San Francisco Human Services Agency v. A.G.
217 Cal. App. 4th 1080
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Three young boys (then placed with a maternal aunt) were dependents after removal for parental domestic violence, neglect, and related safety concerns; reunification services were terminated at the 18-month review and the court authorized limited parental visitation.
- During and after visits in the post-reunification placement, the boys repeatedly displayed severe dysregulation (aggression, tantrums, school problems, loss of bowel control, nightmares), with teachers, therapists, aunt, and social workers reporting worsening behavior temporally linked to visits.
- A consultant in child trauma (expert) reviewed records and recommended terminating all parental visits, concluding visits were triggering complex trauma symptoms; the consultant had not directly observed the children but relied on reports.
- The boys’ counsel and the San Francisco Human Services Agency filed Welfare & Institutions Code § 388 petitions to suspend/terminate visits; mother’s visits were temporarily suspended ex parte pending hearing; Agency recommended terminating all parental visits.
- After a contested multi-day § 388 hearing, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence (though it believed the lower standard applied) that new evidence justified modifying the July 2010 order and terminated parental visits; parents appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Standard of proof at a § 388 hearing to terminate post-reunification visits | Agency/minors: preponderance of the evidence applies to § 388 petitions | Parents: clear and convincing evidence required because termination of visits is severe | Court: preponderance standard governs § 388 post-reunification; court also noted it actually applied a clear-and-convincing standard and would affirm on that basis |
| 2) Whether § 388 "change of circumstances or new evidence" was established to end visits | Agency/minors: extensive new evidence over 1.5 years showed visits caused substantial harm/triggering trauma | Parents: boys’ problems predated visitation order; continued behavior is not a new circumstance and not causally linked to visits | Court: the post-order evidence constituted "new evidence" (material information unavailable at the July 2010 order) and justified modifying the order |
| 3) Whether terminating visits was in the children’s best interest | Agency/minors: terminating visits promotes stability and prevents retraumatization | Parents: visits sometimes positive; insufficient proof visits were causing harm; termination disrupts parent-child relationship | Court: substantial evidence supported that ending visits was in boys’ best interest given repeated post-visit dysregulation |
| 4) Whether remand was required to provide guidance on how/when visits could be restored | Father: court should have provided criteria or a pathway to restore visitation | Agency/minors: not required in post-reunification/long-term-care context | Court: no remand needed; court not required to provide guidance now; parents may seek future relief under § 388 if circumstances change |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (1994) (standard: § 388 petitions require preponderance showing of changed circumstances/new evidence and best interest; appellate review is for abuse of discretion)
- In re Manolito L., 90 Cal.App.4th 753 (2001) (preponderance rule applied to agency § 388 petition to terminate visits pending selection-and-implementation hearing)
- In re H.S., 188 Cal.App.4th 103 (2010) ("new evidence" in § 388 means material evidence not available with due diligence at the earlier proceeding)
- In re Dylan T., 65 Cal.App.4th 765 (1998) (discusses heightened proof required to deny visitation in certain contexts, e.g., incarcerated parent)
- In re Manriquez (cited by analogy in the opinion) — Note: opinion relied principally on the above California authorities and rule-based guidance rather than additional disparate holdings.