Filed 9/16/26 In re S.B. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re S.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law.
FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES, F090806
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 25CEJ300050-1)
v.
R.B., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly J.
Nystrom-Geist, Judge.
R.B., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Douglas T. Sloan, County Counsel, and Lisa R. Flores, Deputy County Counsel,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On October 20, 2025, R.B. (petitioner) petitioned the juvenile court for access to
his granddaughter’s, S.B.’s, case file by filing a Judicial Council form JV-570 (Petition
for Access to Juvenile Case File) that requested the reporter’s transcript for the juvenile
hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.1 (See § 827).
Petitioner asserted that he needed the transcript for meaningful appellate review in his
prior appeal (In re S.B. (May 19, 2026, F090501) [nonpub. opn.])2 to demonstrate that he
was denied equal protection of the laws when other relatives were permitted access to the
juvenile hearing, but he was not permitted to attend.
The juvenile court denied the petition on November 4, 2025, concluding that
petitioner had failed to show good cause for the release of the records. Petitioner then
filed a Judicial Council form JV-180 (Request to Change Court Order) on November 6,
2025, requesting modification of the court’s November 4, 2025 order and asserting that
he was not required to demonstrate changed circumstances. Petitioner alleged that the
request was pursuant to section 385, which permits a court to reconsider previous orders
despite the absence of a section 388 petition establishing changed circumstances.
Petitioner argued that other relatives, including S.B.’s aunt and grandmother, “have had
access to all of the information requested” because “they have been allowed access to the
proceedings from the start.” Additionally, petitioner argued that maintaining a
relationship with him was in S.B.’s best interests and he had valuable insight into the
parties involved in S.B.’s case.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 On February 23, 2026, petitioner filed a request that we take judicial notice of our records
in In re S.B., supra, F090501. We grant this request. (See Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459; Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.252.)
2.
The juvenile court denied the request on November 7, 2025, because it did not
state new evidence or a change in circumstances and did not promote the best interests of
S.B.
Petitioner filed this timely appeal on November 25, 2025.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner raises two issues in this appeal: (1) the juvenile court’s denial of his
request for the section 300 hearing reporter’s transcript violated his right to equal
protection because other similarly situated relatives were permitted access to the
information by their attendance at the hearing; and (2) the transcript was necessary for
meaningful appellate review of his prior appeal.
We affirm.
I. Petitioner has failed to show that the juvenile court’s denial of his request for
access to the transcript of S.B.’s original hearing violated his right to equal
protection.
A. Applicable Law
1) Juvenile Record Request
The Legislature has expressly stated that “juvenile court records, in general,
should be confidential.” (§ 827, subd. (b)(1).) “Thus, section 827 restricts access to the
case file in a juvenile proceeding. That section lists persons entitled to inspect the file
without a court order, and a smaller number of persons who are also entitled to receive
copies of the file without a court order. (§ 827, subd. (a)(1), (5); [Cal. Rules of Court,]
rule 5.552(b)(1).)” (In re B.F. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 811, 818.) Although anyone may
petition the juvenile court to inspect or copy the case file, grandparents are not included
as persons who are entitled to do so without a court order. (§ 827, subd. (a)(1); Cal.
Rules of Court,3 rule 5.552(b)(3), (c).) Section 827, however, permits disclosure of
juvenile court records to certain persons, including any “person who may be designated
3 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
3.
by court order of the judge of the juvenile court upon filing a petition.” (§ 827,
subd. (a)(1)(Q); see In re B.F., at p. 818.)
The petitioner must identify the “specific file sought” and “describe in detail the
reasons the file is being sought and its relevance to the proceeding or other purpose for
which petitioner wishes to inspect or obtain the files.” (Rule 5.552(a)(1), (2).) The
petitioner seeking access to the records bears the burden to show good cause justifying
such access. (Rule 5.552(c)(1), (2).) The petitioner has the burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that “the records requested are necessary and have
substantial relevance to the legitimate need of the petitioner.” (Rule 5.552(c)(6).) “[I]f
the court determines that there may be information or documents in the records sought to
which the petitioner may be entitled, the juvenile court judicial officer must conduct an in
camera review of the juvenile … case file and any objections and assume that all legal
claims of privilege are asserted.” (Rule 5.552(c)(3).)
To determine whether to grant the petition, the court “must balance the interests of
the child and other parties to the juvenile court proceedings, the interests of the petitioner,
and the interests of the public.” (Rule 5.552(c)(4).) “[T]he court must find that the need
for access outweighs the policy considerations favoring confidentiality of the juvenile …
case file” to grant the petition. (Rule 5.552(c)(5).) If the petitioner shows by a
preponderance of the evidence that the requested records are “necessary and have
substantial relevance to the legitimate need of the petitioner,” the court may grant access
to the case file “only insofar as is necessary.” (Rule 5.552(c)(6).)
Any person having an interest in the child may petition the juvenile court for a
hearing to modify an earlier order based on changed circumstances or new evidence.
