Filed 6/17/26 Jillian T. v. Superior Court 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JILLIAN T.,
Petitioner, F091321
v. (Super. Ct. No. JV8577)
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TUOLUMNE
COUNTY, OPINION
Respondent;
TUOLUMNE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
SOCIAL SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Hallie Gorman
Campbell, Judge.
Jillian T., in pro. per., for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Christopher Schmidt, Acting County Counsel; Gordon-Creed, Kelley, Holl, &
Sugerman, Jeremy Sugerman and Anne H. Nguyen for Real Party in Interest.
-ooOoo-
* Before Peña, Acting P. J., DeSantos, J. and Guerra, J.
Petitioner Jillian T. (mother), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal.
Rules of Court,1 rule 8.452) from orders made at a disposition hearing (Welf. & Inst.
Code,2 §§ 358, 361), where the juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing for June 22,
2026, as to her minor daughter, G.B. She also seeks a stay of the section 366.26 hearing.
We deny the petition and the request for a stay.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 13, 2025, mother was in Redwood City in San Mateo County settling
the affairs of her grandmother, who had recently passed away. While staying in her late
grandmother’s house with G.B. in her care, she called law enforcement because she
believed the house was on fire and someone was in the attic.
When local law enforcement responded, they did not find evidence the house was
on fire or that there were people in the house; they initially believed that mother was
under the influence of illegal substances, but she reported she had been sober from
substances for 10 months and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Law enforcement
observed scratches on then five-month-old G.B.’s chest, and mother reported they were
self-inflicted by G.B.’s nails, as she had been scared to cut them. Mother reported she
and G.B. were sleeping on the floor of the house, and that they lived in Twain Harte in
Tuolumne County with G.B.’s father3 and would be returning there.
1 All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court.
2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
3 Mother later reported to the department she did not know where G.B.’s father was
and that he did not have a relationship with G.B. The department’s efforts to locate him
were unsuccessful, and his whereabouts remained unknown throughout the proceedings.
He remained an alleged father, is not a party to this writ proceeding, and to our
knowledge has not challenged any orders separately. For the most part, we omit facts
pertaining to him.
2.
Law enforcement knew the home as a “tweaker” house; they reported the home
was unkept and smelled of urine and an odor consistent with drug use and observed a
marijuana pipe next to the formula scooper. They made a referral alleging general
neglect of G.B. to San Mateo County Child Protective Services, who in turn cross-
reported the information to the Tuolumne County Department of Social Services
(department).
The following day, department social workers made an unannounced visit to
mother’s residence in Soulsbyville, Tuolumne County with the assistance of the
Tuolumne County Sheriff’s Department. An individual, who identified himself as
mother’s roommate, was standing in the driveway. He reported he was outside to “chase
people off” because mother had reported seeing footprints. Neither the social workers
nor law enforcement observed any footprints.
The social workers next made contact with mother and observed her to be
“emotionally dysregulated and afraid.” Mother reported there were people who lived in
the attic of her grandmother’s house in Redwood City who were harassing her, but the
social workers were unable to confirm this was true. Mother provided a video she
purported depicted one of the individuals, and the reporting social worker believed the
individual bore a strong resemblance to mother. Mother indicated voices could be heard
in the white noise of the video, but the social worker could not hear them. Mother denied
substance use aside from marijuana.
Mother signed a safety plan where she agreed to (1) ask family friends to take care
of G.B. while she worked to stabilize her living situation, either in the home in
Soulsbyville or the home in Redwood City, and her mental health; (2) engage with
behavioral health professionals by the end of October 15, 2025; (3) refrain from
substance use; (4) submit to drug testing by the end of October 14, 2025; (5) engage with
the department; and (6) not allow contact with G.B.’s father until his safety could be
assessed. Mother gathered belongings for G.B. from the residence, and the family
3.
friends, who were G.B.’s godparents as well as adoptive parents to G.B.’s sibling, picked
up G.B.
Later that day, mother submitted to a drug test in accordance with the safety plan
and informed the social worker she had taken ecstasy the prior weekend. Mother further
reported she was having great concerns for her own mental health and was not sure if the
individuals in her grandmother’s house were real. She stated she was not in a safe
mindset to care for G.B. and expressed gratitude for social worker assistance. She
reported that she would be going to Tuolumne County Behavioral Health following the
drug test but later reported difficulty with accessing an intake session.
