Notice In re Mia M. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 792,806

REQUIREMENT FOR NOTICE UNDER WIC 388
In re Mia M. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 792,806
​work in progress


In re Mia M. (2022). 75 Cal.App.5th 792, 807.  
 
The appellate reviewed the lower court’s ruling on the section 388 petition for abuse of discretion. Since a section 388 is a _____, the appellate courts will review the instant court’s decision with higher level of deference. In re E.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1335. However, since the issue of notice carries the serious consequence of permanent severance of the parental relationship with minor, the reviewing court will consider the matter applying the de novo standard as to whether inadequate notice violated parent’s due process rights. In re J.H. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 174, 183).  
 
This cases arises out of a [alleged] father who was in the process of elevating his paternity via a DNA test when the court proceeded in terminating [whose] services and setting the .26 hearing. Father appealed on the basis that the court did not wait to confirm paternity and did not provide him proper notice of proceedings against him. 
 
Father alleges that he was not properly noticed of _________. A father’s status is equally significant in a dependency case as the mother because his role as presumed or putative? determines the extent to which he may participate in the proceedings and the number of rights to which he is entitled. Presumed father status ranks highest as this “class” of father is afforded the right to counsel and a narrowly tailored case plan. Alleged fathers are not afforded the same degree of rights but they are entitled to notice and a chance to elevate their paternity status (through DNA testing?). Depending on the circumstances, a court may provide reunification services to a biological father, if it determines that the provision of services will benefit the child. Welf and Inst Code § 361.5.