David L. v. Superior Court

David L. (father) challenges the juvenile court’s order setting a new permanent plan selection and implementation hearing (26 hearing; see Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26; all further unlabeled statutory references are to this code), after now seven-year-old Naomi L. had been under her maternal grandmother’s guardianship for more than a year. Father contends the juvenile court erred by not requiring Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) or Ruby K. (grandmother) to file a section 388 modification petition seeking the new .26 hearing. Father also argues the juvenile court erred by utilizing a prima facie rather than preponderance of the evidence standard in determining whether to set the new hearing. Tina L. (mother) similarly filed a separate writ petition and joins in father’s contentions.

Following In re Andrea R. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1093 [ 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 664 ] (Andrea R.), we conclude father’s arguments are without merit because section 366.3, which provides for a new .26 hearing for children under guardianship, does not require a modification petition. Nor does it require the juvenile court to employ the preponderance standard. Accordingly, we deny the writ…