In re Evangeline A. CA5

Filed 3/5/14 In re Evangeline A. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re EVANGELINE A. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, F067807 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 516358, 516379) v. EVAN A., Defendant and Appellant. In re MADDISON H. et al., Persons OPINION Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, F067884 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 516357, 516358, v. 516379)

R.H., Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT* APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Sharon Rollo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Evan A., Defendant and Appellant. Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for R.H., Defendant and Appellant.

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Peña, J.

John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Appellants Evan A. (father) and R.H. (mother) appeal from the juvenile court’s orders summarily denying without a hearing their Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 (section 388)1 petitions for modification of the court’s orders terminating their family reunification services. Father and mother requested that the court continue reunification services. Alternatively, mother requested the court return the children, Maddison, Evangeline and Patrick, to her care. Father and mother contend the juvenile court erred in denying their section 388 petitions because they presented prima facie evidence of changed circumstances and that the proposed change of order would promote the best interests of the children. They further contend that the juvenile court’s subsequent orders terminating their parental rights must also be vacated if they prevail on this appeal. We consolidated their appeals on our own motion. We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied father and mother’s section 388 petitions because they showed, at best, changing rather than changed circumstances, and failed to show that the proposed change of order would promote the children’s best interests. Finding no error, we affirm the orders as to each parent. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY Father and mother, 44 and 41 years old, respectively, are the parents of three-year- old Evangeline and 18-month-old Patrick. Mother also has a five-year-old daughter, Maddison. Maddison, Evangeline and Patrick are the subjects of this appeal.