must order hearing in California

2021We return to those questions here. 12 “‘Under section 1368, if a “doubt arises in the mind of the judge” as to the defendant’s mental competence, the judge must “state that doubt in the record” and solicit defense counsel’s opinion on the matter. [Citation.] In such a case, “[i]f counsel informs the court that he believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent,” the court must order a hearing. [Citation.]’” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1111- 1112.) “A trial court is required to conduct a competence hearing, sua sponte if necessary, whenever there is substantial evidenc

2021We return to those questions here. 12 “‘Under section 1368, if a “doubt arises in the mind of the judge” as to the defendant’s mental competence, the judge must “state that doubt in the record” and solicit defense counsel’s opinion on the matter. [Citation.] In such a case, “[i]f counsel informs the court that he believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent,” the court must order a hearing. [Citation.]’” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1111- 1112.) “A trial court is required to conduct a competence hearing, sua sponte if necessary, whenever there is substantial evidenc

2021We return to those questions here. 12 “‘Under section 1368, if a “doubt arises in the mind of the judge” as to the defendant’s mental competence, the judge must “state that doubt in the record” and solicit defense counsel’s opinion on the matter. [Citation.] In such a case, “[i]f counsel informs the court that he believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent,” the court must order a hearing. [Citation.]’” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1111- 1112.) “A trial court is required to conduct a competence hearing, sua sponte if necessary, whenever there is substantial evidenc

2021We return to those questions here. 12 “‘Under section 1368, if a “doubt arises in the mind of the judge” as to the defendant’s mental competence, the judge must “state that doubt in the record” and solicit defense counsel’s opinion on the matter. [Citation.] In such a case, “[i]f counsel informs the court that he believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent,” the court must order a hearing. [Citation.]’” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1111- 1112.) “A trial court is required to conduct a competence hearing, sua sponte if necessary, whenever there is substantial evidenc

2021We return to those questions here. 12 “‘Under section 1368, if a “doubt arises in the mind of the judge” as to the defendant’s mental competence, the judge must “state that doubt in the record” and solicit defense counsel’s opinion on the matter. [Citation.] In such a case, “[i]f counsel informs the court that he believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent,” the court must order a hearing. [Citation.]’” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1111- 1112.) “A trial court is required to conduct a competence hearing, sua sponte if necessary, whenever there is substantial evidenc

2021We return to those questions here. 12 “‘Under section 1368, if a “doubt arises in the mind of the judge” as to the defendant’s mental competence, the judge must “state that doubt in the record” and solicit defense counsel’s opinion on the matter. [Citation.] In such a case, “[i]f counsel informs the court that he believes the defendant is or may be mentally incompetent,” the court must order a hearing. [Citation.]’” (People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060 , 1111- 1112.) “A trial court is required to conduct a competence hearing, sua sponte if necessary, whenever there is substantial evidenc

2015(In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250 ; In re Daijah T. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 666, 672 .) Section 388 petitions must be “liberally construed in favor of their sufficiency.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(a); In re Daijah T., at p. 672.) “[I]f the petition presents any evidence that a hearing would promote the best interests of the child, the court must order the hearing. [Citation.] The court may deny the application ex parte only if the petition fails to state a change of circumstance or new evidence that even might require a change of order or termination of jurisdiction.” (In r

2014(In re Daijah T. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 666, 672 .) Section 388 specifies that the court must order a hearing to be held, “[i]f it appears that the best interests of the child … may be promoted by the proposed change of order .…” (§ 388, subd. (d).) “‘The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.’ [Citations.]” (In re Brittany K. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1505 .) We apply the abuse of discretion standard in our review of the juvenile court’s decision to deny the sectio

2015(In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250 ; In re Daijah T. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 666, 672 .) Section 388 petitions must be “liberally construed in favor of their sufficiency.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(a); In re Daijah T., at p. 672.) “[I]f the petition presents any evidence that a hearing would promote the best interests of the child, the court must order the hearing. [Citation.] The court may deny the application ex parte only if the petition fails to state a change of circumstance or new evidence that even might require a change of order or termination of jurisdiction.” (In r

2014(In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 612 ; In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250 .) Father contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying him a hearing because he had presented a prima facie case of changed circumstances or new evidence that demonstrated modification of the placement order would serve the children’s best interests.

