In re Aiden L.
If this has been A.L.’s first encounter with SSA, things might have turned out differently. A.L. made progress in her programs and with her therapy between detention and the section 366.26 hearing. Unfortunately, however, A.L. had a track record. This was the third time in less than three years Aiden had been detained because of A.L.’s drinking and the third time she had made progress only to relapse in a way that endangered Aiden. The previous two times, Aiden had been returned to her. This time he was not.
We cannot say the juvenile court abused its discretion when it decided that A.L. had not presented the prima facie case of changed circumstances required to qualify for a hearing under section 388. And substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s decision that the beneficial relationship exception of section 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i) did not apply to the case. Accordingly we must affirm the court’s decisions.
Comments on In re Aiden L.