43 California opinions name it 1 courts 2008–2026 24 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Zachary G.green2 sentences2016(Ibid.; In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 .) 1 Section 388 provides, in part: “Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The court must set a hearing if “it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted by the proposed change of order . . . .” (§ 388, subd. (d).) 2016(Ibid.; In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 .) 1 Section 388 provides, in part: “Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The court must set a hearing if “it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted by the proposed change of order . . . .” (§ 388, subd. (d).) | 3 | 4 |
In Re Stephanie M.green2 sentences2016(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319 (Stephanie M.); In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067 .) To establish the right to an evidentiary hearing, the petition must include facts which make a prima facie showing that there is a change in circumstances and “the best interests of the child may be promoted by the proposed change in order.” (In re Daijah T. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 666, 672-673 ; see also In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 ; In re Jeremy W. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1414 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(e)(1).) “In determining whether the petition 2014(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319 ; In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067 .) The best interests of the child are of paramount consideration when the petition is brought after termination of reunification services. | 2 | 5 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Deborah M.green2 sentences2024Legal Criteria for Determining Beneficial Parent-Child Relationship Exception to Adoption “If the [juvenile] court cannot safely return a dependent child to a parent’s custody within statutory time limits, the court must set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. [Citation.] [¶] At the … hearing, the question before the court is decidedly not whether the parent may resume custody of the child.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 630, citing In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 690 [noting a parent must show changed circumstances to get back custody of a child during dependency proceedings 2023Legal Criteria for Determining Beneficial Parent-Child Relationship Exception to Adoption “If the [juvenile] court cannot safely return a dependent child to a parent’s custody within statutory time limits, the court must set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. [Citation.] [¶] At the … hearing, the question before the court is decidedly not whether the parent may resume custody of the child.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 630, citing In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 690 [noting a parent must show changed circumstances to get back custody of a child during dependency proceedings | 2 | 2 |
In Re GWgreen2 sentences2016Nevertheless, the court may extend the reunification period for a minor under the age of three up to 18 months if there is a substantial probability the minor will be returned to the parent’s physical custody within the extended time period or reasonable services have not been provided to the parent.” (In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 59 , fn. omitted.) “‘If a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review or the 18-month review or at an interim review between 12 and 18 months and a [section] 387 petition is sustained and the child removed o 2015The failure of the juvenile court to do so was error.” (G.W., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1441 , italics added.) Rule 5.565(f), which governs disposition of a section 387 petition, reads: “If a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review or the 18-month review or at an interim review between 12 and 18 months and a 387 petition is sustained and the child removed once again, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26 unless the court finds there is a substantial probability of return within the next 6 months or, if more than 12 months had ex | 1 | 4 |
Daijah T. v. Felicia W.green2 sentences2016(Ibid.; In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 .) 1 Section 388 provides, in part: “Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The court must set a hearing if “it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted by the proposed change of order . . . .” (§ 388, subd. (d).) 2014A parent may bring a petition for modification of any order of the juvenile court pursuant to section 388 based on new evidence or a showing of changed circumstances.1 1 Section 388 provides, in part: “Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The court must set a hearing if “it appears that | 1 | 4 |
In Re Jackson W.green2 sentences2016(Ibid.; In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 .) 1 Section 388 provides, in part: “Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The court must set a hearing if “it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted by the proposed change of order . . . .” (§ 388, subd. (d).) 2014A parent may bring a petition for modification of any order of the juvenile court pursuant to section 388 based on new evidence or a showing of changed circumstances.1 1 Section 388 provides, in part: “Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The court must set a hearing if “it appears that | 1 | 4 |
In Re Jeremy W.green2 sentences2016(Ibid.; In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 .) 1 Section 388 provides, in part: “Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The court must set a hearing if “it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted by the proposed change of order . . . .” (§ 388, subd. (d).) 2014A parent may bring a petition for modification of any order of the juvenile court pursuant to section 388 based on new evidence or a showing of changed circumstances.1 1 Section 388 provides, in part: “Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The court must set a hearing if “it appears that | 1 | 4 |
In Re Celine R.green2 sentences2025The goal of juvenile court dependency proceedings is to ensure children have, to the extent possible, “stable, permanent homes.” (§ 366.26, subd. (b).) “If the court cannot safely return a dependent child to a parent’s custody within statutory time limits, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26.” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 630 (Caden C.).) The purpose of the hearing is “ ‘to select . . . a permanent plan for the child.’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘Adoption is the Legislature’s first choice because it gives the child the best chance at [a full] emotional commitment from a responsible c 2024(In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53 ; see also § 366.26, subd. (c)(1); Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 625.) One of these is the parental benefit exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) In order to establish this exception applies, a parent must prove three elements: (1) “regular visitation and contact with the child, taking into account the extent of visitation permitted”; (2) that “the child has a substantial, positive, emotional attachment to the parent—the kind of attachment implying that the child would benefit from continuing the relationship”; and (3) that terminating the par | 1 | 3 |