The department reported on and later requested the juvenile court to take judicial
notice of mother’s prior dependency case commencing in 2016 regarding G.B.’s half
sibling A.T. A.T. was born with amphetamines in her system. At the time, mother
denied illicit substance use but tested positive for methamphetamine and THC prior to
delivery. A.T. suffered from withdrawal symptoms, was placed in protective custody,
and a dependency petition was filed alleging general neglect due to substance abuse.
Mother was ordered to comply with a dependency drug court family reunification case
plan but failed to reunify with A.T. Mother’s parental rights were terminated, and A.T.
was adopted.
On October 16, 2025, the department learned that mother was attempting to pick
G.B. up from her godparents and take her out of county in violation of the safety plan and
that mother’s drug test had been confirmed positive for methamphetamine and
amphetamine. The department sought a protective custody warrant for G.B. due to
mother’s drug use, mental health concerns, and “overall instability.” The warrant was
signed, and the social worker informed mother that they would be taking G.B. into
protective custody. Mother was emotional but inquired about what she needed to do.
The social worker told her to focus on her mental health and sobriety. Mother again
stated that she would be going to Tuolumne County Behavioral Health and planned to
4.
stay in the area at the Soulsbyville residence. The social worker encouraged her to reach
out if she needed assistance with obtaining mental health services. The family G.B. was
staying with expressed they were unable to take care of G.B. long term but wanted to stay
in her life and continue fostering the connection between her and her sibling. G.B. was
placed in another approved resource family home in Tuolumne County.
That same day, the department filed a petition on behalf of G.B., alleging she
came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1)
(failure to protect), (g) (no provision for support), and (j) (abuse of sibling). The petition
alleged that G.B. had suffered or was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical
harm or illness by mother’s inability to provide adequate care due to her substance abuse
and mental illness. It further alleged that G.B.’s father had left G.B. without any
provision for support as attempts to contact him were unsuccessful. Finally, it alleged
that G.B. was at risk due to her parents’ neglect of her siblings. The petition referenced
mother’s failed reunification with A.T. and also alleged that three of father’s children had
been removed from his custody due to neglect and were either adopted or placed with
their mother. The petition, as well as the department’s detention report, listed mother’s
address as the residence in Soulsbyville, Tuolumne County.
The detention hearing was conducted on October 21, 2025. Mother was present
and represented by counsel. Mother’s attorney indicated mother had no corrections to be
made to the face of the department’s report, denied the allegations, and submitted for
detention purposes. The juvenile court found notice was proper and that G.B.’s legal
residence was Tuolumne County, ordered G.B. to remain detained, and set a jurisdiction
hearing. The court advised mother to keep her mailing address updated with the court,
the social worker, and her attorney; and that the court would presume her address was
correct unless she formally changed it. Mother had executed and returned to the social
worker, who subsequently filed a “NOTIFICATION OF MAILING ADDRESS” (JV-
140) form, but the section for the mailing address was blank.
5.
Following the detention hearing, mother expressed intentions to follow through
with voluntary services. She drug tested on October 24, 2025, which returned positive
results for THC, and on October 29, 2025, which returned positive results for
methamphetamine and amphetamine. She also attended four visits with G.B. She spoke
to the social worker on November 5, 2025, and reported that she had attended a
behavioral health intake appointment and had signed up for an online addiction treatment
program and reported attending AA meetings but did not provide proof when asked for it.
Around the time of this conversation, however, mother effectively stopped participating
in the case. She had stopped calling in to see if she was on the drug testing schedule after
her test on October 29, and on November 7, she informed G.B.’s care provider she would
miss the visit scheduled for that day because she was late returning from Redwood City,
but she did not inform the social worker or respond to attempts to contact her.
Mother initially set the jurisdiction hearing for contest, but at the time of the
contested hearing on December 2, 2025, decided to submit. Mother was present and
represented by counsel. The juvenile court advised mother of her rights to a trial, and she
waived them on the record. The court found notice was proper, G.B.’s legal residence
was Tuolumne County, the allegations set forth in the petition were true as alleged, and
G.B. was described by section 300, subdivisions (b), (g), and (j), and set a disposition
hearing.
