California Court of Appeal Feb 2, 2016 No. E064375Unpublished
Filed 2/2/16 In re A.B. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
In re A.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY E064375 CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, (Super.Ct.No. J249851) Plaintiff and Respondent, OPINION v.
C.H. at al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cheryl C. Kersey,
Judge. Affirmed.
Grace Clark, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant L.B.
Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant C.H.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Danielle E. Wuchenich, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
L.B. (father) and C.H. (mother) appeal from an order terminating parental rights to
their daughter, A.B. (sometimes child). Their sole appellate contention is that the trial
court erred by denying the father’s “changed circumstances” petition under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 388 (section 388). We find no error. Hence, we will affirm.
The father and the mother are married and have one child together, A.B. A.B. was
four when the dependency was filed and is now seven. The mother also has an older son,
T.H., from a previous relationship.
In June 2013, according to T.H., the father hit the mother because she would not
give him money for “more” alcohol. To protect the mother, T.H. hit the father in the face.
(The father claimed that he grabbed the mother by the shoulders but did not hit her.
Initially, the mother claimed not to remember whether he hit her or not. Later, she
claimed that he shoved her but did not hit her.)
That same day, the father hit T.H. in the head with a glass ashtray. A.B. was
present and was yelling for them to stop fighting.
The father admitted using marijuana and abusing alcohol. When drug-tested about
10 days later, he was positive for opiates.
The father agreed to a safety plan that called for him to live apart from the rest of
the family. Accordingly, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the
Department) did not detain A.B., but it did file a dependency petition regarding her.1
In August 2013, the juvenile court sustained the petition as to A.B. based on
failure to protect. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b).) It formally removed her from
the father’s custody but left her in the mother’s custody.
In January 2014, the social worker discovered that the father was living with the
mother and A.B.; the paternal grandparents were also living in the home. The paternal
grandparents reported that the parents “consistently leave the children unattended for
extended periods of time . . . .” A.B. was “filthy” and unkempt. The father admitted that
he was using methamphetamine and marijuana.
Accordingly, in January 2014, the Department detained A.B. and filed a
supplemental petition as to her. She was placed in a foster home. In March 2014, the
juvenile court sustained the allegations of the supplemental petition.
The parents failed to comply with their reunification services plans, including, but
not limited to, the substance abuse-related requirements. Meanwhile, the foster mother
expressed an interest in adopting A.B. Thus, in March 2015, at a 12-month review
1 The dependency petition was also as to T.H. Because this appeal relates solely to A.B., the record with regard to T.H. is fragmentary. We therefore do not discuss him further.
hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a Welfare and
Separately and alternatively, the juvenile court reasonably concluded that granting
the petition would not be in the best interest of the child. When A.B. was first detained,
she was a very troubled child, but she had improved “significantly” while in the care of
the prospective adoptive mother. She and the foster mother had a “mutual attachment.”
Although her visits with the father were “positive,” it was reported that, when visits
ended and she had to separate from him, “she does not show any emotion whatsoever.”
There was no reason to think that she would be any better off with the father than with the
prospective adoptive mother.
We therefore conclude that the juvenile court did not err by summarily denying the
father’s section 388 petition.
III
DISPOSITION
The order appealed from is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
MILLER J.
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the father's section 388 petition because he failed to demonstrate changed circumstances or that modifying the order would be in the child's best interest.
Issues
Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by denying the father's section 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing?
Did the father establish changed circumstances and that modification was in the child's best interest?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The juvenile court reasonably concluded that there were no relevant changed circumstances.”
“Separately and alternatively, the juvenile court reasonably concluded that granting the petition would not be in the best interest of the child.”
“We therefore conclude that the juvenile court did not err by summarily denying the father’s section 388 petition.”