San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Alejandro G.
229 Cal. App. 4th 108
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- J.P., born March 2009, is the child of Marina P. and Alejandro G., who initially received reunification services; Marina’s abuse by a partner led to J.P.’s removal in 2013 and dependency proceedings.
- J.P. suffered severe physical and emotional trauma from the abuse, resulting in PTSD and behavioral issues; her half-siblings were also detained.
- The juvenile court ordered reunification services for Alejandro (with supervised/expanded visits) but denied reunification services for Marina under bypass provisions.
- A six-month status review was set, and a petition under §388 to terminate Alejandro’s reunification services and/or suspend visitation was filed by minor’s counsel on January 6, 2014.
- On January 28, 2014, the court denied a hearing on the §388 petition, ruling that a six-month reasonable-services finding was required before considering termination; the appeal followed.
- The appellate court ultimately held the §388 hearing could be considered before the six-month review, found the petition stated a prima facie case, but affirmed the judgment to avoid miscarriage of justice due to other favorable findings at the six-month hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a §388 petition to terminate reunification may be heard before the six‑month review | J.P. argues six‑month review must occur first | Agency argues the six‑month review governs timing | Section 388 hearing may occur before six‑month review; timing not mandatory |
| Whether the §388 petition states a prima facie case to modify visitation or terminate reunification | Petition shows detrimental visitation and likelihood reunification won’t occur | Record does not establish prima facie case | Petition made a prima facie showing supporting a hearing on merits |
| Whether terminating reunification services pre‑six months violates due process | Preclusion would infringe due process | Due process protected by statutory scheme; not violated here | No due process violation; §388 procedure compatible with due process; not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (limitation on time for reunification; child’s best interests emphasized)
- In re Alanna A., 135 Cal.App.4th 555 (2005) (time frames and review requirements in dependency cases)
- Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 242 (1993) (due process safeguards in dependency termination proceedings)
- In re Jackson W., 184 Cal.App.4th 247 (2010) (statutory construction; liberality of §388 petition interpretation)
- In re Dakota H., 132 Cal.App.4th 212 (2005) (due process and termination procedures in dependency context)