’WPCą =ęāø°Ŗ‚7·Ŗ‚7·KŃa1ĒŗrÖpIĖŪ iµĻ†ķŽ('ūHÄĒæbÓ»ÓY …0 žP„\ćēŖ1qPkÄtWļ¹zŹąŲ4ņ7­ĆēĒZʼÉpf Œ×\Ģ'!aŁ£v¾o“‰PĆöEkFąµė±fĀłNŚsæŻį;c†Åu‰&%hózM6ÆF]ś5ČJsĖ6e—¾ČZ|ŗˆ÷óµ˜i¬j+x˜ż cū¦ņ‡!oÆķ49«uƒWФAćÓ(}Óļ°lųąYó}É}iü½¶&ŠFįIś‚±±•pēŸĮAō”Śėd{®É{’ę”7źsśæR%Xž©\,‘†Š >R§“-ō£ĒS³æĒķ¶Zx#(=÷rg‰ēL(4] i½‹(5¢ėұė’ČC:×e@€)Įßix"\Dė™Ļ®`žnnr6Ą‡Ž‘¬ĒüVSŠA×ĻŃ#sQCIu\fŖ¼jĆŽŠč#¼0“óߍŸ;mņ®·Æ%/Vyŗ#żŅ/ä6ƍ9ˆ»‘Š;ćõgGēA«č…bŠlī—%VĪ"šG¤Ó׳„f޹œļŽĘŻ­D‹(?ī»ā<˜]®ŗę!_{ sś­³ž`—–F£z;iō#ÉÄUN %Ū 0YįN:^ <wH4L`o mqU>ˆbĘ˜HP LaserJet 1200 Series PCLČČ,,,,ČČ0(ÖĆ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(1±Ź$””Ō€ŠŻOˆXXŌŌUSUS.,Ԛ¹g4 yI4ź:i¢×+003|x’U‹’ĄĄĄō\  `‹&Times New RomanPage ł of &łŻ ƒ±Ź!ŻŌ€ŠĻgˆXXŌŌUSUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌŃ€ ŃŃ8€ĻgŠˆddČ8Ńņ ņIN€ORDER€TO€MERIT€A€HEARING€ON€A€PETITION€FOR€MODIFICATIONŠ ° Š(Ō_ŌWELFŌ_Ō.€AND€INST.€CODE€šš€388)€THE€PARENT€NEED€NOT€SHOWŠ ®ž Šš šCHANGEDšš€AS€OPPOSED€TO€š šCHANGINGšš€CIRCUMSTANCESó ó.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Š ¬ü Š€€ĢĢThe€rather€glib€distinction€between€š šchangedšš€and€š šchangingšš€circumstances€appears€toŠ °  Šhave€originated€in€Division€One€of€the€Court€of€Appeal€for€the€Fourth€District.€€(ņņIn€reŠ °  ŠCasey€D.€óó(1999)€70€Ō_ŌCal.AppŌ_Ō.4th€38,€47.)€€Indeed,€it€is€most€often€found€in€opinions€out€ofŠ °  Šthat€district€justifying€the€denial€of€a€hearing€on€a€section€388€petition.€€However,€everyŠ °  Šdistrict,€except€the€Sixth€Appellate€District€appear€to€have€relied€upon€it€at€least€once.€Š °  ŠNotably,€our€Supreme€Court€has€not.Š °  ŠĢThis€distinction€appears€to€be€an€example€of€what€Justice€Daniel€Ō_ŌKolkeyŌ_Ō,€formerly€of€theŠ °  ŠThird€District€Court€of€Appeal,€has€dubbed,€š šwell„settled€error.šš€€However€difficult€toŠ °  Šoverturn€as€a€result€of€social€and€legislative€reliance€on€the€erroneous€decision€over€theŠ ° Šyears,€where€a€faultily€reasoned€decision€becomes€settled€law€through€adoption€andŠ ° Šrepetition,€the€reviewing€court€must€go€back€to€its€origin€and€analyze€it.€(Ō_ŌKolkeyŌ_Ō,Š ° Šš šDemonstrably€Wrong€Rulings€Morph€Into€ššWell„Settled€Erroršš,šš€San€Francisco€DailyŠ ° ŠJournal,€May€11,€2004,€p.4.)€€Stare€Ō_ŌdecisisŌ_Ō€does€not€demand€adherence€to€a€palpablyŠ ° Šerroneous€ruling€by€a€lateral€court.€€The€general€rule€is€that€a€district€court€of€appeal€isŠ ° Šfree€to€follow€the€decisions€from€the€other€courts€or€to€disagree€with€them€if€it€finds€theyŠ ° Šare€poorly€reasoned.€(See,€ņņIn€re€Brittany€Sóó.€(1993)€17€Ō_ŌCal.AppŌ_Ō.4th€1399,€1405;€ņņIn€reŠ ° ŠMatter€of€Hayden€óó(1981)€124€Ō_ŌCal.AppŌ_Ō.3d€72,€77€fn.€1;€9€Ō_ŌWitkinŌ_Ō,€Cal.€Procedure€3d€ed.Š ° Š1985,€Appeal,€sec.€772,€p.€740.)€€š šThe€rule€of€ņņstare€Ō_ŌdecisisŌ_Ōóó€is€not€so€imperative€orŠ ° Šinflexible€as€to€preclude€a€departure€therefrom€in€any€case,€but€its€application€must€beŠ ° Šdetermined€in€each€instance€by€the€discretion€of€the€court.€€Previous€decisions€should€notŠ ° Šbe€followed€to€the€extent€that€error€may€be€perpetuated€and€that€wrong€may€result.