2014(In re Daijah T. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 666, 672 .) Section 388 specifies that the court must order a hearing to be held, “[i]f it appears that the best interests of the child … may be promoted by the proposed change of order .…” (§ 388, subd. (d).) “‘The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.’ [Citations.]” (In re Brittany K. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1505 .) We apply the abuse of discretion standard in our review of the juvenile court’s decision to deny the sectio

2014(In re Brittany K., supra, 127 Cal.App.4th at p. 1505 .) We affirm the order unless it “‘“exceeded the bounds of reason.

2014(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 .) " ' "The parent need only make a prima facie showing to trigger the right to proceed by way of a full hearing." ' [Citations.]" (In re Aljamie D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 424, 432 .) "[I]f the petition presents any evidence that a hearing would promote the best interests of the child, the court must order the hearing." (In re Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 461 .) Diana has not shown an abuse of the court's discretion.

2014(Id. at p. 460.) " 'The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.' " (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319 .) " 'When 11 two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.' [Citation.]" (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 272 .) A reviewing court will not disturb the trial court's exercise of discretion unless the trial court's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.

2024(In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971 .) “[O]ur sole task on review is to determine whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile court's finding that reasonable services were provided or offered.” (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762 .) Construing the evidence in favor of the judgment, we determine whether there is “ ‘evidence which is reasonable, credible and of solid value’ ” to support the juvenile court’s finding.

2024(In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971 .) “[O]ur sole task on review is to determine whether the record discloses substantial evidence which supports the juvenile court's finding that reasonable services were provided or offered.” (Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762 .) Construing the evidence in favor of the judgment, we determine whether there is “ ‘evidence which is reasonable, credible and of solid value’ ” to support the juvenile court’s finding.

2024(People v. Rodas, supra, 6 Cal.5th at p. 230 .) Section 1367 qualifies a person as mentally incompetent to stand trial “if, as a result of a mental disorder or developmental disability, the defendant is 8 unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.” (§ 1367, subd. (a); accord, Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996) 517 U.S. 348, 354 [federal test for incompetence].) During the criminal proceedings, if “a doubt arises in the mind of the judge as to the mental competence of the defendant” (§ 1368, subd. (a)) and defense co

2015(Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 460 ; In re Josiah S. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 403, 419 .) 2.

2014(In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 612 ; In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250 .) Father contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying him a hearing because he had presented a prima facie case of changed circumstances or new evidence that demonstrated modification of the placement order would serve the children’s best interests.

2014(Id. at p. 460.) " 'The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.' " (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319 .) " 'When 11 two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.' [Citation.]" (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 272 .) A reviewing court will not disturb the trial court's exercise of discretion unless the trial court's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.

2013(In re Edward H. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 584, 594 .) Further, a "court is not required to entertain an oral motion under section 388 at the time set for the section 366.26 hearing." (In re Baby Boy L. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 596, 609 .) A hearing on a last minute oral motion 5 could unnecessarily delay permanency for a child who is in need of a stable, permanent home.

2013(Cal. Rules of Court, rule [5.570](a).) Thus, if the petition presents any evidence that a hearing would promote the best interests of the child, the court must order the hearing. [Citation.] The court may deny the application ex parte only if the petition fails to state a change of circumstance or new evidence that even might require a change of order or termination of jurisdiction.” (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454 , 460– 461 (Angel B.), italics omitted.) However, a “petition which alleges merely changing circumstances and would mean delaying the selection of a permanent home for a

2013(In re Edward H. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 584, 594 .) Further, a "court is not required to entertain an oral motion under section 388 at the time set for the section 366.26 hearing." (In re Baby Boy L. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 596, 609 .) A hearing on a last minute oral motion 5 could unnecessarily delay permanency for a child who is in need of a stable, permanent home.

2013To obtain the relief sought in a section 388 petition, the petitioner must show both a change of circumstances or new evidence and that the change sought is in the child's best interests. (§ 388; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(e)(1); In re Michael B. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1698, 1703 .) " ' "The parent need only make a prima facie showing to trigger the right to proceed by way of a full hearing." ' [Citations.]" (In re Aljamie D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 424, 432 .) "[I]f the petition presents any evidence that a hearing would promote the best interests of the child, the court must order the heari