73 Cal.App.5th 1109
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background:
- Juvenile court sustained dependency petitions (removal) as to seven of Shailyn A.’s children; maternal grandmother became caretaker and adoption was identified as permanent plan for six children (Malick had separate proceedings).
- Family reunification services were provided but terminated at the 18-month review and a selection/implementation (§366.26) hearing was set.
- Shailyn filed multiple §388 petitions seeking six additional months of reunification services after completing treatment and engaging in counseling and visits; Department opposed, citing children’s bond with grandmother and concerns about Shailyn’s capacity to care for eight children.
- At the §388 hearing the juvenile court found changed circumstances but concluded it lacked authority to order additional reunification services because the statutory reunification period had expired; the court treated the petition as a request for immediate return and denied relief.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal held the juvenile court erred as a matter of law: post-permanency review statutes (§366.3(e),(f)) and the §388 procedure permit the court to order additional reunification services where appropriate; the denial was reversed and remanded for a new §388 hearing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department) | Defendant's Argument (Shailyn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court had authority to order additional reunification services after the statutory reunification period expired | Court lacked authority once the §361.5 time limits were exhausted; only immediate return or no relief available | §388 (and post‑permanency review under §366.3) permits seeking additional services if circumstances changed and it’s in child’s best interest | Court of Appeal: juvenile court erred; §388 and §366.3(e),(f) allow additional services post‑reunification termination |
| Whether §388 is the proper vehicle to seek additional reunification services after termination | Denied or limited—court cannot reinstate services beyond statutory period | §388 is appropriate to raise changed circumstances and request further services (per In re Marilyn H.) | §388 is the correct procedural vehicle to request reopening reunification issue |
| Whether Shailyn forfeited appellate review by not objecting when the juvenile court ruled it lacked authority | Forfeiture; she failed to correct court at hearing | No forfeiture: she properly sought relief and denial rested on legal error, appellate review allowed | No forfeiture; appellate court exercised discretion to consider the legal error |
| Whether the juvenile court’s error was harmless | Denial was harmless because additional services would not have been in children’s best interest given evidence of grandmother’s stability and concerns about mother | Error prejudiced Shailyn because she sought services (not immediate return), had custody of youngest, and some children favored reunification; court should have evaluated merits | Error not harmless; remand required for a new §388 hearing to evaluate best‑interest of children under proper legal standards |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (parent may use a §388 petition to seek additional reunification services after statutory reunification period)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (standards for §388 and shift of focus to child’s best interests after reunification ends)
- In re Charlisse C., 45 Cal.4th 145 (a disposition resting on an error of law is an abuse of discretion)
- In re R.T., 3 Cal.5th 622 (statutory interpretation in dependency matters reviewed de novo)
- D.T. v. Superior Court, 241 Cal.App.4th 1017 (post‑permanency review under §366.3 governs availability of reunification services)
- Michael G. v. Superior Court, 69 Cal.App.5th 1133 (interpretation of limited extensions of reunification services beyond 18 months)
- In re S.B., 32 Cal.4th 1287 (forfeiture rules in dependency proceedings)