CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Periodic Review Hearings
.........Motions for Modification
............Procedure
24 Cards On This Topic:

Party may not make a motion for reconsideration unless based on new facts or law, but court may reconsider previous interim orders on own motion, with notice and reasonable opportunity to litigate.

F's failure to file W&IC §388 petition re custody was harmless where issue of placing Cs with him was before the court with the consent of all parties.

No need to hold 6-mo. review hearing to determine whether reasonable services were offered/provided to F ••before•• holding a hearing on a petition to terminate reunification services under W&IC 388(c).

Trial court properly denied elder child's W&IC 388 petition re sibling reunification where no showing the younger Cs were as bonded to him as he was to them, nor that the order would be in the younger Cs' best interests.

C1 properly denied right to cross-examine SW where he cited no authority holding a nonadoptive sibling has a due process right to confront and cross-examine witnesses at a hearing on a W&IC 388 petition.

W&IC 388 provides for a modification based on change of circumstances or new evidence and the best interests of C, not a modification based on what ••would have•• happened had the court made a different order one year earlier.

W&IC 388, rather than W&IC 387, is the appropriate legal means under which a supplemental petition regarding dependent child freed for adoption should be filed.

W&IC 388 motion properly denied where E's opinion based not on new evidence, but on same evidence experts had at trial; E simply came to different conclusion that, with due diligence, could have been presented at hearing.

Trial court erred in using nonfinal Court of Appeal opinion to alter procedures and influence the outcome of case by granting C's W&IC 388 petition and ordering her detained — court should have proceeded solely on its continuing jurisdiction.

Trial court should have dismissed F's W&IC 388 petition asking for set-aside of jurisdiction findings where dependency terminated 6 yrs. before and court lacked jurisdiction.

Declaratory relief is available in juvenile dependency cases where child welfare agency does not comply with statutory time requirements for filing of supplemental petitions.

Court may not, after finding that petitioner's W&IC 388 petition had made a prima facie showing, require petitioner to request the hearing guaranteed by statute; DP requires petitioner be allowed to present evidence and X-examine.

Juvenile court may change, modify, or set aside previous order made erroneously, inadvertently or improvidently, and such change is not contingent on party seeking modification per W&IC 388.

Juvenile ct.'s denial of reunification services to F via procedural mechanism of W&IC 388 petition did not result in a miscarriage of justice, thus, any error harmless.

Mother whose parental rights terminated lacked standing to bring W&IC 388 petition for visitation and phone contact with C not yet placed in home of guardian.

No abuse of discretion in denying mother's W&IC 388 petition where no change of circumstances and she made little progress in addressing causes of dependency—court properly weighed C's need for permanency and stability.

W&IC 387 petition can be sustained on facts supporting allegation that previous disposition not effective in the rehabilitation of the child, regardless of lack of specific word in rules of court.

Because biological father waited until after reunification period terminated and W&IC 366.26 hearing set, he was required to request presumed father status in W&IC 388 petition.

Request to be heard under W&IC 388 (b) should be granted if sibling complies with W&IC 388 (b)(1)-(4) and demonstrates close relationship with minor being considered for adoption.

Although F's W&IC 388 modification petition was appropriate procedural vehicle to seek removal of C from mother's custody, and juv. court erred by dismissing, procedural error did not infringe on F's right to due process.

Juvenile court erred in refusing to hear live witness testimony at hearing on mother's W&IC 388 petition, where declaration testimony in conflict and declarants' credibility at issue.

Parties to dependency proceedings have a due process right, confirmed by court rule, to confront and cross-examine witnesses. ((Former) Rules of Court, rule 1412 (j).)

"New evidence" of recantation must be presented by motion to modify or set aside jurisdictional and dispositional orders; extraordinary writ not available.

Parent must file Welf. & Inst. Code §388 motion to challenge existing visitation order; may be heard at review hearing, but only if proper motion filed.