Filed 8/30/24 In re J.C. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re J.C., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

R.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F087837

(Super. Ct. No. 21CEJ300222-2)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mary Dolas, Judge.

Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Ashley N. McGuire, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.
2.

R.C. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders (1) summarily denying his 

Welfare and Institutions Code1section 388 petition requesting the juvenile court place his 

three-year-old son, J.C. (son), with him on family maintenance or grant him reunification 

services, and (2) terminating his parental rights at a subsequently held section 366.26 

hearing. Father’s sole contention is that the juvenile court erred by summarily denying 

his section 388 petition. Finding no error, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Petition and Detention

On May 5, 2023, law enforcement placed a section 300 hold on two-year-old son 

and his 10-year-old half sister2 after mother, E.L. (mother), was found nonresponsive in 

her bedroom and subsequently was determined to be deceased. Father’s whereabouts 

were unknown. The children were placed with maternal grandmother, with whom 

mother and the children were living. Thereafter, the Fresno County Department of Social 

Services (department) filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (g), alleging 

mother left son without any provision for support or care. The department submitted a 

parent search for father.

At the May 10, 2023 detention hearing, the juvenile court found a prima facie case 

had been established and ordered son detained. The court further ordered that father, 

whose whereabouts were still unknown, receive reasonable supervised visitation, which 

the department had discretion to schedule when father contacted the department.

Jurisdiction and Disposition

In its jurisdiction and disposition report, the department recommended the 

petition’s allegation be found true and that father, whose whereabouts were still 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 While son’s half sister is part of the same dependency case, she is not part of this 

appeal. Therefore, we generally omit facts related to her.
3.

unknown, not be provided placement or reunification services. The family had a prior 

dependency case, which started in June 2021 when son was six months old. The juvenile 

court’s findings included mother’s substance abuse that negatively affected her parenting 

ability, and domestic violence between father and mother. Mother and father were 

ordered to participate in reunification services. Father’s services included parenting 

classes, substance abuse and mental health assessments and any recommended treatment, 

a domestic violence index and any recommended treatment, and random drug testing. 

Dependency was terminated in August 2022, and mother was granted sole legal and 

physical custody of the children.

Father had a lengthy criminal history that consisted of several felonies, including 

robbery and domestic violence. The department opined there would be a substantial risk 

to son’s physical health, safety, protection, and emotional well-being if he were placed in 

father’s care, and there was no reasonable means by which he could be protected if 

placed with father. The department, however, had been unable to assess father as his 

whereabouts were unknown. Maternal grandmother, who had a five-year restraining 

order against father, reported father was violent, used to physically abuse mother, and had 

many felonies. She said son did not have a relationship with him.

Father appeared at the June 14, 2023 jurisdiction/disposition hearing and was 

appointed counsel. The hearing was continued to July 19, 2023.

In an addendum report for that hearing, the department recommended that father 

not be provided placement under section 361.2, subdivision (a) or reunification services 

pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) (failure to reunify) and (12) (violent 

felony). Father told the department he lived in a rental home in San Jose and was 

employed at a rental car agency. Father wanted to reunify with son and take custody of 

him. Father admitted he was ordered family reunification services in the past, but he did 

not attend services or programs because he was unhoused. Father had an in-person 

supervised visit with son on June 28, 2023. Father interacted with son by talking and 
4.

playing with him. No issues or concerns were noted during the visit. One-hour weekly 

visits were scheduled for father.

A family reunification panel met to determine the appropriateness of offering 

father reunification services. Father, who failed to reunify with son in the prior 

dependency case, now said he did not participate in services in that case because he was 

doing services through parole and he “was not going to do double services.” While father 

reported participating in domestic violence services and drug treatment, he did not 

provide the department with documentation showing he completed those services. 

Additionally, although he had been ordered supervised visits when mother was awarded 

custody, he did not visit son and had not seen him for over a year. He claimed he did not 

know mother’s whereabouts, but later stated she always called him to ask for money. 

