In re D'J.A. CA2/6

Filed 2/19/25 In re D’J.A. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re D’J.A. et al., Persons 2d Juv. No. B340469 Coming Under the Juvenile (Super. Ct. Nos. J073294, Court Law. J073295) (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

F.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F.H. (mother) appeals from the orders of the juvenile court denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petitions and terminating her parental rights.1 Mother contends the

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied the petitions without a hearing. We affirm. Facts and Procedural Background Mother and father have two children: D’J.A. (born September 2021) and D’A.A. (born May 2023).2 In May 2023, Ventura County Human Services Agency received a referral after mother and D’A.A. tested positive for amphetamine at D’A.A.’s birth. Mother also tested positive for cannabis. In June 2023, the agency obtained a protective custody warrant after mother failed to enroll in a substance abuse treatment program and tested positive for methamphetamine. The agency also filed petitions alleging the children came within the provisions of section 300. At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations in the petitions to be true, ordered the children removed from parents’ custody and placed with maternal grandfather and his wife, and ordered reunification services for both parents. In January 2024, at the six-month review hearing, the juvenile court found parents’ progress in their case plan services was “minimal.” It terminated reunification services as to both parents and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. Prior to the section 366.26 hearing, mother filed a section 388 petition for each child. She asserted a change in circumstances based on her participation in voluntary services, including an outpatient substance abuse treatment program. Mother asserted she was “stable and sober” and willing to engage in any additional services provided to her. As to the children’s