In re F.P. CA2/8

Filed 4/30/14 In re F.P. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re F.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B250054

LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND Super. Ct. No. CK74133) FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TIFFANY B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Donna Levin, Referee. Affirmed. Andrea R. St. Julian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent. __________________________________

Mother Tiffany B. challenges a juvenile court order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition without a hearing.1 We affirm. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of this dependency proceeding up to July 2011 were set forth in our unpublished opinion in In re F.P. (May 14, 2012, B235638) [nonpub. opn.].) We do not restate those facts in full here, but summarize the history of the case and set forth the facts that give rise to Mother’s section 388 petition addressed in this opinion. In 2008, DCFS detained Mother’s four children. Only the younger two children, F.P. and Fr.P. (“the children”), are the subject of this appeal. When DCFS removed the children from Mother’s home, F.P. was four years old and Fr.P. was two. The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging the children were at risk of harm within the meaning of section 300, subdivisions (b), (g), and (j). The juvenile court terminated Mother’s reunification services in April 2010. In October 2010, the court appointed the children’s paternal grandparents as their legal guardians. The children’s father, who was incarcerated and serving a prison term of 40 years to life, died in December 2010. In April 2011, DCFS reported the children had adjusted well to living with the paternal grandparents. In July 2011, Mother filed a section 388 petition requesting to change the legal guardianship order. The request was denied without a hearing; the juvenile court stated that it contained no new evidence or change of circumstances, and it was not in the best interests of the children. Mother appealed the denial. Our court affirmed the juvenile court’s decision. In September 2011, DCFS submitted a section 366.3 Permanent Plan Review with an associated Status Report, due to the paternal grandparents being evicted from their residence. DCFS recommended that the children remain dependent children of the