In re MaryJane L. CA2/4, B307501

In June 2017 DCFS filed a section 300 petition alleging Jessica L. (mother) had paranoia/bizarre behavior, marijuana use, and unstable housing; the children were removed and placed with paternal grandmother Maria C.
Mother has a documented history of PTSD (psych eval confirmed symptoms), inconsistent therapy engagement, sporadic visitation, and prior accusations against relatives; reunification services were ordered but later terminated.
In August 2019 mother was arrested in a large-scale drug trafficking investigation and was on pretrial supervision in 2020; she had minimal contact with MaryJane between 2018–2020.
By mid-2019 Maria was approved to adopt the children; MaryJane had lived with Maria for three years, was bonded to her siblings and prospective adoptive parent, and had stabilized clinically.
On August 24, 2020 mother filed a Welfare & Institutions Code § 388 petition attaching certificates for parenting/domestic-violence classes and a probation officer letter stating she was participating in treatment and drug testing; she sought reinstatement of reunification or return of MaryJane.
At the August 26, 2020 hearing the juvenile court summarily denied the § 388 petition (finding no prima facie change or best-interest showing) and terminated mother’s parental rights at the § 366.26 hearing; the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by summarily denying mother’s § 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing	Mother: her petition and attachments (class certificates, probation officer’s letter, recent clean drug tests, participation in treatment, claimed housing) made a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and best interests	DCFS/Court: mother’s evidence was insufficiently detailed; she had inconsistent visits, inadequate proof of ongoing treatment, recent criminal arrest/trafficking conduct, continued contact with a prohibited associate, and unstable placement history	Court: No abuse of discretion; mother failed to show prima facie changed circumstances or that returning child was in child’s best interest; summary denial affirmed
Whether termination of parental rights under § 366.26 was erroneous	Mother implicitly challenged termination by seeking reunification	DCFS: child’s need for permanence and stability and strong bonds with adoptive caregiver/siblings supported adoption	Court: Termination affirmed; no reversible error raised separately by mother

In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (1994) (standard for reviewing denial of § 388 petitions and abuse-of-discretion test)
In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (requirement to hold evidentiary hearing only upon prima facie showing)
In re G.B., 227 Cal.App.4th 1147 (2014) (prima facie standard for § 388 relief)
In re Samuel A., 55 Cal.App.5th 1 (2020) (petition must include declarations/attachments showing facts that would sustain relief)
In re Kimberly F., 56 Cal.App.4th 519 (1997) (importance of preserving child’s existing psychological bonds in § 388 analysis)
In re J.H., 158 Cal.App.4th 174 (2007) (shift in focus to child’s need for permanence after reunification services end)
Kimberly R. v. Superior Court, 96 Cal.App.4th 1067 (2002) (parental mental illness relevant where it jeopardizes child’s safety)
In re C.J.W., 157 Cal.App.4th 1075 (2007) (no showing that disrupting a stable adoptive placement serves child’s best interests)