The department noted it was reported (by an unspecified source) that father did not want 

to pay the visitation agency fees to visit son. The panel determined father met the bypass 

criteria under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (12).

The department assessed whether it would be in son’s best interest for father to 

receive reunification services. Overall, father had not ameliorated the problems that led 

to the initial removal, had not participated in services, and did not have a relationship 

with son. Due to son’s young age, he required a safe, stable, and sober care provider. It 

did not appear father could meet those needs as he had an extensive criminal history, 

which included violent crimes, and had been in and out of prison. Maternal grandparents, 

on the other hand, had been meeting son’s needs. The panel determined it would not be 

in son’s best interest for father to receive services.

Father did not appear at the July 19, 2023 hearing, which the juvenile court 

continued to July 31, 2023. At the July 31, 2023 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, which 

father attended, testimony was received, and the court found the petition’s allegation true. 

The court continued the disposition hearing to August 16, 2023. At that hearing, the 

court found son was a person described under section 300, subdivision (g), and there was 
5.

clear and convincing evidence that placing son with father would be detrimental to his 

safety, protection, and physical and emotional well-being. The court ordered a bypass of 

reunification services after finding by clear and convincing evidence that section 361.5, 

subdivision (b)(12) (violent felony) applied. The court granted father a minimum of 

one visit per month. A section 366.26 hearing was set for December 13, 2023.

Father filed a petition for an extraordinary writ, which we denied in R.C. v. 

Superior Court (Oct. 27, 2023, F086736 [nonpub. opn.]). We affirmed the juvenile 

court’s decision not to place son with father as substantial evidence supported the court’s 

finding that it would be detrimental to place son with him. We also affirmed the juvenile 

court’s decision to bypass reunification services for father pursuant to section 361.5, 

subdivision (b)(12), as the bypass provision applied and the court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding that providing reunification services was not in son’s best interest 

due to son’s tender age and need for stability, father’s limited bond with him, and father’s 

histories of being in and out of prison and of domestic violence.

Father’s Section 388 Petitions and the Section 366.26 Hearing

Father filed three section 388 modification petitions on August 29, 2023, in which 

he asked the juvenile court to increase his visitation time, order counseling and 

reunification services, and provide him with a different attorney. On August 30, 2023, 

the court denied the petitions, finding they did not state new evidence or changed 

circumstances, did not promote son’s best interest, and if father wanted a different 

attorney, he should make the request at the November 1, 2023 interim review hearing.

Father filed another section 388 modification petition on October 20, 2023, asking 

for more visitation time and communication with son. The juvenile court denied the 

petition without a hearing on November 2, 2023, finding it did not state new evidence or

changed circumstances, and the current order, which set a minimum number of 

supervised visits, permitted additional visits if they could be accommodated.
6.

At a November 1, 2023 interim review hearing, the juvenile court increased 

father’s visits to either two visits or one two-hour visit per month. At a November 27, 

2023 interim review hearing, it was confirmed that father had a two-hour visit on 

November 20, 2023, and future visits were scheduled.

In its report prepared for the section 366.26 hearing, the department recommended 

termination of parental rights and a permanent plan of adoption. The department 

recounted father’s relationship with son. Son lived with both parents from his birth until 

he was five months old, when mother moved back to California. Son and his half sister 

were taken into protective custody in June 2021 and remained in out-of-home care with 

maternal grandmother. Father did not contact the department until February 2022, when 

the juvenile court ordered him to attend weekly two-hour visits, and to complete 

reunification services; father, however, did not complete the required classes. When son 

reunified with mother and dependency was dismissed in August 2022, father was ordered 

to receive visitation through a third-party agency. Father, however, did not contact the 

visitation center to set up visits as he did not want to pay the monitoring fees. Thus, 

father did not have contact with son from July 2022 until when son entered foster care in 

May 2023, with his first visit being on June 28, 2023.

