status review hearing in California

2023(See In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 ; In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396 , 406.) Third, mother contends she was entitled to the presumption favoring the return of K.W. at the status review hearing.

2022(In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293 [“a reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in the trial court”]; In re Maria Q. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 577, 590 [“‘A party forfeits the right to claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court.’”].) Forfeiture is not automatic, “[b]ut the appellate court’s discretion to excuse forfeiture should be exercised rarely and only in cases presenting an important legal issue.” (In re S.B., at p. 1293; accord, In re C.M. (20

2022(In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 424 .) Reunification services should be tailored to the particular needs of the family.

2013(In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415-416 .) We " 'interfere only " 'if we find that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court's action, no judge could reasonably have made the order that he [or she] did.' " ' " (Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 863 .) Here, the juvenile court commended Linda on her efforts in seeking services on her own, noting "great change" in Linda since the beginning of the dependency in 2009.

2022Legal Principles and Standard of Review “The purpose of the California dependency system is to protect children from harm and to preserve families when safe for the child. [Citations.] The focus during the reunification period is to preserve the family whenever possible. [Citation.] Until services are terminated, family reunification is the goal and the parent is entitled to every presumption in favor of returning the child to parental custody. [Citations.] After reunification services are terminated, the focus is to provide the child with a safe, permanent home. [Citation.] “At a status revie

2015“At a status review hearing, the court must return the child to the physical custody of his or her parent unless the Agency proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that return to the parent would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1423-1424 , citing § 366.21, subd. (f).) The goal of the reunification period is to “preserve the family whenever possible.” (Tracy J., at p. 1423.) However, a parent’s interest in the care and custody of a child cannot be mai

2017Governing Authority and Standard of Review At a disposition hearing, the court shall order reunification services for the parents. (§ 361.5.) The order "may include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program ...." (§ 362, subd. (d).) "The program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate shall be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court's finding that the child" was dependent. ( Ibid. ) Some six months later, the court typically holds a status review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1).) At that hearing, "the court shall order the return of

2017Governing Authority and Standard of Review At a disposition hearing, the court shall order reunification services for the parents. (§ 361.5.) The order "may include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program ...." (§ 362, subd. (d).) "The program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate shall be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court's finding that the child" was dependent. ( Ibid. ) Some six months later, the court typically holds a status review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1).) At that hearing, "the court shall order the return of

2017Governing Authority and Standard of Review At a disposition hearing, the court shall order reunification services for the parents. (§ 361.5.) The order "may include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program ...." (§ 362, subd. (d).) "The program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate shall be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court's finding that the child" was dependent. ( Ibid. ) Some six months later, the court typically holds a status review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1).) At that hearing, "the court shall order the return of

2017Governing Authority and Standard of Review At a disposition hearing, the court shall order reunification services for the parents. (§ 361.5.) The order "may include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program ...." (§ 362, subd. (d).) "The program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate shall be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court's finding that the child" was dependent. ( Ibid. ) Some six months later, the court typically holds a status review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1).) At that hearing, "the court shall order the return of

2017Governing Authority and Standard of Review At a disposition hearing, the court shall order reunification services for the parents. (§ 361.5.) The order "may include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program ...." (§ 362, subd. (d).) "The program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate shall be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court's finding that the child" was dependent. ( Ibid. ) Some six months later, the court typically holds a status review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1).) At that hearing, "the court shall order the return of

2017Governing Authority and Standard of Review At a disposition hearing, the court shall order reunification services for the parents. (§ 361.5.) The order "may include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program ...." (§ 362, subd. (d).) "The program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate shall be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court's finding that the child" was dependent. ( Ibid. ) Some six months later, the court typically holds a status review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1).) At that hearing, "the court shall order the return of

2017Governing Authority and Standard of Review At a disposition hearing, the court shall order reunification services for the parents. (§ 361.5.) The order "may include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program ...." (§ 362, subd. (d).) "The program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate shall be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court's finding that the child" was dependent. ( Ibid. ) Some six months later, the court typically holds a status review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1).) At that hearing, "the court shall order the return of

2017Governing Authority and Standard of Review At a disposition hearing, the court shall order reunification services for the parents. (§ 361.5.) The order "may include a direction to participate in a counseling or education program ...." (§ 362, subd. (d).) "The program in which a parent or guardian is required to participate shall be designed to eliminate those conditions that led to the court's finding that the child" was dependent. ( Ibid. ) Some six months later, the court typically holds a status review hearing. (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(1).) At that hearing, "the court shall order the return of

2008(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54; see generally Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704-705 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 261 ].) Where the noncustodial parent is a biological father, as defined in section 361.5, subdivision (a), the court has discretion to order reunification services when the services will benefit the child. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) A parent who had physical custody of the child before the child was removed from the home is often referred to as the “custodial parent.” (See Terry H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 1856 ; Robert L., supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 628 ; V.F.

