P.G.

P.G. v. Superior Court CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 1, 2022B319064California3,222 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioners P.G. (mother) and J.C. (father) each petition for extraordinary relief from the juvenile court’s order terminating reunification services and setting the matter for a permanency planning hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 Dependency proceedings were first filed in 2014. After an unsuccessful reunification period, paternal grandparents were named legal guardians to minors L.C. and N.C. in 2016. Five years later, father and mother successfully sought reinstatement of reunification services by way of a section 388 petition. After 10 months, the juvenile court again terminated reunification services, finding it was not in the children’s best interests to continue the renewed reunification efforts. We find no error and deny mother’s and father’s petitions.

Unless otherwise specified, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Prior Dependency Proceedings and Reinstatement of Reunification Services In 2014, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed section 300 petitions against mother and father on behalf of two-year-old L.C. and her…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.