In re M.S. CA1/3, A162955

Background:

Dependency petition filed Dec 2019 after domestic violence in child’s presence; initial reunification services were ordered but later bypassed and child removed in Nov 2020 due to continued parental violence, Mother’s substance‑abuse/mental‑health history, and unsafe home conditions.
The juvenile court ordered minimal supervised visitation (one hour monthly) after removal; the Agency recommended termination of parental rights and adoption at the §366.26 hearing.
Mother filed two §388 petitions (May and June 2021) seeking reinstatement of reunification services and weekly in‑person visits, asserting changed circumstances: sustained sobriety (6–7 months), participation in therapy and domestic‑violence and AA/NA programs, completion of a domestic‑violence course, and steady employment/training.
Supporting documents showed program enrollment/completion and employment verification, but much of the documentary support duplicated between petitions; only one new certificate accompanied the second petition.
The juvenile court summarily denied both petitions without an evidentiary hearing, finding Mother’s allegations were conclusory and failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or that modification would serve the child’s best interests.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the denial was within the juvenile court’s discretion given Mother’s history of relapse, the role of Father (incarceration during claimed improvements), and the child’s stability with preadoptive foster parents.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mother’s §388 petitions made a prima facie showing of changed circumstances to require an evidentiary hearing	Agency: Mother’s short period of sobriety, program participation, and employment are insufficient given her long history of relapse and the factual record	Mother: Documented sobriety, therapy, support groups, domestic‑violence course, no contact with Father, and employment show changed circumstances	Denied — court reasonably found allegations showed efforts to change rather than changed circumstances and thus no prima facie showing for a hearing
Whether Mother showed modification (reunification services/weekly visits) would be in child’s best interest	Agency: Child is thriving with foster parents; stability and permanency through adoption outweigh Mother’s interests	Mother: Reunification and more visits would support child’s relationship with his biological mother and cultural ties	Denied — court concluded Mother failed to show proposed modification would promote the child’s best interests given child’s attachment to foster family and need for stability

Key Cases Cited

In re G.B., 227 Cal.App.4th 1147 (2014) (§388 denial without hearing reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re Cliffton B., 81 Cal.App.4th 415 (2000) (short sobriety after long history of drug use may not constitute changed circumstances)
In re I.B., 53 Cal.App.5th 133 (2020) (untangling from an abuser can demonstrate changed circumstances when supported by evidence)
In re Carl R., 128 Cal.App.4th 1051 (2005) (mere allegations of changing circumstances may be insufficient for §388 relief)
In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (1994) (court may deny modification when allegations would not sustain favorable decision)
In re Zachary G., 77 Cal.App.4th 799 (1999) (prima facie requirement for §388 hearings)
In re A.A., 203 Cal.App.4th 597 (2012) (not every positive change justifies modifying dependency orders; original problem must be ameliorated)
In re Anthony W., 87 Cal.App.4th 246 (2001) (child’s interest in stability can outweigh parent’s interest in reunification)
In re E.S., 196 Cal.App.4th 1329 (2011) (standard for reversal is whether trial court exceeded judicial discretion)