In re Jordan S. CA2/5

Filed 10/8/13 In re Jordan S. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re JORDAN S. et al., Persons Coming B246849 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK79729)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.K.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sherri Sobel, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Sherman & Associates and Kenneth P. Sherman for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

J.K. (mother) appeals the juvenile court order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388 petition, claiming the court abused its discretion in failing to return mother‟s three children to her care based on her changed circumstances and the children‟s best interests. She also appeals the subsequent order establishing legal guardianship of the children with their paternal grandparents, arguing it is not in the children‟s best interests. We hold the juvenile court properly denied the section 388 petition and ordered legal guardianship of the children. The orders are affirmed.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 16, 2010, minors Jordan, born in 2004, Justin, born in 2007, and Ja., born 2009, were declared dependents of the court based on sustained allegations under section 300, subdivision (b), that they were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness as a result of their parents‟ failure to adequately supervise or protect them and mother‟s willful failure to protect the children from the conduct of their father. The children were removed from the parents‟ custody and the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) placed them in the care of their paternal grandparents. Mother was provided reunification services and granted regular visits which were first monitored and later unmonitored. On August 2, 2011, the juvenile court conducted a review hearing pursuant to section 366.22, at which the social worker, Jordan, mother and paternal grandfather testified. The court remarked that mother‟s testimony “was so removed and so aloof from any empathy, sympathy, or understanding of her children‟s needs from the very second of what a child needs, the most basic needs, . . . [¶] There‟s no – there‟s a disconnect between having the children and raising the children for the mother that is almost unseen in my court. She doesn‟t get what her kids need. When she‟s told what they need, she kind of fixes it for the moment. But it is enormously important to me that