In re G v. CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Feb 19, 2014 No. G048712Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying the mother's section 388 petition because she failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or that the requested modification was in the child's best interests.

Issues

Did the juvenile court err in summarily denying the mother's section 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing?
Did the mother demonstrate changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of the court's prior orders?
Did the mother demonstrate that the proposed modification was in the best interests of the child?

Disposition. Affirmed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Mother failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification of the challenged orders.”

“Even assuming a prima facie case of changed circumstances was shown, mother did not make a prima facie showing that undoing the prior orders is in the best interests of the child.”

“Under these circumstances, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by summarily dismissing mother’s section 388 petition.”

Filed 2/19/14 In re G.V. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re G.V., Jr., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G048712 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DP022677) v. OPINION M.C. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Deborah C. Servino, Judge. Affirmed. Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.C.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant G.V., Sr. Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minor.

* * *

M.C. (mother) and G.V., Sr., (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s termination of their parental rights to their son G.V., Jr., (child) at a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (all further statutory references are to this code). Mother’s sole contention is the court erred in summarily denying her section 388 modification petition (section 388 petition). Father does not raise any independent grounds, but merely argues if mother’s appeal is found to have merit, we must also reverse as to him. We find no error and affirm the judgment as to both parents. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This is our second opinion in this case. Our first opinion denied father’s petition for writ of mandate challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the March 6, 2013 order denying both parents reunification services under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(5) and (b)(6). (G.V. v. Superior Court (June 27, 2013, G048140) [nonpub. opn.].) Mother was not a party to those writ of mandate proceedings.1 At the March 6, 2013 disposition hearing the juvenile court also declared the child to be a dependent, removed the child from parental custody, and set a permanency planning hearing under section 366.26 (.26 hearing) for July 3, 2013. The facts and procedural background which led to these orders are summarized in our prior

In re G v. CA4/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

THOMPSON, J.

O’LEARY, P. J.

MOORE, J.

AI Brief