In re J.J. CA2/2

Filed 4/26/16 In re J.J. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re J.J., a Person Coming Under the B264746 Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK78147)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MARIE J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Julie Fox Blackshaw, Judge. Affirmed.

Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, R. Keith Davis, Acting Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

In this juvenile dependency appeal, maternal grandmother Marie J. (Marie) challenges the juvenile court’s summary denial of her petition under section 388 of the Welfare and Institutions Code,1 requesting custody of her granddaughter, J.J. (minor, born Oct. 2013). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Prerelease Investigation Report On March 5, 2014, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) initiated dependency proceedings on behalf of then-four-month-old minor, and placed her with her maternal aunt, Lydia J. (Lydia). On March 10, 2014, a DCFS dependency investigator (DI) went to Marie’s house to assess her for placement. Minor was in Marie’s care during the visit. Marie was living in a three-bedroom, single- family house that she owned, she was gainfully employed, and she had adopted minor’s half brother in 2012 “through DCFS.” The report indicated that California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) reports for Marie and her domestic partner, Lisa P. (Lisa), were attached, but they are not part of the record on appeal. The report stated that the CLETS results for Marie and Lisa reflected “extensive criminal history.” Marie told the DI she wanted minor to remain with Lydia because Lydia did not have children and Marie would babysit minor while Lydia worked. Marie continued: “That’s where I would truly like the baby to be placed and to continue to stay with my older sister Lydia [J.]. The reason of my decision right now, and I will be completely honest with you, I don’t want to deal with my daughter and with her issues.” Marie explained that minor’s mother, Alexandria J. (mother), needed to be in a treatment center and not with her girlfriend, Daisy V. (Daisy), who was a “major meth addict and criminal.” Marie stated that if minor were placed with her, she would be willing to allow mother to visit minor.