In re I.B.
I.B., a minor under the age of three, was declared a dependent after she suffered a broken elbow and ankle while in the custody of legal guardians appointed after I.B.’s mother was shot to death. Father was in custody on a parole violation, so it was alleged he failed to protect the minor and failed to provide for her. (Welf. & Inst. Code,[1] § 300, subds. (b), (g).) Father received and completed reunification services, but he tested positive for methamphetamine once and missed two drug tests early in the dependency, and drank two beers on Christmas Eve during the reunification period. Services were terminated and a section 366.26 hearing was set. Prior to the hearing, father filed a petition to modify the order setting the section 366.26 hearing (§ 388), demonstrating he had completed a new substance abuse program on his own and maintained a close relationship with the minor. The county agreed that the petition should be granted, but the court denied it based on the concerns of the minor’s counsel that the minor needed stability and should remain with her half-brother. Father’s parental rights were terminated and he appealed.
On appeal, father argues that (1) the denial of his section 388 petition was error and (2) his parental rights should not have been terminated based on a beneficial parent-child relationship. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) The San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) agrees that the juvenile court erred in denying the request to modify the court order, which renders moot any remaining issue regarding the termination of parental rights. We reverse.
Comments on In re I.B.