Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In November 2025, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services received a referral when Mother surrendered her newborn daughter C.M. under the Safe Haven Law. C.M. tested positive for amphetamine and marijuana at birth. CFS filed a dependency petition, and the juvenile court detained C.M. and placed her in foster care. Mother had a lengthy history with CFS, including five prior children removed from her care, and admitted to daily vodka use and marijuana use until shortly before C.M.'s birth, as well as ongoing domestic violence with Father.
In December 2025, CFS filed an amended petition alleging ongoing substance abuse, domestic violence history, and untreated mental health issues. At a January 2026 hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petition, bypassed reunification services for Mother under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (b)(11), and set a section 366.26 hearing.
In May 2026, Mother filed a section 388 petition seeking return of C.M. and her two sons or, alternatively, reunification services, attaching documentation of classes, AA/NA attendance, and negative drug tests. The juvenile court summarily denied the petition as to C.M., checking boxes for no new evidence or changed circumstances and no best interest, and noting the child had never lived with Mother. The court set a hearing as to the sons. At the May 21, 2026 section 366.26 hearing, the court found C.M. adoptable and terminated parental rights. Mother appealed the summary denial, and C.M.'s presumed father, L.J., joined in her arguments.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying the section 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing. A section 388 petition requires a prima facie showing of both a genuine change of circumstances or new evidence and that modification would serve the child's best interests. The court rejected Mother's argument that the juvenile court erred by providing only form-based reasons, noting the court checked three boxes and was not required to elaborate further.
The court found Mother failed to show substantially changed circumstances. Her approximately 6.5 months of sobriety was short relative to her substance abuse history dating to at least 2016, and C.M.'s positive amphetamine test at birth plus Mother's admissions of drinking and marijuana use during pregnancy supported an inference of relapse. Even assuming changed circumstances, Mother failed to show modification would serve C.M.'s best interest. C.M. had never lived with Mother and had been with the same caretakers since she was four days old; the caretakers wished to adopt her.
Once reunification services are bypassed, the focus shifts to the child's need for permanency and stability. The court held that C.M.'s best interests differed from her older siblings' due to her age and lifelong placement with the caretakers. The court rejected the argument that the 'fixed' fact of never living with Mother could not support denial, explaining it was relevant to continuity and stability, while clarifying it was not holding that such a fact always defeats a best-interest showing.
Key Takeaways
- A section 388 petition requires a prima facie showing of both substantially changed circumstances and that modification serves the child's best interests; conclusory statements are insufficient to trigger a hearing.
- A relatively brief period of sobriety, such as 6.5 months, may be insufficient to establish changed circumstances where the parent has a lengthy history of substance abuse and evidence of recent relapse.
- After reunification services are bypassed or terminated, the child's need for permanency and stability controls, creating a rebuttable presumption that continued foster care is in the child's best interest.
- A child's never having lived with the parent but having bonded with prospective adoptive caretakers for essentially her entire life is highly relevant to the best-interest analysis.
- A juvenile court may summarily deny a section 388 petition ex parte using the standard form without detailed reasons, and such denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the high bar for modifying juvenile court orders after reunification services are bypassed or terminated. Even commendable recent progress may not warrant an evidentiary hearing when the parent's history is lengthy and the child is bonded with a prospective adoptive family. The court's analysis clarifies that changed circumstances and best interest are independent requirements; a parent may satisfy one but fail the other. It also confirms that 'fixed' circumstances, such as a child never having lived with the parent, may properly be considered in assessing whether modification would serve the child's interest in continuity and permanency.