California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division
IN RE K.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
J.F. et al., Defendants; J.B. et al., Interveners and Appellants. San Bernardino County Children and Family Services, Plaintiff and Respondent,
for Partial Publication[*]]
Cal.Rptr.3d 781] APPEAL from the Superior Court of San
Bernardino County. Christopher B. Marshall, Judge. Affirmed.
D. Caldwell, Venice, by appointment of the Court of Appeal,
for Interveners and Appellants.
D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Pamela J. Walls, Outside
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) removed
K.T. (K. or child) from his mother when he was about nine
months old. At that time, a nurse noticed that he had an
enlarged head. He was placed with distant relatives, Mr. and
Ms. B., who were already caring for his older half-brother.
testing showed that K. had a subdural hematoma. Meanwhile,
the B.’s began refusing to communicate with K.’s social
worker or her "friends" in the same office,
claiming that she had discriminated against them and insulted
Cal.Rptr.3d 782] CFS detained K., placed him in a special
health care needs foster home, and filed a petition asking
the trial court to remove him from the B.’s custody under
section 387. The B.’s, in turn, filed a
"changed circumstances" petition under section 388,
asking the trial court to return K. to them.
trial court denied the section 388 petition, finding that the
B.’s had not shown that they were qualified as a special
health care needs foster home. It then granted the section
387 petition, finding that communication between the B.’s and
CFS had broken down.
contends that the B.’s lack standing to appeal from these
orders, citing In re Miguel E. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 521, 15
Cal.Rptr.3d 530. We agree with Miguel E. that, in
general, a person from whom a child has been removed under
section 387 lacks standing to challenge the removal. However,
when that person is a relative, we disagree with Miguel
E., because under section 361.3, a relative has standing
to appeal from a refusal to place a child with him or her (an
argument that Miguel E. did not consider).
unpublished portion of this opinion, however, we reject the