## Facts

- Dependency jurisdiction was based on domestic violence between the parents, which was the sole basis for the sustained petition concerning J.M.
- After reunification services were terminated, Mother pursued modification under Welfare and Institutions Code § 388, seeking either placement of J.M. with her or additional reunification services.
- Mother presented evidence she had addressed the domestic-violence problem and other concerns raised during the case, including completing domestic-violence-related programs, parenting education, and individual therapy.
- Mother separated from Father, obtained a restraining order, and showed stability in housing and employment.
- Visitation reports described positive visits and a strong bond; J.M. supported reunification efforts and joined Mother’s first § 388 petition.
- The juvenile court denied Mother’s § 388 petitions and later, at a § 366.26 hearing, selected adoption and terminated Mother’s parental rights.
- Mother appealed the denials of the § 388 petitions and the resulting § 366.26 termination/adoption order.

## Issues

1. Whether Mother established a substantial change of circumstances under Welfare and Institutions Code § 388 by resolving the domestic violence underlying jurisdiction and addressing related concerns.
2. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in concluding the requested modification (placement with Mother or additional services) was not in J.M.’s best interests.
3. Whether the § 366.26 order selecting adoption and terminating parental rights could stand given the challenged § 388 rulings.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the orders denying Mother’s § 388 petitions and reversed the § 366.26 order terminating parental rights and selecting adoption.
- The court held the juvenile court committed reversible error in denying modification because Mother proved a substantial change in circumstances by resolving the domestic violence that formed the basis for jurisdiction.
- The court held the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding modification was not in J.M.’s best interests, given Mother’s rehabilitation, the child’s relationship with Mother, and J.M.’s expressed wish to live with her.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including granting the § 388 petition and reconsidering the permanent plan in light of the corrected § 388 analysis.

## Legal Principles

- A parent may seek postdisposition modification under Welfare and Institutions Code § 388 by proving (1) changed circumstances or new evidence and (2) that the proposed change serves the child’s best interests.
- When jurisdiction rests solely on domestic violence, completion of relevant services, separation from the abusive partner, and demonstrated stability may constitute a substantial change in circumstances rather than merely changing circumstances.
- Although permanency and stability are paramount once reunification services have ended, § 388 functions as a statutory mechanism for reconsideration when material rehabilitation is shown; the permanency preference does not justify disregarding significant evidence of change and a meaningful parent-child bond.
- Denial of a § 388 petition is reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversal is warranted where the juvenile court misapplies the governing standards or reaches an unreasonable conclusion on the evidentiary record.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal reversed the denial of Mother’s § 388 petitions and the termination/adoption order because Mother demonstrated substantial changed circumstances resolving the domestic-violence basis for jurisdiction and showed that modification, considering J.M.’s bond and stated wishes, was in the child’s best interests.


In re J.M., 50 Cal. App. 5th 833 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)