68 Cal.App.5th 112
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Mother used methamphetamine during pregnancy; initial dependency case (2016) resulted in services, child return, and later termination of jurisdiction in Aug 2019 after repeated relapses and intermittent treatment.
- Five months after jurisdiction was terminated, DPSS filed a new §300 petition (Jan 2020) following allegations Mother relapsed while driving with child; both parents found to have unresolved substance abuse and child was detained.
- In June 2020 the juvenile court removed the child and denied reunification services under §361.5(b)(13); child was placed with maternal relatives who sought adoption and with whom the child bonded.
- Mother completed a 90‑day residential program (July 2020) but was later charged with possession of a controlled substance (Sept 2020); Mother filed a §388 petition (Dec 2020) seeking reunification services.
- At the combined §388/§366.26 proceedings the court denied Mother’s §388 petition (found circumstances “changing but not changed”), found the child likely adoptable, rejected statutory exceptions (including parental‑bond), and terminated parental rights.
- The court affirmed denial of Mother’s §388 petition and termination of parental rights; Father’s appeal from denial of his §388 petition was dismissed as abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mother’s §388 petition should have been granted (changed circumstances; child’s best interests) | Mother: completed 90‑day program, now sober, has housing and employment—these are changed circumstances and reunification would be in child’s best interests | DPSS: Mother’s sobriety was recent and part of repeated cycles of relapse; criminal charge undermined claim of lasting change; disrupting child’s stable adoptive placement would harm child’s need for permanency | Denied — no material change shown and granting services would not promote child’s best interests |
| Whether parental‑bond exception to adoption applied (preventing termination of parental rights) | Mother & Father: regular visits, calls, and demonstrable emotional bond with child warrant exception or guardianship instead of adoption | DPSS: Although affectionate, parents did not occupy full parental roles; child thriving with adoptive relatives; severance would not cause the substantial harm required to override adoption preference | Denied — substantial evidence supports conclusion adoption outweighs any parental bond; parental‑bond exception not met |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (1994) (§388 requires changed circumstances and best interests; focus shifts to child’s need for permanency after reunification is bypassed)
- In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (2021) (construing parental‑bond exception and standard of review for beneficial parental relationship)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (1994) (parental‑bond exception requires parental role that outweighs benefits of adoption)
- In re J.C., 226 Cal.App.4th 503 (2014) (deference to juvenile court’s discretion on §388 and best‑interest determinations)
- In re Mickel O., 197 Cal.App.4th 586 (2011) (brief sobriety or recent program participation insufficient to show material changed circumstances)
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (2003) (adoption is the statutory norm when a child is likely to be adopted)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (prima facie showing on §388 triggers full hearing; ultimate burden remains preponderance of evidence)