šš€Š ° Š(ņņCounty€of€Los€Angelesóó€v.€ņņŌ_ŌFausŌ_Ōóó€(1957)€48€Cal.2d€672,€679.)€€š šAlthough€the€doctrine€[ofŠ ° Šstare€Ō_ŌdecisisŌ_Ō]€does€indeed€serve€important€values,€it€nevertheless€should€not€shield€court„Š °  Šcreated€error€from€correction.šš€(ņņPeople€v.€Ō_ŌLatimerŌ_Ōóó€(1995)€5€Cal.€4th€1203,€1212„1213.)€€AŠ °! Škey€consideration€in€determining€the€role€of€stare€Ō_ŌdecisisŌ_Ō€is€whether€the€decision€beingŠ °" Šreconsidered€has€become€a€basic€part€of€a€complex€and€comprehensive€statutory€scheme,Š °# Šor€is€simply€a€specific,€narrow€ruling€that€may€be€overruled€without€affecting€such€aŠ °$  Šstatutory€scheme.€€(ņņIbidóó.)Š °%!! ŠĢIn€ņņCasey€Dóó.,€the€court€reasoned:Š °'## ŠĢą8  ąA€petition€which€alleges€merely€changing€circumstances€and€would€meanŠ °)%% Šdelaying€the€selection€of€a€permanent€home€for€a€child€to€see€if€a€parent,Š °*&& Šwho€has€repeatedly€failed€to€reunify€with€the€child,€might€be€able€to€reunifyŠ °+'' Šat€some€future€point,€does€not€promote€stability€for€the€child€or€the€child'sŠ ° Šbest€interests.€(ņņIn€re€Edward€Hóó.,€ņņsupraóó,€43€Cal.€App.€4th€584,€594.)€"Š ° Š'[Ō_ŌC]hildhoodŌ_Ō€does€not€wait€for€the€parent€to€become€adequate.'€"€(€ņņIn€reŠ ° ŠBaby€Boy€L.€óó(1994)€24€Cal.€App.€4th€596,€610€[29€Cal.€Ō_ŌRptrŌ_Ō.€2d€654].)аРР ŠĢ(ņņIn€re€Casey€D.óó,€ņņsupraóó,€70€Ō_ŌCal.AppŌ_Ō.4th€at€p.€47.)Š °  ŠĢą  ąIn€that€case,€the€threshold€showing€necessary€to€merit€a€hearing€on€a€section€388Š °  Špetition€was€not€at€issue.€€The€parents€had€been€in€dependency€proceedings€for€2€years€forŠ °  ŠCaseyššs€sister,€had€been€party€to€a€voluntary€contract€for€2€years€prior€to€that€and€hadŠ °  Šreceived€10€months€of€services€for€Casey.€€(ņņIbidóó.)€€Thus,€its€decision€to€uphold€the€denialŠ °  Šof€a€section€388€petition€where€the€mother€had€only€showed€that€she€was€drug€free€for€sixŠ °  Šmonths,€but€had€not€completed€other€key€portions€of€her€case€plan,€was€understandable.€Š °  ŠHowever,€its€coining€of€the€distinction€between€š šchangedšš€and€š šchangingšš€circumstancesŠ °  Šfinds€no€support€in€ņņEdward€Hóó.,€the€case€it€cited€for€that€proposition.Š ° ŠĢą  ąIn€ņņEdward€Hóó.,€the€Fifth€District€Court€of€Appeal€reasoned:Š ° ŠĢą8  ąIn€addition,€the€court€properly€denied€a€hearing€on€the€mother's€petition.Š ° ŠWhile€her€petition€contained€allegations€of€changed€circumstances,€it€alsoŠ ° Šincluded€the€statement€that€she€was€living€with€the€father.€This€fatallyŠ ° Šundermined€her€petition€because€the€father€could€not€establish€that€he€hadŠ ° Šmet€the€requirements€of€the€reunification€plan€with€respect€to€theŠ ° Šcompletion€of€sexual€offender€therapy.€Although€a€juvenile€court€will€orderŠ ° Ša€hearing€if€a€section€388€petition€presents€any€evidence€supportive€of€aŠ ° Šconclusion€that€a€hearing€would€promote€the€child's€best€interests€(In€reŠ ° ŠŌ_ŌJasmonŌ_Ō€O.,€supra,€8€Cal.