In In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal. 4th 398, the California Supreme Court explained that during a hearing "on the petition pursuant to section 388, the juvenile court's task was to determine whether the Department had demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that there was new evidence or a change of circumstances demonstrating that it was in the minor's best interests that the previous permanency planning order, which provided that her custody be gradually transferred from the A.'s to her natural father, be changed, modified or set aside." In that case, the minor had been removed from her father's custody and placed in foster care. At a permanency planning hearing the referee found the minor should be returned to her father's custody finding no substantial risk to her physical or emotional well-being. ( Id. at p. 409.) The court stayed the order and imposed a transition schedule giving the psychologist supervising the transition authority to stop the transition upon notice to the parties. (Ibid.)