111 Cal.App.5th 119
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- Children R.M. and N.M. were removed from their mother's custody by San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) due to allegations of neglect.
- The children were placed in their paternal grandmother’s care, with both parents receiving reunification services and visitation rights; CFS was authorized to arrange relative visits as appropriate.
- Maternal grandmother (R.H.) repeatedly interfered with parental visits and created conflict during family meetings and at the children’s school.
- After reports of escalating conflict and the children expressing discomfort, the juvenile court found visits with the maternal grandmother detrimental and ordered visitation to cease.
- Maternal grandmother filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to reinstate her visits, presenting letters but no material new evidence or changed circumstances.
- The juvenile court summarily denied the petition; maternal grandmother appealed the termination of visits and the summary denial of her petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Violated Due Process by Ending Visitation | Court ended visitation without section 388 petition, violated R.H.'s rights | Grandparents without parental role have no protected right; court had authority | No constitutional violation; no protected interest |
| Authority to Modify Visitation Orders | Court needed section 388 petition to change visitation | Statute allows court to act on its own motion (sua sponte) | Court could act sua sponte; error, if any, was harmless |
| Abuse of Discretion—Terminating Visits | No evidence visits were detrimental; order to end visits was excessive | Substantial evidence of detriment and interference presented | No abuse; substantial evidence supported order |
| Abuse of Discretion—Denying §388 Petition | Petition showed changed circumstances and benefit to children | No material new evidence or specific changed circumstances | No abuse; petition lacked new evidence or specifics |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (no constitutional right to visitation for grandparents over fit parents’ objection)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1993) (section 388 as proper vehicle for parent requests to modify order based on changed circumstances)
- In re Brittany K., 127 Cal.App.4th 1497 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (no constitutional substantive right to association between dependent child and grandparent)
- In re J.P., 37 Cal.App.5th 1111 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (visitation with grandparents permitted if in child’s best interest)
- In re F.P., 61 Cal.App.5th 966 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (court may suspend or deny visitation with relatives if detrimental to child)