In re J.M.

Summary

The Department of Child and Family Services (DCSF) received allegations of general neglect of then two month old J.M., Jr. by Y.C. (Mother) and J.M. (Father) after Mother called a relative to report abuse from Father. Mother recanted once police arrived. DCFS successfully petitioned for jurisdiction based on Mother and Father's history of violent altercations. Mother was granted reunification services, however visitation was rescinded over Mother's objections following reports of a hazardous environment. J.M. was also diagnosed with developmental issues and was undergoing treatment. Despite Mother's positive progress during the reunification period, reunification was canceled when she violated the court's no-contact order regarding Father. Mother filed an unsuccessful petition challenging the cancelation. Afterwards, she sought to modify the termination order to place J.M. with her or allow further reunification services through a petition supported by J.M.'s counsel, social workers and caregivers. The petition was denied due to issues with Mother's credibility and ability to care for J.M.'s special needs and J.M. was deemed adoptable. Mother appealed, contending that placement with her was in J.M.'s best interest.

Reversed. Welfare and Institutions Code Section 388 places the burden on petitioner to show by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that there is new evidence or a change of circumstances and (2) that the proposed modification would be in the best interests of the child. In re Mickel O. Here, the panel noted that Mother offered substantial evidence that she had resolved the domestic violence issues underlying the initial dependency petition. She showed no contact with Father for over a year and completed all domestic violence training. Moreover, no evidence suggested that Mother was or had been in another potentially violent or abusive relationship. Following the best interest analysis established in In re Kimberly F., the panel determined that Mother simply failing to immediately break free from the cycle of abuse did not render it in J.M.'s best interests to deny him the opportunity to be raised with his biological mother. The panel also refused the notion that concerns of Mother's mental health and ability to care for J.M. meant that placement with Mother was not in J.M.'s best interest.

— Khelya Okunor