In re M.G. CA2/1, B308706

Father (Ernesto G.) has a decades-long substance abuse and criminal history; his children (including M.G., b. 2011) were removed beginning in 2013.
Reunification services were terminated in 2015 after repeated positive drug tests and minimal progress; father later disappeared and was located in treatment in 2016.
Father obtained reinstatement of reunification services via a § 388 petition in March 2017 after a sustained period of sobriety and program participation; the children were returned to mother but father relapsed in October 2017.
After further proceedings, reunification services were again terminated in October 2018; the children entered multiple foster placements and in June 2019 were placed together with foster mother T.R., who seeks legal guardianship.
Father entered outpatient treatment in May 2020, produced negative drug tests and alleged ~7 months’ sobriety; he filed a third § 388 petition (Oct. 2020) seeking custody or reinstated reunification services.
The juvenile court summarily denied the § 388 petition without a hearing; the Court of Appeal affirmed, finding the allegations did not make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or that relief would serve M.G.’s best interests.

Issue	DCFS / Respondent's Argument	Father (Ernesto)'s Argument	Held
Whether father’s recent sobriety and program participation constitute a "significant change of circumstances" under Welf. & Inst. Code § 388 to require a hearing	Recent ~7 months sobriety and program reports are insufficient given father’s 30+ year addiction history and repeated relapses; no prima facie showing	Recent sustained sobriety, negative tests, and ongoing treatment show changed circumstances warranting reinstatement of reunification or custody	Affirmed: sobriety was commendable but reflects a continuing pattern; not a significant change given long history of relapse, so no prima facie showing and no hearing required
Whether granting relief would be in the child’s best interests given delays and placement stability concerns	Child’s need for permanency and stability outweighs father’s interest; reinstating services would likely delay permanency and harm M.G.’s interests	M.G. deserves chance to reunify with biological father; limited nonfamily adoptive options and M.G.’s preferences favor reunification	Affirmed: best-interest inquiry favors preserving progress toward permanence (legal guardianship/adoption) rather than reopening reunification absent stronger evidence father will remain sober

In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (1994) (establishes § 388 standard: change of circumstance/new evidence and best interests required)
In re K.L., 248 Cal.App.4th 52 (2016) (prima facie standard for § 388 petitions described)
In re Jackson W., 184 Cal.App.4th 247 (2010) (court may consider full case history in § 388 analysis)
In re Marcelo B., 209 Cal.App.4th 635 (2012) (periods of sobriety after extensive prior treatment are not necessarily evidence of changed circumstances)
In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (2021) (later authority addressing dependency standards; discussed in relation to Marcelo B.)
In re Kimberly F., 56 Cal.App.4th 519 (1997) (gravity and duration of the underlying problem are relevant to assessing change)
In re Cliffton B., 81 Cal.App.4th 415 (2000) (short periods of sobriety not necessarily "real reform" where long history of relapse exists)
In re Ernesto R., 230 Cal.App.4th 219 (2014) (recent sobriety may reflect "changing," not "changed," circumstances when addiction is chronic)