In re Maria Q.
Annotate this CaseY.M. had four children who were dependents of the juvenile court: two daughters, Maria Q. and J.M., and two sons, W.Q. and J.Q. The girls were placed together in the foster care home of the Z.'s in August 2013; the boys had several foster care placements. Y.M. identified Aunt as a possible placement for the children. Shortly before the section 366.26 hearing, issues arose concerning the viability of the Z.'s foster care license and their ability to adopt the girls. In view of the boys' lack of stability and the uncertainty about the Z.'s ability to adopt the girls, the juvenile court continued the children's placement in foster care with the goal of finding a permanency plan including adoption, guardianship, placement with a fit and willing relative, or return home. V.C., the children's maternal great-aunt (Aunt), filed a section 388 petition asking the juvenile court to place the children in her care. The Agency supported Aunt's petition for the girls' placement but opposed placement of the boys, whose foster care parents wanted to adopt them. At a bifurcated hearing, the juvenile court declined to apply the relative placement preference under section 361.3, found that it was not in Maria's and J.M.'s best interests to be placed with Aunt, and continued their section 366.26 hearing. The court summarily denied Aunt's petition for placement of the boys. At a second section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court terminated parental rights to W.Q. and J.Q. and designated their foster parents as their prospective adoptive parents. In an issue of first impression, the Court of Appeal concluded that the directive under section 361.3 to give preferential consideration to a relative seeking placement did not apply to relatives seeking placement of a child in continued foster care pursuant to section 366.26(b)(7). Furthermore, the Court held that when a relative of a dependent child files a section 388 petition requesting permanent placement of a child in continued foster care, the juvenile court should determine whether the petition makes a prima facie showing that the relative is fit and willing to care for the child and if so, set a post-permanency review hearing under section 366.3. The juvenile court's findings were “amply” supported by the record. The Court therefore affirmed the orders denying Aunt's request for placement of the children.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.