In re A v. CA4/3

Filed 9/8/14 In re A.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G049601 (consol. w/ G049675 & Plaintiff and Respondent, G049751)

v. (Super. Ct. Nos. DP022213, DP022276 & DP023541) JESSIE V. et al., OPINION Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Dennis J. Keough, Judge. Affirmed. Daniel G. Rooney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jessie Lydia V. Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Alfred H. Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance on behalf of the Minors.

Jessie V., the paternal great-grandmother (great-grandmother) of three minor sisters, appeals from the juvenile court’s order summarily denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 (all further statutory references are to this code) petitions seeking placement of the minors without an evidentiary hearing. No error has been shown because great-grandmother failed to present any new evidence. The minors’ father Alfred H. (father) also appeals from the order denying great-grandmother’s section 388 petition, as well as from the orders terminating his parental rights to the minors under section 366.26. But he provides no analysis regarding the termination of his parental rights and merely joins great-grandmother’s arguments on the appeal from the denial of the section 388 petition. Having failed to “contend the order terminating his parental rights was improper in any respect,” “he has no remaining, legally cognizable interest in [the minors’] affairs, including [their] placement.” (In re K.C. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 231, 237.) Father thus has no standing with respect to the denial of the section 388 petitions. (Id. at p. 239.) The orders are affirmed.