Following the jurisdiction hearing, mother had limited communication with the
social worker, did not participate in any services, and attended only one additional visit
with G.B. She did not make herself available to complete a psychosocial interview or a
statement for the court and was informed of, but did not attend, a child family team
meeting. G.B.’s godmother reported she had been texting with mother but had not heard
back, and when the social worker tried reaching mother in person at her Soulsbyville
residence, mother’s roommate stated she moved out and he believed she was in Redwood
City but did not have updated contact information for her.
6.
Meanwhile, G.B. was doing well in her placement; her care providers were willing
to adopt her if she was unable to reunify with her parents. The care providers and G.B.’s
sibling’s adoptive parents were often in contact, and the adoptive parents were willing to
maintain the sibling connection long term. The care provider also expressed a desire to
meet G.B.’s other siblings’ adoptive parents.
Ahead of the disposition hearing, the department recommended that the court
declare G.B. a dependent; order her to remain in out-of-home care; deny mother
reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11); and set a
section 366.26 hearing.4 The disposition report listed mother’s address in Soulsbyville.
At the initial disposition hearing on December 15, 2025, mother was present via
Zoom, and mother’s attorney confirmed no corrections needed to be made to the face of
the disposition report. Mother set the matter for contest. In the meantime, the
department reported that mother continued to have very limited contact with social
workers and still had not visited G.B. since November.
At a trial readiness hearing conducted on December 29, 2025, mother was present
via Zoom and represented by counsel. Mother’s attorney inquired about whether the case
should be transferred to San Mateo County, stating mother had been living at her
grandmother’s residence in Redwood City since October 29, 2025. Mother’s attorney
attributed mother’s missed drug tests and visits to the distance she had to travel to
participate in services. County counsel and minor’s counsel both objected to transfer of
the case prior to disposition. Mother then personally addressed the juvenile court and
4 Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11) authorize the denial of services to a
parent who has failed to reunify with another child (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10)) or whose
parental rights to another child were terminated (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(11)) if the court finds
that the parent “has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that
led to removal of the sibling or half sibling….” If the court finds a parent is described by
section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) or (11) it “shall not order reunification … unless the
court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best interest of
the child.” (§ 361.5, subd. (c)(2).)
7.
stated G.B. was residing in San Mateo County, not Tuolumne County at the time of
removal in mid-October. The court agreed to continue the matter and set a new contested
hearing date at mother’s request and asked the department to “look into whether they
think [the case] should be transferred.”
The contested disposition hearing commenced on January 21, 2026. Mother was
present via Zoom and represented by counsel. The juvenile court first requested an
update on the issue of transfer. County counsel argued a transfer would not be
appropriate or in G.B.’s best interests as the department was recommending mother be
bypassed for reunification services, and G.B. was placed in a local resource family home
that was a concurrent placement and connected to the child’s siblings, who had been
adopted and were residing locally. Minor’s counsel concurred with the department’s
position. Mother’s attorney argued that part of the reason why mother was not appearing
personally was because it was such a long trip and if the case were transferred, she would
be able to participate in drug testing and visit with G.B. Mother personally added that
she had been living in San Mateo County since September 1, 2025, G.B. had no
connections in Tuolumne County, and the department was aware of this from the
beginning of the case.
The juvenile court noted it had not received a motion for transfer on the mandatory
Judicial Council form, but even if it had, it was denying the request for transfer as it was
not in G.B.’s best interests. The court proceeded with the disposition hearing.
Mother testified on her behalf. She testified she was not using any illegal drugs
and had been sober since January 7, 2025, when she found out she was pregnant with
G.B. Mother had serious heart conditions and was taking multiple prescription
medications when G.B. was removed. She was informed that her medications could
cause false positives for MDMA and amphetamine, and the department never asked her if
she was taking any prescription medication.
8.
Mother further testified that she did not live in Tuolumne County, had not lived
there since September 1, 2025, and had informed the social workers of this multiple
times. When she requested help from the social workers regarding drug testing, they
informed her that she should try to find a place to stay nearby while the case was going
on. She tried to but was no longer able to afford the rent at her residence because her
cash aid was cancelled due to G.B.’s removal. She did not ask if she could drug test in
Redwood City. She had a vehicle but it was unreliable and she was not offered
transportation assistance. She said she talked to the foster parent about video visits; the
foster parent told mother she would ask the social worker, and the social worker said no.
