In re J.B. CA3

Filed 9/23/25 In re J.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

In re J.B., a Person Coming C102898 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

PLACER COUNTY DEPARTMENT (Super. Ct. No. 53005496) OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.T.,

Objector and Appellant.

Appellant J.T. represents himself on this appeal from the juvenile court’s order denying his petition for modification of a prior no-contact order with the minor J.B. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 388.)1 Appellant’s relationship to the minor is as follows: “[the minor’s] father had lived with [appellant’s] brother . . . when [the] brother was in a

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

1

relationship and living with [minor’s grandmother].” Appellant has forfeited his claims, so we affirm. BACKGROUND In September 2023, the then 12-year-old minor was removed from the home of his father when his father was arrested. Appellant also lived in the home and was alleged to be in possession of child pornography at the time the minor was detained. A no contact order was issued due to concerns about sexual abuse, domestic violence, and substance abuse in the home, by both father and appellant. Appellant was originally identified as an “ ‘uncle’ ” but represents that he is not a blood relative of the minor and does not claim that he was ever made a party to the ensuing dependency proceedings. In November 2024, appellant filed a section 388 petition in the underlying case seeking modification of the juvenile court’s October 3, 2023 order prohibiting him from having contact with the minor. Appellant’s petition sought new orders “affirming” he was the minor’s “third (and presumed) parent . . . by affinity,” vacating the no-contact order and permitting visitation with the minor, vacating the jurisdictional orders, and returning the minor to his care and custody. The court set the matter for a prima facie hearing. On January 8, 2025, the juvenile court issued a tentative written order denying appellant’s section 388 petition. The tentative order concluded that appellant’s “documents” were not prima facie evidence of either changed circumstances or best interests of the minor. The order further stated that the “documents” presented did “not negate the Court's previously expressed concerns regarding the risks posed by domestic violence, substance abuse, and sexual abuse in the prior household dynamic.” At the hearing on the petition, appellant confirmed having received and reviewed the court’s order. He briefly objected “as far as the references and the evidence that was provided was in great detail.” The court noted appellant’s objection but affirmed the tentative order. Appellant timely appeals.