed circumstances and that returning I.B. served his best interests due to risk posed by A.B.
- On appeal, the court affirmed, holding the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion and any reference to § 366.21(f) was a harmless misstatement; judicial notice of a later conflict-of-interest order was granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (SSA / I.B.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother proved a "change of circumstances" under § 388 | Mother: completed and continued services, separated from Father, gained supports and skills (Braille Institute, mentor, therapy) | SSA/I.B.: completion of plan is insufficient; Mother’s prior denial and failure to pursue restraining order show no real change | Court: substantial evidence supports changed circumstances (clean home, credible therapy progress, sustained separation) |
| Whether modifying placement is in I.B.’s best interests (including separating siblings) | Mother: I.B. and A.B. are differently situated; A.B.’s aggression endangers I.B.; returning I.B. supports his safety and development | SSA/I.B.: sibling bond and permanency/stability favor keeping siblings together with foster parents; Mother not proven able to provide unsupervised full-time care | Court: best interests favored return of I.B.; risk from A.B. to I.B. justified separation; Mother could provide stable, loving home for I.B. |
| Whether the juvenile court applied the correct legal standard (reference to § 366.21(f)) | Mother: court applied the § 388 two‑prong standard and had authority to grant modification | SSA: court misstated law by invoking § 366.21(f), improperly shifting burdens | Court (appellate): reference to § 366.21(f) was harmless; record shows court applied § 388 standard correctly |
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in granting § 388 | Mother: no abuse — credibility and totality of evidence support return | SSA/I.B.: abuse of discretion given history, safety risks, and need for permanency | Court: no abuse of discretion; when evidence permits multiple inferences, appellate court will not substitute its judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (supreme court case describing § 388 as an "escape mechanism" allowing modification after reunification period)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (Sup. Ct.) (standard of review and shift in focus to child’s best interests after reunification services end)
- In re Kimberly F., 56 Cal.App.4th 519 (Cal. Ct. App.) (factors helpful to § 388 analysis and discussion of post-reunification changes)
- In re B.D., 159 Cal.App.4th 1218 (Cal. Ct. App.) (burden of proof on petitioner for § 388)
- In re J.C., 226 Cal.App.4th 503 (Cal. Ct. App.) (caution about overreliance on retrospective factors where permanency/stability not addressed)
- In re R.T., 232 Cal.App.4th 1284 (Cal. Ct. App.) (consideration of stability and continuity in custody determinations)
- In re L.Y.L., 101 Cal.App.4th 942 (Cal. Ct. App.) (noting not all sibling relationships are beneficial and may not warrant preservation)
- In re Casey D., 70 Cal.App.4th 38 (Cal. Ct. App.) (appellate deference to juvenile court credibility findings)