The social worker testified that she first learned that mother lived in Redwood
City after the issue of transfer was brought up at the last hearing. The social worker
knew that mother was going back and forth between residences, but mother never
reported she had officially moved to Redwood City. Because the department was not
aware mother lived in Redwood City full-time nor that she had unreliable transportation,
they did not offer alternative options for drug testing or transportation assistance. The
social worker recalled hearing that mother had heart problems but was not aware she was
on medication. Normally, a parent would be asked about health issues during the
psychosocial interview, but mother did not complete an interview despite the social
worker making several attempts to schedule one.
The juvenile court continued the matter in part so the department could investigate
whether mother’s positive drug tests may have been false positives in light of her
testimony.
The department filed a second addendum to the disposition report detailing the
social worker’s multiple unsuccessful attempts to obtain information regarding mother’s
prescriptions. The department also reported it had discovered that G.B. needed a medical
procedure, and mother did not approve the procedure in a timely manner, causing the
social worker to obtain an ex parte order approving it. Mother missed all eight visits
9.
between the last hearing date and the writing of the addendum report and failed to follow
through with visiting G.B. at the hospital where she was having her procedure, which was
reportedly 45 minutes from where mother lived. The visits had been moved from
mornings to afternoons at mother’s request due to her report that she would have to drive
from Redwood City, and when the social worker sent mother a text telling her, the
message was indicated as read, but mother did not reply.
The second day of the disposition hearing was conducted on March 2, 2026.5 The
parties did not offer additional evidence and argued the matter. The arguments were
focused on whether mother should receive reunification services, with county counsel
and minor’s counsel arguing for bypass and mother’s attorney arguing for services.
The juvenile court found notice was proper, declared G.B. a dependent of the
court, and removed her from mother’s custody, finding there would be substantial danger
to G.B. if she were returned home and that she could not be protected without removal.
As for reunification services, the court found that reunification services had been
terminated in a previous dependency case and that mother had not made reasonable effort
to ameliorate the issues. The court further found that reunification was not in G.B.’s
best interests, citing that mother had not participated in the case. The court set a
section 366.26 hearing for June 22, 2026.
DISCUSSION
As a general proposition, a court’s rulings are presumed correct. (Denham v.
Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) A parent seeking review of the juvenile
court’s orders made at the setting hearing must file an extraordinary writ petition in this
court substantively addressing the specific issues to be challenged and supporting that
challenge by an adequate record. The purpose of such petitions is to allow the appellate
5 The hearing was supposed to occur on February 17, 2026, but the matter was
continued because no court reporter was available.
10.
court to achieve a substantive and meritorious review of the juvenile court’s findings and
orders issued at the setting hearing in advance of the section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26,
subd. (l)(4).)
We must first address the adequacy of mother’s petition. Rule 8.452 sets forth the
content requirements for an extraordinary writ petition, including that a petition “must be
accompanied by a memorandum,” which “must provide a summary of the significant
facts, limited to matters in the record”; “must state each point under a separate heading or
subheading summarizing the point and support each point by argument and citation of
authority”; and “must support any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the
record” and “explain the significance of any cited portion of the record and note any
disputed aspects of the record.” (Rule 8.452(a), (b)(1)-(3).)
We liberally construe a writ petition in favor of its adequacy where possible,
recognizing that a parent representing him or herself is not trained in the law. (See
rule 8.452(a)(1).) Nevertheless, the petitioner must at least articulate a claim of error and
support it by citations to the record. Failure to do so renders the petition inadequate in its
content and the reviewing court need not independently review the record for possible
error. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
Mother’s petition is sparse in, but not completely devoid of, legal authority,
citations to the record, and reasoned argument. We have reviewed mother’s petition in its
entirety, and in construing it in favor of its adequacy, we conclude mother has raised
three issues that merit some discussion: (1) sufficiency of the evidence to support the
findings underlying the removal order; (2) violation of due process for lack of notice; and
(3) improper denial of her oral request for transfer to San Mateo County. As for these
issues, as we explain in greater detail below, we conclude mother has not established
reversible error.
