In re H.M. CA4/3
H.M. was taken into protective custody in March 2017, at the age of 10, because he tested positive for benzodiazepine. Six months later, after a lengthy jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, the juvenile court made a dispositional order vesting custody of H.M. with his father, A.M. (Father). H.M.’s mother, A.S. (Mother) appealed from the dispositional order. We affirmed the dispositional order in a nonpublished opinion, In re H.M. (G055484, May 18, 2018).
In December 2017, while that appeal was pending, Mother brought a petition to change court order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 alleging a change in circumstance necessitated modifying the dispositional order to vest custody of H.M. with her under a family maintenance plan or with her parents (Maternal Grandparents) with reunification services for her. Mother asserted H.M. had become increasingly alienated from and hostile toward her since being placed in Father’s custody.
Comments on In re H.M. CA4/3