In re C.S. CA2/6

Filed 9/26/13 In re C.S. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 C.S., a Person Coming Under the 2d Juv. No. B247702 Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. J068823) (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.U.,

Defendant and Appellant.

D.U., the mother of C.S., a 12-year-old dependent child, appeals an order denying her petition to obtain visitation and reunification with her son based on changed conditions. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388.)1 As a result of a guardianship order, C.S. was removed from D.U.'s custody shortly after his birth and placed in the care of J.Q.--the legal guardian. In 2012, the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) filed a juvenile dependency petition (§ 300, subds. (b) & (c)), alleging J.Q. was unable to care for the child. D.U. filed a section 388 petition alleging changed conditions.

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

We conclude the trial court did not err because D.U. did not make a sufficient showing that visitation was in the best interests of the child. We affirm. FACTS D.U. gave birth to C.S. in 2001, but she had a substance abuse problem and was unable to care for the child. She decided that a relative should take care of this baby boy and she "agreed" to a guardianship. The superior court granted a guardianship petition appointing J.Q. as the legal guardian of C.S. In May 2012, HSA filed a juvenile dependency petition. It alleged J.Q. was unable to care for C.S. because she had a substance abuse problem, mental problems, and "a history of gang affiliation." After a jurisdiction/disposition hearing, C.S. was declared "a dependent child of the [c]ourt." The trial court ordered HSA to provide family maintenance services to J.Q. After a six-month review hearing, the court ordered family maintenance services to continue. In January 2013, HSA filed a detention report, noting that C.S. had been placed with J.Q.'s grandparents. In that report, the social worker said J.Q. did not "actively participate in the case plan," and she and the child "have mental issues that are not adequately being addressed." He said J.Q. "engaged in two recent domestic violence incidents with her husband and has not followed through with filing a restraining order." HSA alleged that J.Q.'s conduct placed "the child at substantial risk of serious physical harm." In a January 31, 2013, jurisdiction/disposition report, HSA recommended that family reunification services "be offered to [J.Q.]." It noted that the child was temporarily placed with J.Q.'s parents. The trial court sustained the petition after an "uncontested hearing." It also appointed attorney Richard Gilman to represent D.U. On February 14, 2013, D.U. filed a section 388 petition asking the trial court to change a January 13, 2013, order which provided that only J.Q. could visit C.S. D.U. sought visitation and "reunification services" with C.S. She said, "[C.S.] has recently been moved from one guardian's home to another, and I believe he is at an age where he can handle being reintroduced to me as his mother." She said she graduated