The department documented father’s visits. At the first visit in June 2023, son 

initially did not acknowledge or respond to father, but son hugged father at the end of the 

visit at father’s request. At first, father was appropriate with son. While he typically 

played with son, at a July visit, he was observed sitting on the couch and watching son 

play instead of engaging with him. Father praised son when he followed directions. At 

an August 9, 2023 visit, father smelled heavily of marijuana and appeared to have high 

energy during the visit. The following day, father admitted to the social worker that he 

was under the influence, but he claimed it was legal and he had a medical marijuana card. 

The social worker reminded father he was not to be under the influence of drugs or 

alcohol.
7.

In following visits, son often ignored father and played on his own. At one visit, 

father complained about the social worker rather than interact with son. Father attempted 

to engage son, but son ignored him and crawled under the table. The social worker 

described visits as often loud, unstructured, and filled with incessant calling of son’s 

name when son did not respond to father. At one visit, father wanted son to try on a 

jacket he brought, and when son did not respond to his name, father threw the jacket on 

son’s head. At another visit, father tapped a bag of chips on son’s face after son said he 

did not want to eat chips. Son took one chip and crawled under the table. When visits 

ended, son would not say goodbye to father and often walked out of the visitation room 

without looking back.

The department addressed whether the benefit of adoption outweighed the harm of 

severing son’s relationship with father. The department noted that while father was 

visiting consistently, he had a history of domestic violence with mother, which led to the 

protective order being issued against him that protected mother, maternal grandmother, 

and son’s half sister. Father had several violent felonies and was not able to offer 

stability or protection for son. While father had the opportunity to maintain a relationship 

with son when the first dependency case closed in 2022, he chose not to pursue visitation 

as he did not want to pay the fees, which indicated he was not invested or interested in a 

relationship with son. The department was concerned that father’s inability to 

demonstrate responsible behaviors, as shown by his previous violent offenses, which 

included robbery and domestic violence, put him at risk of being inconsistent with visits, 

should he find himself in trouble with the law.

Maternal grandmother was willing to adopt. The department assessed son as 

being generally adoptable due to his young age and being developmentally on target, and 

specifically adoptable because maternal grandmother wished to adopt him.

At the December 13, 2023 section 366.26 hearing, father requested a contested 

hearing, which the juvenile court set for February 28, 2024, as father requested a later 
8.

hearing date because he was having a medical procedure. Father requested weekly visits, 

but the court declined the request as he was able to have additional visits under the 

current order.

Father filed a section 388 modification petition on February 16, 2024, in which he 

asked the juvenile court to either place son with him on a plan of family maintenance or 

order family reunification services. As changed circumstances, father asserted: (1) he 

had several in-person visits with son; (2) he completed two parenting programs—a 

24-lesson class and a month-long twice weekly class; (3) he completed a three-lesson 

grief and loss class and a 12-lesson relationship violence course; and (4) he had been 

working with Gardner Health Services for additional support and had additional family 

support available. Father asserted services were in son’s best interest because son 

enjoyed visits with him, and he could “provide a safe, stable home environment and meet 

all [of] his emotional, and material needs as I have stable housing, income, and family 

support.”

Father provided a letter and certificates of completion in support of the petition. 

In a January 24, 2024 letter from a court care coordinator at Gardner Health Services, the 

coordinator confirmed father reached out to the coordinator to register in parenting 

classes and services offered to parents with children between zero and five years old. 

The coordinator reported that father: (1) participated in “Triple P” parenting classes and 

received a certificate of completion on October 3, 2023; (2) was referred to a six-week 

workshop entitled “ ‘Role of Men’ ” that father reported attending; (3) received support 

from the First 5 court care coordinator and a parent advocate; and (4) reported being fully 

engaged in church. The following certificates were attached: (1) an October 3, 2023 

“Triple P” certificate recognizing father’s attendance at “Selected Seminars Triple P [¶] 

Triple P—Positive Parenting Program”; (2) an August 12, 2023 certificate of completion 

of a 24-lesson “Parenting 101” course from Open Path Online Wellness Solutions; (3) an 

August 12, 2023 certification of completion of a three lesson “Grief & Loss” course from 
9.

