CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Periodic Review Hearings
.........Motions for Modification
............Modification Petition (W&I §388)
 43 Cards On This Topic:
  • Parent or interested party may petition to change, modify or set aside juvenile court dependency, disposition or termination order; assertion of sibling relationship.
  • Juvenile court did not abuse discretion in denying motion to change placement from foster care to Mexican grandmother.
  • If court finds changed circumstances at post-permanency hearing, it may schedule hearing to consider adoption or legal guardianship as new perm. plan; party may file §388 mod. petition re changed circs.
  • Trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother's W&IC 388 petitions where it reasonably determined her circumstances not sufficiently changed to permit safe return of Cs.
  • Though parents were trying considerably to improve, they did not show changed circumstances or how best interests of Cs would be served by depriving them of a permanent, stable home in exchange for an uncertain future.
  • Juv. court did not abuse discretion by denying de facto parents' W&IC 388 petitions without evidentiary hearing where they showed neither changed circumstances nor made prima facie showing Cs' return was in Cs' best interests.
  • Juvenile court abused its discretion in denying W&IC 388 petition seeking to rectify error in not enforcing visitation order and in improperly delegating to 3d parties.
  • W&IC 388 petition properly denied where mother's claim C would benefit from contact with her was conclusory and none of other unsworn allegations required hearing to determine if C would benefit from reunification services.
  • Though transfer to GM's care of sibling 10 yrs older than C was change in circs, W&IC 388 petition failed to make prima facie case that change in custody order would be in the best interests of C.
  • Juvenile court did not err in denying child's W&IC 388 petition since he did not demonstrate changed circumstances—showing circumstances are changing is not enough.
  • MGM failed to meet burden of making a prima facie showing of W&IC 388 changed circumstances, or that requested modification would promote Ms' best interest.
  • Kimberly F. does not stand for proposition trial court must consider child's relationship with extended family members in deciding to extend or deny services to F.
  • W&IC 388 petition based on notice violation did not merit evidentiary hearing where F did not make any showing proposed order change would be in Cs' best interests; court did not err by denying hearing.
  • Biological F's W&IC 388 petition and request for reunification properly granted where F did all he could to show commitment to C while case still at reunification phase, and his due process rights thwarted by caseworker's dilatory behavior.
  • Substantial evidence supported juvenile court's determination that withdrawal of life-sustaining medical treatment was in dependent child's best interests; mother's petition treated as W&IC 388 petition.
  • On facts of case, no abuse of discretion in denying W&IC 388 petition, finding that while mother progressing in treatment, returning Cs to her would not be in their best interests.
  • Court erred in refusing to allow mother, although more "demanding on the system" than others, a contested post-permanency review hearing on child's continued placement.
  • Where matter remanded to conduct contested review hearing, summary denial of W&IC 388 petition set aside and parties returned to original positions.
  • Court didn't abuse discretion by denying mother's W&IC 388 petition w/out hearing where mother didn't make prima facie showing of entitlement or that M's best interests promoted by change.
  • Where termination of visitation sought per W&IC 388, termination of visitation, including finding that continued visitation would be detrimental to C, should be adjudicated by preponderance of the evidence standard.
  • Mother's due process rights to notice and opportunity to be heard compromised when court modified existing visitation order after unsuccessful mediation w/out holding properly noticed §388 hearing.
  • Mother showed prima facie case of prejudicial ineffective assistance where trial atty failed to file Welf. & Inst. Code §388 petition despite "dramatic changes" mother made and imprisonment of abusive F.
  • Given scant evidence of father/son bond or of F's efforts to become sober, court did not abuse discretion in refusing request for Welf. & Inst. Code §388 hearing.
  • Mother denied Welf. & Inst. Code §388 hearing where her statements conclusory and unsupported and she didn't show either changed circumstances or that change would be in Cs' best interest.
  • Juvenile court abused its discretion, and denied mother the opportunity for a full hearing on her section 388 petition prior to holding S&I hearing.
  • As mother's W&IC §388 petition sufficiently alleged changed circumstances and some evidence that best interests of Cs would be promoted by reunifying w/siblings, court erred in denying evidentiary hearing.
  • No error in terminating F's paternal rights where he didn't show change of circumstances or that parental relationship would have been more beneficial to C than permanent adoptive home.
  • Court properly denied Welf. & Inst. Code §388 petition without hearing where mother showed changed circumstances but did not make prima facie showing return of C to her custody would be in C's best interests.
  • A parent seeking return of custody under §388 has burden to show not only changed circumstances but also that return would be in child's best interest.
  • Abuse of discretion not to return children to mother caring for son with AIDS simply because of her so-called narcissistic personality and once-dirty home.
  • Court within discretion in denying modification petition as to guardianship where mother failed to show change in circumstances which would promote M’s best interests.
  • Court justified in denying Welf. & Inst. Code §388 petition without full hearing where no showing of changed circumstances or that change in placement would promote M’s best interests.
  • Parental rights may be terminated based on modification petition from W&IC §366.26 guardianship.
  • Court properly denied father’s request for supervised visitation as he made request orally and not via W& IC §388 petition.
  • Parents’ 388 petitions properly denied w/o evidentiary hearing due to failure to allege changed circumstances. 366.26 hearing properly held.
  • W&IC §388 petition ••is•• required to change permanent plan from long term foster care to guardianship.
  • Prima facie showing of changed circumstances mandated hearing on mother’s W&IC 388 petitions before W&IC 366.26 hearing; guardianship grant reversed.
  • W&IC 388 motion inadequate remedy for lack of reasonable reunification services as it would place burden on father which rightly belonged to SSA.
  • Prima facie case of changed circumstances entitles mother to full hearing on merits of petition to modify order terminating reunification services.
  • Grant of motion to modify findings precludes termination of parental rights; inherent factual contradictions justify reversal.
  • W&IC 388 motion properly denied mere biological father who did almost nothing to develop relationship with M, in foster care over 2 years; no change of circumstances shown.
  • Parent must bring motion to modify permanent plan in accord with Welf. & Inst. Code §388; issue may not be raised at Welf. & Inst. Code §366.3 review hearing.
  • Cases discussing various aspects of W&I 388 modification motions.


    •