In re Baby Boy T.
Motherof Baby Boy T., now one and one-half years of age. In October 2006, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a date for a permanency hearing. At the time, the court also found further visitation with mother would be detrimental to Baby Boy T., since mother had missed visits and failed to perform any part of her case plan for four months.
Mother appeared at a nonstatutory notice review hearing in November 2006, and asked that visitation be reinstated. The court advised mother it could not reinstate visitation at a nonstatutory hearing without notice to all parties, and encouraged her to file a petition for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Mother appeals from the juvenile courts refusal to grant her the visitation she requested.
Court conclude the juvenile court did not err in refusing to consider mothers request for visitation without providing notice to all parties. The original order finding further visitation with mother would be detrimental to Baby Boy T. given her lack of visitation and participation in the case plan, and thus terminating visitation, was not improvidently granted; indeed, mother never challenged that order. Further, the hearing at which mother made her request was nonstatutory and was not scheduled for the purpose of reconsidering visitation or services; it was intended only to ensure mother and Herbert P. (father) had received notice of the permanency hearing date. The juvenile court could not have modified its earlier order regarding visitation and reunification services absent notice. Court therefore affirm.
Comments on In re Baby Boy T.