Open Path Online Wellness Solutions; and (4) an October 11, 2022 certificate of 

completion of a 12-lesson “Relationship Violence” course from Open Path Online 

Wellness Solutions.

The juvenile court denied father’s modification petition without a hearing on 

February 23, 2024, because the request did not state new evidence or a change of 

circumstances.

In an addendum report for the section 366.26 hearing, the department continued to 

recommend termination of parental rights and adoption as the permanent plan. The 

department reported on father’s visits since the last report. The department 

acknowledged father’s efforts and commitment to attending scheduled visits. He had not 

missed a single visit and came prepared with gifts and snacks for son. According to the 

notes of the December 2023 and January 2024 visits, son appeared to allow father to hug 

him on some occasions and did not protest when father hugged and kissed him. Son also 

was observed to say, “ ‘I love you’ ” when father said, “ ‘I love you,’ ” but the social 

worker noted this may have been due to father praising him when he repeated father’s 

phrases. The social worker also noted that during the January visit, son only responded, 

“ ‘okay,’ ” when father told son, “ ‘I miss you,’ ” and when father attempted to kiss him 

at the end of the visit, son pushed his face away and said, “ ‘go away.’ ”

The department believed son did not look to father as a parent who was meeting 

his daily needs. While son arrived at visits excited to play with toys in the room and was 

curious about the gifts father brought, he appeared to treat the visits as another scheduled 

activity and left the visits with no anxiety. Son did not say goodbye to father at the end 

of visits and did not show any signs of distress when he returned to his care provider. 

Father did not appear to demonstrate the ability to engage with son, did not use visits as 

an opportunity to teach son, and was unaware of son’s developmental needs.

The department noted father stated on several occasions that it was not his fault 

son was in foster care, but he took no responsibility for his failure to take advantage of 
10.

reunification services that were offered to him in February 2022, or his failure to seek out 

visits when he was given visitation rights. While father asserted maternal grandmother 

was unfit to care for the children as he blamed her for them being in foster care, father 

shared with the social worker that he was aware of mother’s drug use when they were 

living together, which he blamed on mother, and he did not take responsibility for the 

children being around mother when she was under the influence.

While father believed son needed to be returned to his care as the nonoffending 

parent, he had several domestic violence incidents with mother. Son’s half sister recalled 

several times witnessing father punching mother while mother was holding son, and 

while father did not strike son, he could have harmed him when he struck mother. Father 

did not think of son’s safety or the emotional impact witnessing domestic violence would 

have on him.

Although father had consistently visited son, father had not shown any behavioral 

changes and still did not accept responsibility for his part in why his family was involved 

with child welfare services. The department was concerned that if legal guardianship 

were ordered, father would not consistently visit as he admitted to not visiting son 

because he did not want to pay a third-party supervisory fee.

At the outset of the February 28, 2024 section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court 

explained why it denied the section 388 petition without a hearing: “I believe the Court 

did that because the information attached was—it predated the time that services were 

terminated or weren’t signed by the [department]. So I didn’t find that there was a 

showing of any changed circumstances from the date that the services were terminated. 

In that, again, they—they predated, so there was not any new information.”

Father and the social worker testified at the hearing. Father said he tried to visit 

son between August 2022 and May 2023. When asked what efforts he made to visit, 

father testified he and mother communicated regularly through phone calls and text 

messages, and he sent mother money and had things delivered through a grocery store. 
11.

He could not visit mother’s house due to the active restraining order and mother told him 

she could not let him see son, so he submitted court documents.

Father denied refusing to pay for supervised visits and claimed he tried everything 

he could to see son. He testified he went to the visitation center right after the first 

dependency case closed, but “belongings” were “taken from [him] there,” and they told 

him his “visits [were] over with there” and not to come back. He claimed he asked for 

more visits, but the juvenile court told him he would have to “do the paperwork.”

