In re T.S. CA4/2, E077125

In April 2016 CFS detained four children after reports Mother physically abused them and failed to protect them from prior sexual abuse; children tested positive for chlamydia.
Juvenile court found the amended section 300 petitions true; Mother received reunification services but minimized her conduct and continued unsafe relationships.
Reunification services were terminated at the 12‑month review in 2017; a legal guardianship was granted to maternal aunt J.O. in 2018.
In March 2020 the children were removed from the guardian amid allegations of severe physical and emotional abuse; CFS filed section 387 petitions and the guardianship was later terminated.
Mother sought reinstatement of reunification services and filed a Welfare & Institutions Code section 388 petition in April 2021, asserting she completed additional classes and had changed.
The juvenile court denied the section 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing; Mother appealed, arguing she made a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and best interest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying Mother’s section 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing	Mother: she completed parenting, domestic violence, anger management and self‑esteem classes and thus showed changed circumstances and that reopening reunification would serve the children’s best interests	CFS: Mother only showed limited change; she still minimized or failed to acknowledge sexual abuse and her physical abuse; she influenced children and stability would be harmed by reopening services	Court: Affirmed. Denial without hearing not an abuse of discretion — Mother showed changing but not changed circumstances and did not establish reopening reunification would promote the children’s need for permanency and stability

In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (1994) (after reunification ends, focus shifts to child’s need for permanency and stability)
In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (section 388 is construed liberally but requires prima facie showing to trigger a hearing)
In re Nolan W., 45 Cal.4th 1217 (2009) (petition must allege changed circumstances and that modification serves the child’s best interest)
In re Zachary G., 77 Cal.App.4th 799 (1999) (prima facie showing required to obtain an evidentiary hearing on a section 388 petition)
In re J.C., 226 Cal.App.4th 503 (2014) (post‑reunification petitions must show how change advances the child’s permanency and stability)
In re Kimberly F., 56 Cal.App.4th 519 (1997) (identified factors for best interest analysis but limited by Stephanie M.)