In re K.B. CA3

Filed 8/11/15 In re K.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re K.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C077904 Court Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. Nos. JD229535, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, JD229936, JD233798)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B.B. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order granting a petition by the agency, Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services, to modify a prior visitation order. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388; unless otherwise stated, statutory

1

references that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Mother argues the agency failed to show sufficient grounds for modifying the existing visitation order, and the court’s order impermissibly delegates whether visitation is to occur to the agency. We affirm the juvenile court’s order.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In light of the sole contention raised on appeal, we need not recite the history of the case in detail. The minors (nine-year-old K.B., nine-year-old J.B., six-year-old C.B., five-year- old L.B., Jr., four-year-old P.B., and six-month-old A.B.) were detained in September 2013, based on allegations of excessive corporal punishment by L.B. (father) and domestic violence between the parents. At the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing in January 2014, the juvenile court sustained the amended section 300 petitions, placed the minors in foster care, and ordered reunification services and visitation for the parents. The visitation order specified regular visitation consistent with the children’s best interests and authorized the agency to determine the time, place, and manner of visitation. In June 2014, the six-month review report recommended termination of the parents’ services and a plan of adoption for the minors, who were placed in two different homes (one for the three girls, K.B., P.B., and A.B., and another for the three boys, J.B., C.B., and L.B., Jr.). The parents had twice-weekly supervised visits, but had to attend them separately due to previous court orders; mother visited for the first hour and father visited for the second hour, with all minors present during both hours. At the permanency hearing in July 2014, the juvenile court continued the parents’ services as to the boys, but terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing as to the girls. The court maintained the visitation order unchanged “without prejudice.” In September 2014, the agency filed a section 388 petition requesting that the juvenile court reduce visitation from five hours of supervised visitation per week to