Father was receiving one two-hour supervised visit per month. Father claimed son 

would run to him when he saw him, son liked to play with him, and they practiced 

“A-B-Cs, 1-2-3s, [and] singing,” looked at pictures, and talked. Father changed son’s 

diapers and brought him food and clothing. Father asserted son liked to go under the 

table to get his attention. Father denied being under the influence of any substances 

during visits and denied consuming marijuana before attending the August 2023 visit. 

Father claimed son would shut down whenever father told him the visit was ending and 

son said, “no,” when father said it was time to go home.

Social worker Sopheap Phang was assigned to the case in August 2023 and 

observed four visits. She testified that during each visit, son was “very reluctant” to 

approach father when son came into the room. Father was usually the one who 

approached son and greeted him. Typically, son would just smile at father and then turn 

his attention to the toys in the room and play by himself. While father attempted to 

engage son, son usually turned to father and smiled, but seldom responded. Generally, 

son would not respond to or look at father. Phang did not believe it would be detrimental 

to terminate parental rights, as father was a friendly visitor and while son was “very 

friendly” and responsive to anyone who came near him, son saw the visits as another 

scheduled activity, and he went home with no issues or signs of distress.

After hearing arguments of counsel, the juvenile court stated it reviewed the 

visitation portions of the July 11 and July 19, 2023 department reports that father’s 
12.

counsel asked it to judicially notice. It found by clear and convincing evidence that son 

was likely to be adopted. The court found father did not meet his burden of showing the 

beneficial parent/child relationship exception to adoption applied. The court 

acknowledged that father recently engaged in regular and consistent visitation, but he had 

not shown he had a strong, positive bond and relationship with son that would outweigh 

the security and sense of belonging son had in his relative placement and that relative 

placement could provide. While father improved their relationship, it appeared to be a 

friendly one and there was no evidence of a strong, positive bond, or a showing that 

severing the relationship would be detrimental to son. The court terminated parental 

rights and ordered adoption as son’s permanent plan.

DISCUSSION

Father only challenges the denial of his February 2024 section 388 petition. He 

contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in summarily denying the petition 

because he met his prima facie pleading burden to obtain a hearing on his request for 

reunification services. He asserts the court erred in finding that there were not changed 

circumstances, as when the court explained the reason for its denial at the section 366.26 

hearing, it incorrectly stated that father’s services had been terminated and the certificates 

attached to his section 388 petition predated the termination of services. Father argues 

the record instead shows he never received services and at least some of the certificates 

attached to his petition postdated the denial of services. He further asserts he sufficiently 

pled how reunification services would be in son’s best interest.

Standard of Review

We review the juvenile court’s decision to summarily deny a section 388 petition 

without a hearing for abuse of discretion. (In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 

1158.) “ ‘To show abuse of discretion, the appellant must demonstrate the juvenile court 

exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd manner that resulted 

in a miscarriage of justice.’ ” (In re Elizabeth M. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 768, 780.)
13.

Father complains about the juvenile court’s stated reason for denying the petition. 

But “ ‘[w]e uphold judgments if they are correct for any reason, “regardless of the 

correctness of the grounds upon which the court reached its conclusion.” [Citation.] “It 

is judicial action and not judicial reasoning which is the subject of review ....” ’ 

[Citation.] We will not reverse for error unless it appears reasonably probable that, 

absent the error, the appellant would have obtained a more favorable result.” (In re 

Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 876; see In re D.O. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 166, 

176–177.)

Standard for Setting a Hearing on a Section 388 Petition

“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 ....” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) “Section 388 ... gives the court two choices: 

(1) summarily deny the petition or (2) hold a hearing.” (In re Lesly G. (2008) 

162 Cal.App.4th 904, 912.) “The parent need only make a prima facie showing to trigger

the right to proceed by way of a full hearing.” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 

310.) Although a section 388 petition should be liberally construed in favor of granting a 

hearing to consider the request, a hearing is only required if the moving party makes a 

prima facie showing both of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would 

promote the best interest of the child. (See In re Edward H. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 584, 

592–593.) “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.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806.) The juvenile court may 

consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case in deciding whether to grant 

a hearing on a petition under section 388. (In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 

189.)
14.