2008(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54; see generally Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698, 704-705 [ 179 Cal.Rptr. 261 ].) [4] Where the noncustodial parent is a biological father, as defined in section 361.5, subdivision (a), the court has discretion to order reunification services when the services will benefit the child. (§ 361.5, subd. (a).) [5] A parent who had physical custody of the child before the child was removed from the home is often referred to as the "custodial parent." (See Terry H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 1856 ; Robert L., supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 62

2025(In re J.H., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 183 .) However, the appellate courts are split as to the applicable standard of prejudice.

2025(In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 266 .) Thus, the denial of their section 388 petitions could not have deprived them of the opportunity to cross-examine any relevant witnesses at the time they renewed their requests for modification of visitation rights at the status review hearing. 10 is generally guided by consideration of numerous factors.

2025As summarized in the case of In re John M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1564 , 1572: “The ICPC also permits a sending public agency to enter into a voluntary agreement with ‘an authorized public or private agency in the receiving state’ for the performance of services related to the case by the agency in the receiving state. [Citations.] In some situations, the Agency may be able to monitor the situation from California. [Citation.] ‘[S]tates differ as to whether they will … provid[e] courtesy supervision services. … Th[is] point[s] out the need for early and ongoing communication with the social se

2025(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 .) However, “when an appellate court reverses a prior order of the trial court on a record that may be ancient history to a dependent child, the trial court must implement the final appellate directive in view of the family’s current circumstances and any developments in the dependency proceedings that may have occurred during the pendency of the appeal.” (In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1501 ; In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 284; In re Malick T. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1109 , 1129 [Where the appellate court remands for a new hearing,

2025(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 .) However, “when an appellate court reverses a prior order of the trial court on a record that may be ancient history to a dependent child, the trial court must implement the final appellate directive in view of the family’s current circumstances and any developments in the dependency proceedings that may have occurred during the pendency of the appeal.” (In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1501 ; In re D.P., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 284; In re Malick T. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1109 , 1129 [Where the appellate court remands for a new hearing,

2025(In re R.A. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 826 , 839-840 [remand to conduct an 5 We observe that at least one published decision has concluded that it is not an abuse of discretion to summarily deny a section 388 petition where “the petition sought a hearing on the very issue the court ha[s] already indicated would be considered at a hearing that ha[s] already been scheduled.” (In re B.C. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 129, 142 .) At the time parents filed their section 388 petitions, the juvenile court was already scheduled to conduct a status review hearing, at which time the issue of parents’ progress towar

2024An order that is “‘based on the application of improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is not an exercise of informed discretion, and is subject to reversal even though there may be substantial evidence to support that order. . . .’” (E.C. v. J.V. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1084 , quoting Mark T. v. Jamie Z. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1115, 1124-1125 ; see also In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522 , 529-530.) Discussion Termination of Reunification Services Section 366.21, subdivision (e)(1) provides that, at a status review hearing held between six and 12 months after a child ente

2024An order that is “‘based on the application of improper criteria or incorrect legal assumptions is not an exercise of informed discretion, and is subject to reversal even though there may be substantial evidence to support that order. . . .’” (E.C. v. J.V. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1084 , quoting Mark T. v. Jamie Z. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1115, 1124-1125 ; see also In re Henry V. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 522 , 529-530.) Discussion Termination of Reunification Services Section 366.21, subdivision (e)(1) provides that, at a status review hearing held between six and 12 months after a child ente

2023(See In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293 ; In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396 , 406.) Third, mother contends she was entitled to the presumption favoring the return of K.W. at the status review hearing.

2023(In re Aurora P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1154 .) Where, as here, the child has not been removed from the home of the custodial parent, section 364 governs the conduct of the status review hearing.

2023Challenges to the Termination of Reunification Although a parent’s challenge to the termination of reunification services at a status review hearing must procedurally be raised through a writ petition from the status review order rather than following any subsequent termination of parental rights, this procedural rule applies only if the juvenile court advises that parent of his right to seek writ review orally or via first-class mail if the parent is not present. (§ 366.26, subd. (l); In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716, 721-724 .) 4 Because the juvenile court did not orally advise fat

2023(Ibid.) That statute requires the court to terminate its jurisdiction unless evidence presented at the hearing establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that conditions still exist that would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction under section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if supervision is withdrawn. (§ 364, subds. (c), (d); Aurora P., at pp. 1155-1156.) That is, the court’s sole concern at a family maintenance services review is whether further supervision is necessary or whether the dependency proceeding should be terminated, not whether the noncustodial parent

2022For example, In re A.J. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 154 , 158–159 reviewed an order entered pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (c)(4)(C), which provides that if a child is placed into permanent guardianship, the juvenile court “shall also make an order for visitation with the parents . . . unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the visitation would be detrimental to the physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (Italics added.) Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758 , 763 and In re E.D. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 960 , 962 considered orders entered purs

2022(See In re C.C., at p. 1492 [juvenile court order must be “tethered to the statutory directive”].) 7 (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 251 , 268; accord, In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 973 [“in making exit orders, the juvenile court must look at the best interests of the child”]; In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 712 [upon terminating its jurisdiction, juvenile court shall make custody and visitation determinations “based on the best interests of the child without any preferences or presumptions”].) We will presume the juvenile court applied that standard in the present case.