San Francisco Human Services Agency v. Karen R.
227 Cal. App. 4th 1147
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Agency filed dependency petitions after S.B. sustained nonaccidental injuries with 13 fractures; parents denied abuse defenses.
- Juvenile court found severe abuse by a parent and risk to S.B., bypassed reunification services under § 361.5, and denied services to G.B. as sibling of a severely abused child.
- May 2013 disposition set up a selection-and-implementation (S&I) hearing; services remained denied for mother and father.
- August 27, 2013, mother filed first § 388 petition for modification of the May 2013 order; court checked hearing box but denied an evidentiary hearing.
- October 28, 2013, mother filed a second § 388 petition alleging changed circumstances; court again indicated a hearing may be held but denied an evidentiary hearing and proceeded to S&I.
- At the S&I hearing, the agency recommended termination and adoption; the court ultimately terminated parental rights, finding adoption outweighed any continuing relationship benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of the first § 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing was reversible error | Mother (R.) argues the form order and prima facie showing entitled her to a hearing. | Agency contends no prima facie showing justified a full hearing; discretion to deny was appropriate. | No reversible error; court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether denial of the second § 388 petition without a hearing was reversible error | Mother contends changed circumstances and best interests warranted a hearing. | Agency argues the record and focus at S&I support denial of a hearing as harmless error. | Harmless error; no reversal required. |
| Whether the beneficial-relationship exception to termination was satisfied | Mother contends ongoing relationship with her benefits the children and weighs against adoption. | Agency argues the parental relationship does not outweigh adoption given bond with caregivers and stability. | Not satisfied; termination proper and adoption favored. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Zachary G., 77 Cal.App.4th 799 (1999) (prima facie standard for § 388; changed circumstances must promote best interests)
- In re Aljamie D., 84 Cal.App.4th 424 (2000) (probable-cause standard for prima facie § 388 showing)
- In re Jeremy W., 3 Cal.App.4th 1407 (1992) (praised strictures on § 388 petition review; best interests focus)
- In re A.M., 217 Cal.App.4th 1067 (2013) (after severe abuse, focus shifts to permanence; services unlikely to prevent reabuse)
- In re Lesly G., 162 Cal.App.4th 904 (2008) (ambiguous form orders; due process concerns when hearing is anticipated)
- In re C.J.W., 157 Cal.App.4th 1075 (2007) (occurs when § 388 petitions filed near S&I; evidence overlap acceptable)
- In re Edward H., 43 Cal.App.4th 584 (1996) (combining hearings and evidentiary procedures; due-process considerations)
- In re J.C., 226 Cal.App.4th 503 (2014) (permanency focus; reiterates best-interests analysis remains decisive)
- In re S.B., 164 Cal.App.4th 289 (2008) (beneficial-relationship exception requires parental bond that promotes child well-being)
- In re K.P., 203 Cal.App.4th 614 (2012) (beneficial-relationship exception must show parental role in daily life)