Father Has Not Shown an Abuse of Discretion

Father asserts the juvenile court’s stated reason for denying the section 388 

petition was incorrect because father never received reunification services in this case, 

and he completed some of the classes after the August 2024 disposition hearing. We 

need not decide whether the court erred in finding there was no prima facie showing of 

changed circumstances because father failed to make a prima facie showing that granting 

the section 388 petition and providing reunification services to him was in son’s best 

interest.3

Parent and child share a fundamental interest in reuniting up to the point at which 

reunification efforts cease. (In re R.H. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 678, 697, disapproved on 

another ground in John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 98–100.) By the point of 

a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a child’s permanent plan, however, “the 

interests of the parent and [the] child have diverged.” (Cynthia D. v. Superior Court

(1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 254.) Therefore, after reunification efforts have terminated the 

court’s focus shifts from family reunification toward promoting the child’s needs for 

permanency and stability. (In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 309.) This is a 

3 The department contends that because father was not ordered reunification 

services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12), as he was convicted of a violent felony, 

the juvenile court could only modify the order denying reunification services if there was 

clear and convincing evidence that services would be in son’s best interest and it made 

the findings required to offer services at the disposition hearing, citing In re G.B., supra,

227 Cal.App.4th at p. 1157. That case, however, involved the bypass of services based 

on severe physical abuse under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(6)(A). We decline to 

extend the holding of In re G.B. to the bypass of services under section 361.5, 

subdivision (b)(12). California Rules of Court, rule 5.570(h)(1)(C), which applies to the 

conduct of hearings on section 388 petitions, provides that the petitioner must show by 

clear and convincing evidence that the proposed change is in the child’s best interest only 

if services were not ordered under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(4), (5) or (6). The rule 

of court does not apply to the bypass of services under other provisions. In addition, 

under either standard, father has not shown it is in son’s best interest for father to receive 

reunification services.
15.

difficult burden to meet when reunification services have been terminated or never 

ordered. (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 464.)4 This is because, “[a]fter the 

termination of reunification services [or bypass of services], a parent’s interest in the 

care, custody and companionship of the child is no longer paramount.” (Ibid.) In fact, 

there is a rebuttable presumption continued foster care is in the child’s best interest. 

(Ibid.) Such presumption applies with even greater strength when adoption is the 

permanent plan. (Ibid.) “A court hearing a motion for change of placement at this stage 

of the proceedings must recognize this shift of focus in determining the ultimate question 

before it, that is, the best interests of the child.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 

295, 317.)

When father filed his section 388 petition, after the juvenile court ordered services 

bypassed in July 2023 and shortly before the section 366.26 hearing, son’s interest in 

stability was the juvenile court’s foremost concern, outweighing any interest in 

reunification. The prospect of allowing father reunification services to see if he would 

and could do what was required to regain custody would not have promoted stability for 

son, and thus would not have promoted his best interest. (In re Angel B., supra,

97 Cal.App.4th at p. 464.)

Son only lived with father for the first five months of his life. After he was 

returned to mother’s custody in August 2022, at 20 months old, father did not take the 

opportunity to visit although visits were ordered. By June 2023, when father first visited 

after this case began, father was a virtual stranger to son who was then two and a half 

years old. Since that time, father only had supervised visitation. Although father 

commendably attended visits consistently, the visitation notes show that son, who began 

4 Father emphasizes that the juvenile court incorrectly stated that his reunification 

services were terminated, rather than that they were never ordered. Given that son’s 

interest in stability is the court’s foremost concern regardless of whether reunification 

services are terminated or never ordered, this is a distinction without a difference.
16.

to react positively toward father during his last three visits, did not appear bonded to 

father and separated easily from him. Son had resided with maternal grandmother, the 

prospective adoptive parent, for a far greater time than he lived with father. Granting 

father reunification services would only prolong son’s adoption into a stable and loving 

home. The social worker noted that son was very close with maternal grandmother, who 

doted on him, and she was meeting son’s needs.

