In re J.S. CA3

Filed 10/15/14 In re J.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re J. S. , a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C075322 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD225004) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

J.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

James S., father of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court granting the guardians’ petition for modification and decreasing his visitation. (Welf. & Inst. Code1, §§ 388, 395.) Father contends the petition failed to state a prima facie case and

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

the court abused its discretion in modifying visitation because there was no evidence of changed circumstances, only of an error in judgment on his part, and the modification was not in the minor’s best interests. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The special needs minor was adjudged a dependent child in December 2006. His parents failed to reunify with him after 18 months of services and he was placed in long- term foster care in May 2008. Over the next four years, father had weekly visits with the minor. Visits were sometimes unsupervised but more than once father displayed poor judgment with respect to the minor’s well-being and supervision was reinstated. From late 2010 through 2011, father was having problems and increasingly missed visits. When the visits were missed, the minor reacted poorly. In late 2011, the minor was placed with the family of a teacher in his school with a goal of guardianship. At a review hearing in May 2012, the court found guardianship was appropriate and set a section 366.26 hearing. The report for the hearing reiterated the minor’s issues and special needs including speech delays and low functioning. The report said the minor had weekly supervised visits with father and looked forward to the visits but was frustrated and agitated after the contact. The report concluded that guardianship was in the minor’s best interests and recommended that visitation be reduced from weekly to monthly. At the hearing in August 2012, the court selected a permanent plan of guardianship and letters of guardianship issued naming the current caretakers as guardians of the minor and denying visits with mother. A copy of the orders was sent to father. The guardians filed a petition for modification in August 2013, seeking to terminate father’s visitation and alleging, as changed circumstances, that father allowed contact between the minor and mother by telephone during visits and told the minor not to tell. The minor later disclosed the contact to the guardians. The petition further alleged that father told the minor he and mother were reuniting and would get the minor