In re Valerie G. CA2/1

Filed 12/26/13 In re Valerie G. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re VALERIE G., a Person Coming B247696 Under the Juvenile Court Law.

(Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. CK81701) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANNA L.,

Defendant,

SAM R. et al.,

Objectors and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Margaret Henry, Judge. Reversed. Serobian Law, Inc. and Liana Serobian for Objectors and Appellants. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent _________________

The paternal grandparents of Valerie G. petitioned under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3881 requesting mediation with the maternal grandparents and visitation with their granddaughter. The court summarily denied the petition. The court erred because the petition makes a prima facie showing of a change in circumstances and that visitation would be in Valerie’s best interests. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW In July 2010, the court sustained a dependency petition on behalf of three-year old Valerie G. pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). Valerie was placed with her maternal grandmother, Anna L., who had raised her from infancy. The court did not make an order concerning the rights of Sam and Cathy, the paternal grandparents, to visit Valerie. Nevertheless, they visited Valerie throughout the course of the dependency proceedings. Their visits were unmonitored and normally took place twice a month for two hours. The visits continued even after Valerie’s father ceased visiting. Anna L., reported that the visits went well and that she had no concerns. At a permanency planning hearing in November 2011, the court decided not to terminate parental rights but instead selected a legal guardianship with Anna L. as Valerie’s permanent plan. The court issued letters of guardianship and terminated jurisdiction over Valerie. The court did not make any visitation order. In December 2012, Sam and Cathy filed a petition under section 388 stating that for the past two months Valerie’s guardian, Anna L., had not allowed them any visits with Valerie. The petition stated that it would be in Valerie’s best interests to have visits with Sam and Cathy because she is bonded to them and because it is important that she know all of her family and the connections she has available to her. The court denied the petition without a hearing. It checked boxes on a Judicial Council form which stated that the petition did not state new evidence or a change of circumstances and that the proposed order would not promote the best interests of the child.