In Re Angel B.green1 sentence2022One exception includes when “[t]he court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental [because] [¶] (i) The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) A parent “who has failed to reunify with an adoptable child may not derail an adoption merely by showing the child would derive some benefit from continuing a relationship maintained during periods of visitation with the parent.” (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 466 (Angel B).) The | 1 | 1 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Theodora T.green1 sentence2022C., at p. 631; see In re A.G., at p. 992.) The parental-benefit exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B), applies where “‘[t]he court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child due to one or more of the following circumstances: [¶] (i) The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.’” (In re Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 631; see In re L.A.-O. (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 197 , 206.) To prove the exception applies, the parent must show “regular vis | 1 | 1 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. M.P.green2 sentences2022C., at p. 631; see In re A.G., at p. 992.) The parental-benefit exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B), applies where “‘[t]he court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child due to one or more of the following circumstances: [¶] (i) The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.’” (In re Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 631; see In re L.A.-O. (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 197 , 206.) To prove the exception applies, the parent must show “regular vis 2022C., at p. 631; see In re A.G., at p. 992.) The parental-benefit exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B), applies where “‘[t]he court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child due to one or more of the following circumstances: [¶] (i) The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.’” (In re Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 631; see In re L.A.-O. (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 197 , 206.) To prove the exception applies, the parent must show “regular vis | 1 | 1 |
In Re Casey D.green1 sentence2016(Ibid.; In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 .) 1 Section 388 provides, in part: “Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The court must set a hearing if “it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted by the proposed change of order . . . .” (§ 388, subd. (d).) | 1 | 1 |
| Cooper v. Oklahomagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Drope v. Missourigreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Pokovichgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re GWgreen2 sentences2016Nevertheless, the court may extend the reunification period for a minor under the age of three up to 18 months if there is a substantial probability the minor will be returned to the parent’s physical custody within the extended time period or reasonable services have not been provided to the parent.” (In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 59 , fn. omitted.) “‘If a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review or the 18-month review or at an interim review between 12 and 18 months and a [section] 387 petition is sustained and the child removed o 2015The failure of the juvenile court to do so was error.” (G.W., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1441 , italics added.) Rule 5.565(f), which governs disposition of a section 387 petition, reads: “If a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review or the 18-month review or at an interim review between 12 and 18 months and a 387 petition is sustained and the child removed once again, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26 unless the court finds there is a substantial probability of return within the next 6 months or, if more than 12 months had ex | 1 | 4 |
San Joaquin Human Services Agency v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2015(Carolyn R. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 159, 166 ; but see San Joaquin Human Services Agency v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 215, 224-225 [regardless of the juvenile court’s finding that services were not reasonable due to a delay, it could not extend reunification services beyond 18 months because of the absence of statutorily required factors or external factors that prevented mother’s participation in her case plan].) Rules of Court, rule 5.565(f) provides that “[i]f a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review . . . and a | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marilyn H
green
2 sentences2016(Ibid.; In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 .) 1 Section 388 provides, in part: “Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The court must set a hearing if “it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted by the proposed change of order . . . .” (§ 388, subd. (d).) 2013(In re Alexis E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 450-451 .) "Once reunification services are ordered terminated, the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability." (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 .) After the termination of reunification services, the court must set a hearing (§ 366.26) to "implement a permanent plan for the children." (Marilyn H., at p. 309) "The court shall continue to permit the parent . . . to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child." (§ 366.21, subd. (h).) A.W. claims the record d | 9 | 2013–2026 |
In Re Michael B.
green
2 sentences2016A parent may bring a petition for modification of any order of the juvenile court pursuant to section 388 based on new evidence or a showing of changed circumstances.2 “The parent requesting the change of order has the burden of establishing that the change 2 Section 388, subdivision (a)(1), provides, in part: “Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to ter 2014A parent may bring a petition for modification of any order of the juvenile court pursuant to section 388 based on new evidence or a showing of changed circumstances.2 2 Section 388, subdivision (a)(1) provides, in part: “Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” The court must set a hearing if “it appears that the | 6 | 2013–2016 |
In Re Edward R.
