In re J.S. CA3, C093073

Minor lived with maternal grandmother (appellant) 2014–2018; removed from her care in Feb 2018 and placed with caregivers who later became legal guardians.
Feb 2019 contested hearing: court found grandmother’s home suitable for the siblings but, under Welf. & Inst. Code §361.3, placement of the minor with grandmother was not in the minor’s best interest (behavioral needs, past verbal abuse, caregiver mismatch; minor doing well with guardians).
Appellant filed multiple §388 petitions seeking placement or expanded visitation (Feb 2019, Mar 2019, Apr 2020, Oct 2020); juvenile court repeatedly denied them without evidentiary hearings for lack of new evidence/change of circumstances and lack of best-interest showing.
Appellant also sought de facto parent status; the juvenile court summarily denied that request as well.
Appellant appealed the November 2, 2020 orders denying her fourth §388 petition and her de facto-parent request; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	Respondent / Juvenile Court's Argument	Held
Denial of §388 petition without hearing	Petition alleged foster parent blocked family ties; showed change in circumstances and that modification (placement or expanded visitation) served minor’s best interests	Petition repeated prior allegations, offered no new material evidence or changed circumstances; minor was stable with guardians and previously found not to be appropriate for placement with grandmother	Affirmed: no prima facie showing for §388 hearing; denial was within discretion and did not violate due process (claim forfeited/no prejudice)
Denial of de facto parent status	Grandmother cared for minor for years, had psychological bond, daily parenting role, unique knowledge of minor’s needs, and risk of permanent loss of contact	Grandmother had not cared for minor for ~3 years; credible evidence of past verbal abuse; guardians had assumed parenting role and met minor’s needs; bond and caretaking were not sufficiently current or unique	Affirmed: juvenile court did not abuse discretion in denying de facto parent status; no entitlement to a hearing shown

In re Daijah T., 83 Cal.App.4th 666 (2000) (requirements for a §388 petition: changed circumstances/new evidence and best-interest showing)
In re Justice P., 123 Cal.App.4th 181 (2004) (court may deny §388 petition without hearing if no prima facie showing)
In re Casey D., 70 Cal.App.4th 38 (1999) (delaying permanency to await possible future change is not in child’s best interests)
In re J.C., 226 Cal.App.4th 503 (2014) (child’s best interests should not be sacrificed to reward parental efforts that delay permanency)
In re Patricia L., 9 Cal.App.4th 61 (1992) (factors for recognizing a de facto parent: psychological bond, day-to-day parenting over substantial period, unique knowledge, court participation, risk of permanent loss)
In re Leticia S., 92 Cal.App.4th 378 (2001) (standard of review and burden for de facto parent findings)
In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (prejudice requirement when asserting denial of hearing or trial error)