€4th€398,€415),€it€need€not€ignore€an€allegationŠ ° Šwhich€shows€a€hearing€will€not€promote€such€interests.€[šš]€Even€assumingŠ ° Šthe€petitions€sufficiently€pled€changed€circumstances,€the€order€denying€anŠ °  Ševidentiary€hearing€did€not€prejudice€the€parents.€As€previously€noted,Š °! Šnothing€would€have€been€gained€had€the€cause€gone€to€a€full€hearingŠ °" Šbecause€the€father€conceded€he€had€not,€and€in€all€likelihood€would€not,Š °# Šparticipate€in€a€sexual€offender€treatment€program.€.€.€.[šš]€.€.€.€Instead,€theŠ °$  Šcritical€question€was€whether€the€best€interests€of€the€children€might€beŠ °%!! Špromoted€by€the€proposed€change€of€order€(šš€388),€which€in€the€mother'sŠ °&"" Šcase€was€a€return€to€reunification.€At€the€point€of€these€proceedings--on€theŠ °'## Ševe€of€the€section€366.26€permanency€planning€hearing--the€children'sŠ °($$ Šinterest€in€stability€was€the€court's€foremost€concern€and€outweighed€anyŠ °)%% Šinterest€in€reunification.€(In€re€Marilyn€H.,€supra,€5€Cal.€4th€at€pp.€307-309.)Š °*&& ŠThus,€the€prospect€of€an€additional€six€months€of€reunification€to€see€if€theŠ °+'' Šmother€would€and€could€effectively€separate€from€the€father€would€not€haveŠ ° Špromoted€stability€for€the€children€and€thus€would€not€have€promoted€theirŠ ° Šbest€interests.аРР ŠĢ(In€re€Edward€H.€(1996)€43€Cal.€App.€4th€584,€593„594.)Š ° ŠĢą  ąIn€that€case,€the€parents€failed€to€reunify€after€2€years€of€services.€€Though€theŠ °  Šissue€before€the€court€was€the€same€as€that€here,€the€Court€of€Appeal€did€not€rely€on€anŠ °  Šinvalid€distinction€between€the€terms€š šchangedšš€and€š šchanging.šš€€Rather,€the€courtŠ °  Šsimply€held€that€the€denial€of€the€hearing,€if€error,€was€harmless,€because€the€parentsŠ °  Šcould€not€show€it€was€in€Edwardššs€best€interest€to€live€in€the€home€with€his€father,€a€sexŠ °  Šoffender.€€Separation€from€Edwardššs€father€was€a€key€component€of€his€motherššs€caseŠ °  Šplan€with€which€she€had€refused€to€comply.Š °  ŠĢą  ą€Ō‡ ŠĻgˆˆŠĻgŌA€fundamental€rule€of€statutory€construction€is€that€a€court€should€ascertain€theŠ ° Šintent€of€the€Legislature€so€as€to€effectuate€the€purpose€of€the€law.€€(ņņŌ_ŌNickelsbergŌ_Ō€v.Š ° ŠWorkersšš€Comp.€Appeals€Bd.€óó(1991)€54€Cal.3d€288,€294;€ņņŌ_ŌMoyerŌ_Ō€v.€Workmenššs€Comp.Š ° ŠAppeals€Bd.€óó(1973)€10€Cal.3d€222,€230.)€€In€construing€a€statute,€the€court€first€looks€toŠ ° Šthe€language€of€the€statute€itself.€€(ņņIbid.óó)€€The€court€is€š šrequired€to€give€effect€to€statutesŠ ° Šššaccording€to€the€usual,€ordinary€import€of€the€language€employed€in€framing€them.ššššŠ ° Š(ņņŌ_ŌMoyerŌ_Ō€v.€Workmenššs€Comp.€Appeals€Bd.,€supraóó,€10€Cal.3d€at€p.€230.)€€š šššIf€possible,Š ° Šsignificance€should€be€given€to€every€word,€phrase,€sentence€and€part€of€an€act€inŠ ° Špursuance€of€the€legislative€purpose.šš€.€.€.€ššWhen€used€in€a€statute€[words]€must€beŠ ° Šconstrued€in€context,€keeping€in€mind€the€nature€and€obvious€purpose€of€the€statute€whereŠ ° Šthey€appear.