In re S.P. CA1/2

Filed 3/22/21 In re S.P. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re S.P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

LAKE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, A160631 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Lake County Super. Ct. No. JV320539) A.N., Defendant and Appellant.

At a family maintenance review hearing in this dependency, the juvenile court ordered the minor, S.P., placed with his father and family enhancement services for his mother, appellant A.N. (mother). Mother argues that a supplemental petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3871 was required to effect this change in placement and that her right to due process was violated at the hearing. We affirm. BACKGROUND On August 9, 2018, the Lake County Department of Social Services (Department) initiated these dependency proceedings with respect to then 19-

Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 1

Institutions Code.

1

month-old S.P. by filing a petition in the juvenile court pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1) and (g). The petition alleged that mother had untreated mental health issues and a history of engaging in domestic violence with S.P.’s father. On November 18, 2019, at a 12-month-review hearing, the juvenile court ordered S.P. returned to his parents’ care under a plan of family maintenance. On February 27, 2020, the Department filed a Request To Change Court Order pursuant to section 388, alleging that on February 2, a domestic violence incident took place between the parents with S.P. present, precipitated by mother’s non-compliance with her mental health therapy and medication. The request indicated that S.P. had been temporarily placed with his maternal grandmother, that father moved in with his sister and brother-in-law, and that S.P. then went to live with him. The Department asked the juvenile court to terminate maintenance services for mother and instead offer her enhancement services, while continuing family maintenance services for father. Because the Department sought the same relief at an upcoming family maintenance review hearing, i.e., family maintenance services for father and enhancement services for mother, the Department later withdrew its section 388 petition. The family maintenance review hearing ultimately took place on July 1. At the hearing, mother’s counsel argued that switching mother from maintenance to enhancement services would amount to a detention such that the Department was required to file a supplemental petition pursuant to section 387. After hearing argument, the juvenile court rejected this argument, concluding that “the father has the child, so it’s not a custody—it’s not a detention.” The juvenile court then ordered enhancement services for