San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. G.F., 196 Cal. App. 4th 321

J.F. (15) is in long-term foster care following dependency proceedings that began in 2008 due to abuse and parental inability to protect him.
G.F. (J.F.'s mother) made limited progress on her reunification plan; reunification services were terminated in 2009.
At the 12-month postpermanency review, G.F. disputed the social worker’s report and sought a contested hearing.
The juvenile court required an offer of proof to grant a contested hearing, found it insufficient, and adopted the social services agency’s report as the court’s findings.
G.F. argued she had a due process right to be heard and to present evidence at the postpermanency review, not contingent on an offer of proof.
The appellate court reversed, ordering a contested postpermanency review hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a parent in long-term foster care has a right to a contested postpermanency hearing without an offer of proof.	G.F. argues §366.3(f) grants a right to participate and present evidence.	Agency argues hearing is discretionary and may be conditioned on an offer of proof.	Yes; parent’s right to participate cannot be conditioned on an offer of proof.

Maricela C. v. Superior Court, 66 Cal.App.4th 1138 (Cal. App. 1998) (court may require offer of proof to obtain a contested hearing at postpermanency review)
In re Kelly D., 82 Cal.App.4th 433 (Cal. App. 2000) (right to participate includes right to challenge or contest proposed order)
In re Josiah S., 102 Cal.App.4th 403 (Cal. App. 2002) (parent may present evidence, confront and cross-examine witnesses)
M.T. v. Superior Court, 178 Cal.App.4th 1170 (Cal. App. 2009) (court may require offer of proof when burden of proof on parent)
In re James Q., 81 Cal.App.4th 255 (Cal. App. 2000) (due process in reunification context balancing interests)
David B. v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.4th 772 (Cal. App. 2006) (court may not condition contested 18-month review on offer of proof)