M.V., In re (2023) B315297 B315297; filed 1/27/23. ![[Files/CaseFiles/B315297.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B315297.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Case-specific supplemental bonding study: the ordered study lacked the necessary observations and assessment, and supplementation would not delay the already-continued permanency hearing. > For all these reasons, under the very specific circumstances of this case, we conclude it was an abuse of discretion not to order a supplemental bonding study in response to Crespo’s inadequate, nonresponsive assessment. — M.V., In re (2023) B315297, slip op., p. 38.