green
2 sentences2024“If the [juvenile] court cannot safely return a dependent child to a parent’s custody within statutory time limits, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26.” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 630 (Caden C.).) The purpose of the hearing is “‘to select . . . a permanent plan for the child.’” (Ibid.) Section 366.26 lists permanent plans in order of preference, with adoption having the highest priority. (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(1); In re Edward R. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 116, 122 .) Section 366.26 provides that if the court finds the child is likely to be adopted, “‘the court shall termi 2022“If the court cannot safely return a dependent child to a parent’s custody within statutory time limits, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26.” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 630 (Caden C.).) The purpose of the hearing is “to select . . . a permanent plan for the child.” (Ibid.) Section 366.26 lists permanent plans in order of preference, with adoption having the highest priority. (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(1); In re Edward R. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 116, 122 .) Section 366.26 provides that if the court finds the child is likely to be adopted, “the court shall terminate parental | 5 | 2022–2025 |
San Joaquin County Department of Human Services v. Gary L.
green
2 sentences2016(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319 (Stephanie M.); In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067 .) To establish the right to an evidentiary hearing, the petition must include facts which make a prima facie showing that there is a change in circumstances and “the best interests of the child may be promoted by the proposed change in order.” (In re Daijah T. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 666, 672-673 ; see also In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 ; In re Jeremy W. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1414 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(e)(1).) “In determining whether the petition 2014(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319 ; In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067 .) The best interests of the child are of paramount consideration when the petition is brought after termination of reunification services. | 5 | 2013–2016 |
In Re SB
green
2 sentences2023Parental-Benefit Exception A. Legal Principles “If the court cannot safely return a dependent child to a parent’s custody within statutory time limits, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26.” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 630 (Caden C.).) “[T]he goal at the section 366.26 hearing is ‘specifically … to select and implement a permanent plan for the child.’ ” (Ibid.) “At [the] hearing, the court may order one of three alternatives: adoption, guardianship or long-term foster care.” (In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 , 296.) “According to [the] procedure [under section 366 2023A. Legal Principles “If the court cannot safely return a dependent child to a parent’s custody within statutory time limits, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26.” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 630 (Caden C.).) “[T]he goal at the section 366.26 hearing is ‘specifically … to select and implement a permanent plan for the child.’ ” (Ibid.) “At [the] hearing, the court may order one of three alternatives: adoption, guardianship or long-term foster care.” (In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 , 296.) “According to [the] procedure [under section 366.26], the court must first | 4 | 2023–2023 |
CAROLYN R. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2022California Rules of Court, rule 5.565(f) states, “If a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review or the 18-month review or at an interim review between 12 and 18 months and a section 387 petition is sustained and the child is removed once again, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26 unless the court finds there is substantial probability of return within the next 6 months or, if more than 12 months had expired at the time of the prior return, within whatever time remains before the expiration of the maximum 18-month period.” Carolyn 2015(Id. at p.1200; § 387, subd. (b).) “When a juvenile court sustains a supplemental petition pursuant to section 387, the case does not return to ‘“square one”’ with regard to reunification efforts. [Citations.]” (Carolyn R. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 159, 166 .) “If a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review or the 18-month review or at an interim review between 12 and 18 months and a 387 petition is sustained and the child removed once again, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26 unless the court finds there is a substa | 3 | 2015–2022 |
In Re Erika W.
green
2 sentences2008(See Carolyn, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at pp. 162-167; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.565(f) ["If a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review or the 18-month review or at an interim review between 12 and 18 months and a 387 petition is sustained and the child removed once again, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26 unless the court finds there is a substantial probability of return within the next 6 months or, if more than 12 months had expired at the time of the prior return, within whatever time remains before the expiration of the maxi 2008(See Carolyn, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at pp. 162-167; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.565(f) [“If a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review or the 18-month review or at an interim review between 12 and 18 months and a 387 petition is sustained and the child removed once again, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26 unless the court finds there is a substantial probability of return within the next 6 months or, if more than 12 months had expired at the time of the prior return, within whatever time remains before the expiration of the maxi | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Sacramento County Department of Health & Human Services v. Epifania B.