To the extent we do not expressly discuss any point raised in mother’s petition, we
have considered it and rejected it, likely on the grounds it did not state an adequate basis
11.
for reversal and/or was not supported by adequate citation to facts or legal authority.
(See People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629, 691, fn. 17.)
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence to Support Findings Underlying Removal
A dependent child shall not be taken from the physical custody of his or her
custodial parents unless, as relevant here, the juvenile court finds clear and convincing
evidence that: “[(1) t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health,
safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were
returned home, and [(2)] there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical
health can be protected without removing the minor from the minor’s parent’s …
physical custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) The court must also determine whether the
child welfare department made “reasonable efforts … to prevent or to eliminate the need
for removal of the minor from their home.” (§ 361, subd. (e).)
We review the juvenile court’s dispositional findings for substantial evidence,
bearing in mind the clear and convincing standard of proof. (See Conservatorship of
O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1011.) The question before us is “whether the record as a
whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have
found it highly probable that the fact was true.” (Ibid.) We “view the record in the light
most favorable to the [judgment] and give appropriate deference to how the trier of fact
may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and
drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.” (Id. at pp. 1011‒1012.)
Here, the juvenile court found true jurisdictional allegations that mother suffered
from substance abuse and mental health issues that affected her ability to care for G.B.
and put her at risk of physical harm or illness. Specifically, it was found true that mother
had a long history with methamphetamine use dating back to at least 2016 that she had
not sufficiently addressed and had mental health issues that may have included untreated
schizophrenia that affected her ability to accurately determine the safety of a given
situation. Mother waived her right to a hearing on the jurisdictional allegations and
12.
presented no evidence to dispute the facts set forth in the petition, which formed the basis
of the court’s findings.
Against this backdrop, by the time of the disposition hearing, mother had not
cooperated with or maintained reasonable contact with the department, failed to drug test
or provide proof she had made any efforts to stabilize or treat her mental health, and had
visited G.B. only a handful of times at the beginning of the case. Mother claimed she
was unable to participate in aspects of her voluntary case plan because she lived out of
the county but failed to provide any reasonable explanation for why she failed to maintain
contact with the department or seek to obtain the assistance she needed to engage in
services and visit with G.B. She also claimed her positive drug test results were due to
prescription medication she was taking, but when she was given the opportunity to
provide documentation to support this claim, she again evaded the department’s attempts
to contact her.
Based on the evidence before the juvenile court at the disposition hearing, it could
reasonably conclude mother was incapable of providing safe care of G.B., and its finding
that G.B. would be in substantial danger if returned to mother was supported by
substantial evidence. As mother was not cooperating or maintaining any meaningful
communication with the department, the juvenile court reasonably concluded there were
no reasonable alternatives to removal. Finally, the juvenile court reasonably concluded
that the department had made reasonable efforts to prevent removal as evidenced by their
initial attempt to enforce a safety plan without formal removal and the documentation of
their regular and consistent, but largely unsuccessful, attempts to make contact with
mother throughout the proceedings. In sum, the factual findings underlying the juvenile
court’s removal order under section 361 were supported by substantial evidence.
Mother’s assertions to support her contrary position are unavailing: she makes
bare assertions that G.B. was “healthy, safe, and thriving” in her care and that the
department “never contacted [her], never assessed [her] home, never verified the
13.
allegations, never explored alternatives, and never notified [her] of the removal.”
Mother’s assertions, in addition to not being supported by citations to the record, are
directly contradicted by the record.6
II. Alleged Improper Notice
Mother briefly contends that her right of due process was violated by “lack of
notice,” citing the juvenile court’s finding at the detention hearing that “Notice has been
given as required by law.” Mother has incorrectly interpreted the court’s finding as
referring, not to her notice of the hearing, but to her “notice” that G.B. had been taken
into protective custody. She contends she was “never notified” of G.B.’s removal and
learned of it “two days later from my older daughter’s adoptive parents.”
Mother has not established reversible error. She was represented by counsel at all
hearings, and counsel never raised the issue of notice of the hearings. (See Marlene M. v.
Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1149 [lack of notice is forfeited on appeal
when no objection is made].) As to her claim that her right to due process was violated
by lack of notice of G.B.’s removal, her factual assertion that she was never told of
G.B.’s removal is belied by the record, as the department reported they informed mother
the day she was removed. Moreover, mother fails to support her claim with any legal
authority.
6 We note the department, in its response, construed mother’s argument as
challenging the findings made at the initial detention hearing, as, although mother cited
section 361 and listed the date of the disposition/setting order as the only date on her writ
petition, the pages of the transcript she cited to support her claims were from the
detention hearing.
To the extent that mother intended to challenge the initial detention findings, we
conclude without further discussion that the detention findings were supported by
substantial evidence. We need not address them in greater detail, as the dispositional
findings rendered them moot. (See In re Richard D. (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 592,
595 [erroneous failure to follow detention hearing procedural requirements rendered
moot by subsequent wardship jurisdiction and disposition proceedings].)
14.
For these reasons, we reject any claim mother makes with regard to the issue of
“notice.”
III. Alleged Improper Failure to Transfer the Case
Mother also briefly suggests the juvenile court erred by denying her request to
transfer the case to San Mateo County, repeatedly stating the court incorrectly determined
G.B.’s legal residence was in Tuolumne County. We find no error in the court’s decision
not to transfer the case.
“Whenever a petition is filed in the juvenile court of a county other than the
residence of the person named in the petition, or whenever, subsequent to the filing of a
petition in the juvenile court of the county where that minor resides, the residence of the
person who would be legally entitled to the custody of the minor were it not for the
existence of a court order issued pursuant to this chapter is changed to another county, the
entire case may be transferred to the juvenile court of the county where that person then
resides at any time after the court has made a finding of the facts upon which it has
exercised its jurisdiction over the minor, and the juvenile court of the county where that
person then resides shall take jurisdiction of the case upon the receipt and filing of the
finding of the facts upon which the court exercised its jurisdiction and an order
transferring the case.” (§ 375, subd. (a).) “If the court decides to transfer a dependency
case, the court may order the transfer before or after the disposition hearing.” (Rule
5.610(c)(3).)
“The request for transfer must be made on Motion for Transfer Out (form JV-548),
which must include all required information.” (Rule 5.610(e)(1).) On our own motion,
we take judicial notice of form JV-548. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c).) The form
indicates it was adopted for “Mandatory Use.” Information that must be provided on the
form includes a statement as to why the proposed transfer is in the child’s best interest,
documentation verifying the parents’ address, the child’s educational information, and
services required by the child. The form must be signed under penalty of perjury. (See
15.
Motion for Transfer Out (JV-548) <https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/jv548.pdf> [as
of June 17, 2026].)
“After the court determines the identity and residence of the child’s custodian, the
court must consider whether transfer of the case would be in the child’s best interest. The
court may not transfer the case unless it determines that the transfer will protect or further
the child’s best interest.” (Rule 5.610(e)(2).) The child’s best interest is the “paramount
consideration” in determining whether a case should be transferred. (In re Nia A. (2016)
246 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1248.) Transfer is committed to the sound discretion of the
juvenile court, and we review its denial of the request to transfer for abuse of discretion.
(See Maribel M. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1469, 1478.)
Here, as the juvenile court observed, to the extent mother was making a motion for
transfer, it was not properly before the court; it was made orally and not on the proper
Judicial Council form and did not contain the necessary information or verification of
mother’s address or other claims. The juvenile court nonetheless ruled on the merits of
the request, denying it because a transfer would not be in G.B.’s best interests. This
decision was reasonable and well within the court’s discretion. As county counsel
pointed out, G.B. was placed with a family in Tuolumne County who was open to
adopting her, and who maintained a relationship between G.B. and her siblings, who also
lived in the county. Mother, on the other hand, did not demonstrate a transfer was in
G.B.’s best interest, as she only argued that she would be more likely to participate in
services if the case was transferred. But mother was on track to be bypassed for
reunification services, and her effort to participate in the case or visit with G.B. was
unreasonably minimal even taking into account her barriers to travel.
The juvenile court did not err by declining to transfer the case.
DISPOSITION
The petition for extraordinary writ and request for a stay are denied. This court’s
opinion is final forthwith as to this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).
16.