(§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The petitioning party bears the burden of showing by a
preponderance of the evidence that there is new evidence or changed circumstances and
the modification would be in the best interests of the child. (In re Stephanie M. (1994)
7 Cal.4th 295, 317.)
4.
2) Equal Protection
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides
in relevant part: “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.” The guarantees of equal protection embodied in the Fourteenth
Amendment prohibit the state from arbitrarily discriminating among persons subject to its
jurisdiction. (In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 198.) The United States
Supreme Court has recognized that the question whether the state has wrongfully denied
one class of defendants a substantial benefit available to another class of defendants is
assessed under the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. (M.L.B. v.
S.L.J. (1996) 519 U.S. 102, 120.)
B. Analysis
We are also not persuaded by petitioner’s contention that he was deprived of equal
protection of the laws by the juvenile court’s order denying him the reporter’s transcript
of S.B.’s section 300 hearing. “ ‘ “The concept of the equal protection of the laws
compels recognition of the proposition that persons similarly situated with respect to the
legitimate purpose of the law receive like treatment.” ’ ” (In re Eric J. (1979) 25 Cal.3d
522, 531.) Equal protection rights are implicated where the state has adopted “a
classification that affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner.”
(Id. at p. 530.) In this case, the juvenile court applied section 827 and rule 5.552, which
do not purport to distinguish the good cause showing necessary for access to the records
based upon a classification of the individual making the request. The juvenile court
concluded that petitioner had failed to demonstrate good cause for access to the transcript
and thereafter concluded that petitioner failed to establish sufficiently changed
circumstances. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the juvenile court applied the
incorrect legal standard in reviewing his request, which did not include a determination of
5.
whether other family members had access to the information.4 The record does not show
the juvenile court adopted a procedure for classification that affected petitioner in an
unequal manner or denied him the same protection of the laws enjoyed by relatives in
like circumstances. (See In re Joshua M. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 458, 473.) Equal
protection rights are only implicated where the state has adopted “a classification that
affects two or more similarly situated groups in an unequal manner” (In re Eric J., supra,
25 Cal.3d at p. 530), and the court record does not support petitioner’s contention that
such occurred here.
II. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioner’s request for
S.B.’s section 300 hearing reporter’s transcript.
The court did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioner’s request to change its
prior order, nor in denying petitioner’s original request for the section 300 hearing
reporter’s transcript. On appeal, we consider the juvenile court’s order based on
established principles of appellate review. “Generally, a juvenile court has broad and
exclusive authority to determine whether and to what extent to grant access to
confidential juvenile records pursuant to section 827. [Citations.] Review of a juvenile
court’s decision to release juvenile records under section 827 is for abuse of discretion.”
(In re Elijah S. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1532, 1541.) A court abuses its discretion when,
in exercising such discretion, it exceeds the bounds of reason, considering all of the
circumstances before it. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 566.)
Petitioner bears the burden of establishing an abuse of discretion; this court will not
4 Being incarcerated in prison, petitioner could not attend hearings in person. However,
rules 3.672 and 5.530 permit specific individuals to request permission of the court to appear
remotely. Although petitioner argues that the juvenile court did not allow him to attend the
juvenile hearings, the court record contains no formal request of petitioner to attend, nor any
order denying such request. (See, e.g., Judicial Council form RA-025 [Request to Appear
Remotely-Juvenile Dependency].) Additionally, rule 5.530(e) provides for individuals to be
present if requested by the parent or guardian and deemed by the court to have a direct and
legitimate interest in the case or the work of the court. Petitioner has failed to show that he was
similarly situated to other relatives who attended the hearing pursuant to this rule.
6.
substitute its opinion for that of the juvenile court and divest the juvenile court of its
discretionary power unless petitioner shows a clear case of abuse. (Denham, at p. 566;
Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609; Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 331.)
In his prior appeal, petitioner argued that the juvenile court’s actions deprived him
of equal protection of the laws and the section 300 hearing reporter’s transcript was
necessary for him to establish that other relatives had access to juvenile court information
and he did not. We denied petitioner’s motion to augment and correct the record in that
appeal to include the reporter’s transcript of S.B.’s section 300 hearing because petitioner
failed to demonstrate that he was present at the hearing or otherwise entitled to it. (In re
S.B., supra, F090501.) We denied petitioner’s request for judicial notice of the instant
appeal in that case because petitioner failed to demonstrate that the transcript was
relevant to a dispositive issue in his earlier appeal and concluded that petitioner’s equal
protection argument was not properly raised in that appeal. (Ibid.)
In light of our disposition of petitioner’s earlier appeal, we cannot conclude that
the juvenile court’s denial of petitioner’s request for the section 300 hearing reporter’s
transcript or to change its order exceeded the bounds of reason.
7.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s November 7, 2025 order denying petitioner’s request for a
modification of its November 4, 2025 order is affirmed.
HILL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
FRANSON, J.
DESANTOS, J.
8.