Father’s section 388 petition asserted granting the petition was in son’s best 

interest because son enjoyed visits, father could provide a safe, stable home environment, 

and father could meet his emotional and material needs because he had stable housing, 

income, and family support. These allegations, however, are conclusory, and are not a 

factual showing that granting reunification services would promote son’s best interest. 

(In re Ramone R. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1348, 1349 [“allegations of her 

[section 388] petition were to be liberally construed, but conclusory claims are 

insufficient to require a hearing”].) Father’s petition offered no evidence of the nature of 

his bond with son.

On the issue of best interest, father relies on three cases where the appellate court 

found the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying a section 388 petition without a 

hearing. Every case must be decided on its own unique facts, and the cited cases are 

distinguishable and not controlling. In In re Aljamie D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 424, the 

issue was whether the mother’s section 388 petition showed that a modification of the 

placement order would be in the children’s best interests. (Id. at p. 432.) The department 

conceded the petition stated a change of circumstance as the mother had completed 

classes and tested clean for two years since the initial finding she was arrested under the 

influence of drugs. (Ibid.) The appellate court held the mother’s petition showed the 

children’s best interests potentially would be advanced by her proposed 60-day visit and 

eventual change of the placement order, as the children, who were nine and 11 years old, 

repeatedly made clear their first choice was to live with their mother. (Ibid.)
17.

In contrast to son, who was only three years old, the children in Aljamie D. were 

older, fully cognizant of their desires, and repeatedly expressed they wished to live with 

their mother. Moreover, adoption was not being considered as an option in that case. 

(In re Aljamie D., supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 429.) Here, son, who was too young to 

give a meaningful statement on his desire, was, by all accounts, stable and doing well in a 

home where he was deemed likely to enjoy the permanence of adoption.

The other two cases, In re Josiah S. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 403 and In re 

Hashem H. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1791, address only whether the mothers’ section 388 

petitions adequately alleged changed circumstances, not whether they adequately alleged 

the children’s best interests. In Josiah S., the mother submitted medical reports with her 

postpermanency section 388 petition that called into question the basis for jurisdiction, 

and since the appellate court was remanding the case so a contested postpermanency 

review hearing could be held, the appellate court set aside the summary denial of the 

section 388 petition. (Josiah S., at pp. 419‒420.) In Hashem H., the appellate court 

concluded the mother made an adequate prima facie showing of changed circumstances 

where she alleged she completed individual therapy “which was so successful that her 

therapist recommended Hashem be returned to her custody.” (Hashem H., at p. 1799.) 

Under those circumstances the petition “made an adequate showing that she could 

demonstrate at a hearing that she had overcome her problems through conscientious and 

successful individual and conjoint counseling over a lengthy period of time,” and “that 

she maintained a consistent relationship with her son.” (Id. at p. 1800.)

In contrast to these cases, father is not challenging jurisdiction, and the evidence 

submitted with the petition does not show that he has overcome the problems that 

resulted in him being unable to obtain custody of son. The main obstacle to father 

receiving custody or services was his lack of bond with son. Father asserts son enjoys 

visits, but son is not bonded to him. Since the current focus is on permanency, that son 
18.

enjoys visits is insufficient to show that providing father with reunification services 

would be in son’s best interest.

In sum, given “the entire factual and procedural history of the case,” we cannot 

find that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying a hearing, as father’s petition 

did not make a prima facie case that the requested relief was in son’s best interest. (In re

Justice P., supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 189.)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s orders, including the order summarily denying the section 388 

petition, are affirmed.