green
2 sentences2008(See Carolyn, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at pp. 162-167; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.565(f) ["If a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review or the 18-month review or at an interim review between 12 and 18 months and a 387 petition is sustained and the child removed once again, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26 unless the court finds there is a substantial probability of return within the next 6 months or, if more than 12 months had expired at the time of the prior return, within whatever time remains before the expiration of the maxi 2008(See Carolyn, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at pp. 162-167; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.565(f) [“If a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review or the 18-month review or at an interim review between 12 and 18 months and a 387 petition is sustained and the child removed once again, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26 unless the court finds there is a substantial probability of return within the next 6 months or, if more than 12 months had expired at the time of the prior return, within whatever time remains before the expiration of the maxi | 2 | 2008–2008 |
In Re AA
green
1 sentence2023(In re A.A. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1320 .) “If the court cannot safely return a dependent child to a parent’s custody within statutory time limits, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26.” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 630 (Caden C.).) “[W]hen the court orders the section 366.26 hearing, reunification services have been terminated, and the assumption is that the problems that led to 12 the court taking jurisdiction have not been resolved.” (Ibid.) The purpose of a section 366.26 hearing is to determine and implement the appropriate permanent plan for a dependent chil | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Barrett
green
1 sentence2023The report must include an assessment of the individual and a recommendation regarding the least restrictive residential placement that promotes the goals of treatment while considering public safety. (§ 6504.5, subds. (b)–(c).) The court must set a hearing on the petition (§ 6503), and the individual proposed for commitment has a right to a jury trial upon request ( Barrett, supra, 54 Cal.4th at pp. 1096–1097). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Cynthia D. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2023Applicable Law and Standard of Review “If the court cannot safely return a dependent child to a parent’s custody within statutory time limits, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 630; see Michael G. v. Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 609 , 624; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 249-250 .) The purpose of a hearing under section 366.26 is “‘to select and implement a permanent plan for the child’” after the juvenile court has terminated reunification services. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Juan P.
green
1 sentence2022Applicable Law and Standard of Review “If the court cannot safely return a dependent child to a parent’s custody within statutory time limits, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26.” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 630; see §§ 361.5, subd. (f), 366.22, subd. (a)(3); In re M.S. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 568 , 580; In re Jonathan P. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1240, 1257 .) The goal at the section 366.26 hearing “is ‘specifically . . . to select and implement a permanent plan for the child.’” (Caden C., at p. 630; see In re A.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 973 , 992.) Statutory exceptions “ | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re Christopher L.
green
1 sentence2021(Ibid.) Termination of parental rights and adoption is the preferred plan. (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(1); In re Christopher L. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336 .) The juvenile court must first determine by clear and convincing evidence whether the child is likely to be adopted. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); see Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 630.) If the court finds the child is likely to be adopted and there has been a previous determination that reunification services be terminated, then the court must terminate parental rights and order the child be placed for adoption, unless at least one of seve | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Jesse
green
1 sentence2016Nevertheless, the court may extend the reunification period for a minor under the age of three up to 18 months if there is a substantial probability the minor will be returned to the parent’s physical custody within the extended time period or reasonable services have not been provided to the parent.” (In re Jesse W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 49, 59 , fn. omitted.) “‘If a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review or the 18-month review or at an interim review between 12 and 18 months and a [section] 387 petition is sustained and the child removed o | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Jennifer A. v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2015(Id. at p.1200; § 387, subd. (b).) “When a juvenile court sustains a supplemental petition pursuant to section 387, the case does not return to ‘“square one”’ with regard to reunification efforts. [Citations.]” (Carolyn R. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 159, 166 .) “If a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review or the 18-month review or at an interim review between 12 and 18 months and a 387 petition is sustained and the child removed once again, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26 unless the court finds there is a substa | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Javier G.
green
1 sentence2015(Id. at p.1200; § 387, subd. (b).) “When a juvenile court sustains a supplemental petition pursuant to section 387, the case does not return to ‘“square one”’ with regard to reunification efforts. [Citations.]” (Carolyn R. v. Superior Court (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 159, 166 .) “If a dependent child was returned to the custody of a parent or guardian at the 12-month review or the 18-month review or at an interim review between 12 and 18 months and a 387 petition is sustained and the child removed once again, the court must set a hearing under section 366.26 unless the court finds there is a substa | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Orange County Social Services Agency v. Doris F.
green
1 sentence2014(In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 532 .) The court clearly gave consideration to both bonds and the evidence of the minor’s actions which demonstrated the bond with mother. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Fresno County Department of Social Services v. Edward H. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. JEFELO green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re Alexis E. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. Jones green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Pate v. Robinson green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. McKee green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| People v. Hale green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.