šššš€€(ņņIdóó.,€at€pp.€230„231.)€€š š[Ō_ŌI]nŌ_Ō€general,€a€statuteššs€words€are€the€most€reliableŠ ° Šindicator€of€legislative€intent.šš€€(ņņPeople€v.€Garcia€óó(1999)€21€Cal.4th€1,€14,€fn.8.)€€WhenŠ ° Šthe€language€is€clear€and€there€is€no€uncertainty€as€to€the€legislative€intent,€the€court€willŠ ° Šlook€no€further€and€simply€enforce€the€statute€according€to€its€terms.€€(ņņŌ_ŌHutnickŌ_Ō€v.€UnitedŠ ° ŠStates€Fidelity€&€Guaranty€Co.€óó(1988)€47€Cal.3d€456,€464;€ņņAtlantic€Richfield€Co.€v.Š °  ŠWorkersšš€Comp.€Appeals€Bd.€óó(1982)€31€Cal.3d€715,€726.)Ō#†ŠĻgˆˆ ŠĻg##ŌŠ °! ŠĢą  ąSection€388€requires€a€parent€to€allege€š ša€change€of€circumstance€or€newŠ °# Ševidencešš€in€order€to€merit€a€hearing€on€her€petition€for€modification.€€First,€it€must€beŠ °$  Šnoted€that€the€Legislature€never€used€the€past€participle€š šchanged,šš€but€rather,€chose€toŠ °%!! Šuse€the€present€š šchange.šš€€Thus,€the€decisional€transformation€of€the€phrase€by€the€CaseyŠ °&"" ŠD.€court€is€contrary€to€apparent€legislative€intent.€€As€it€is€commonly€understoodŠ °'## Šš šchange,šš€as€an€intransitive€verb,€means€š što€become€different€in€one€or€more€respects,Š °($$ Šwithout€becoming€something€else.šš€€(Ō‡ ŠĻgˆˆŠĻgŌWebsterššs€Third€New€International€DictionaryŠ °)%% Š(2002)€Ō_ŌMerriamŌ_Ō„Webster,€Inc.Ō#†ŠĻgˆˆ ŠĻg«-#Ō,€p.€374.)€€Websterššs€entry€continues:€€š ša:€€to€lose€or€acquireŠ °*&& Šsome€characteristic€.€.€.€b:€(1)€to€pass€from€one€form€.€.€.€state,€or€stage€to€another.šš€€(ņņIbidóó.)€Š °+'' ŠThere€is€nothing€about€the€term€š šchangešš€as€used€in€the€phrase€š šchange€of€circumstancesššŠ ° Šwhich€implies€a€completed€transformation€or€an€elimination€of€all€previous€circumstantialŠ ° Šcharacteristics.Š ° ŠĢą  ąIn€drafting€the€language€of€section€388,€requiring€that€the€parent€allege€š ša€changeŠ ° Šof€circumstance€or€new€evidencešš€in€order€to€merit€a€hearing€on€her€petition€forŠ °  Šmodification,€the€Legislature€did€not€intend€to€enact€a€ratification€of€Ō_ŌHegelianŌ_Ō€philosophy.€Š °  ŠThough€the€distinction€between€š šbeingšš€and€š šbecomingšš€have€significance€for€followerŠ °  Šof€Hegel€and€historians€of€German€Idealism,€it€cannot€be€the€ground€for€such€a€visceralŠ °  Ševent€as€the€permanent€severing€of€a€parent€and€child€relationship.€€Thus,€the€distinctionŠ °  Šdrawn€in€Casey€D.€is€without€support€in€the€statute.€€Though€a€number€of€decisionsŠ °  Š(mostly€unpublished)€since€Casey€D.€have€made€a€similar€distinction,€sometimes,€thereŠ °  Šare€even€more€important€policy€questions€at€stake€than€the€principle€of€stare€Ō_ŌdecisisŌ_Ō.€Š °  Š(ņņCounty€of€Los€Angeles€v.€Navarro€óó(2004€CA2/8)€120€Ō_ŌCal.AppŌ_Ō.4th€246,€249.)€€Despite€theŠ °  Šfrequency€with€which€this€error€has€been€repeated,€this€court€should€not€follow€suit.€€TheŠ ° Šjuvenile€courtššs€denial€of€a€hearing€based€simply€on€a€finding€that€the€circumstances€wereŠ ° Šš šchangingšš€rather€than€š šchangedšš€should€be€reversed.