In re Catalina C. CA5

Filed 11/6/15 In re Catalina C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 CATALINA C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY F071555 SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. 516717) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION VICTORIA C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Marsha F. Levine, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.

Appellant Victoria C. is the mother of 10-year-old Catalina C., the subject of this appeal. In February 2015, the juvenile court terminated Victoria’s parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 and ordered the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) to arrange a final visit. The agency subsequently filed a petition under section 388 asking the court to vacate its visitation order and prevailed. Victoria contends the juvenile court erred in granting the petition because the agency failed to show there was a change in circumstances to warrant modifying the order. We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY This appeal comes to us in the wake of the juvenile court’s order terminating Victoria’s parental rights as to her daughter, Catalina. Prior to terminating Victoria’s parental rights, the juvenile court provided her over a year of reunification services. During that time, Victoria appealed from orders related to the disposition of the case and termination of reunification services and we affirmed the orders. We are therefore very familiar with the facts in her case. The issue Victoria raises on this appeal is very discrete. It concerns the juvenile court’s order granting a section 388 petition effectively depriving Victoria of a final visit with her daughter. In order to grant a section 388 petition, the juvenile court must find there has been a change in circumstances. Victoria contends there is insufficient evidence to support such a finding and therefore the juvenile court erred. The question of whether a change of circumstances exists requires the juvenile court to make a factual determination. In so doing, the court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case. (In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 189.) With that in mind, we focus our summary in this case on only those facts from the inception that are germane to Victoria’s issue and provide a context for the juvenile court’s ruling.