Guardianship of R.D. CA2/6

Filed 5/9/16 Guardianship of R.D. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

Guardianship of R.D., a minor. 2d Civil No. B262096 (Super. Ct. No. 1380692 ) (Santa Barbara County)

W.D. et al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

B.P.,

Objector and Appellant.

B.P. ("Mother") appeals the order denying her petition to terminate the guardianship of her minor child (R.D.). R.D.'s grandparents (W.D. and A.D.) are the child's guardians. We conclude, among other things, that: 1) the trial court did not err by denying Mother's petition to terminate the guardianship after Mother failed to appear at the hearing on her petition, and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mother's motion for reconsideration. We affirm. FACTS In 2011, Mother was arrested "for possession of controlled substances." The trial court appointed the child's paternal grandparents to be the guardians for R.D. Mother objected to the guardianship. She requested the court not to grant it until after the

resolution of her pending "criminal" case. The court denied that request. It told Mother that "[t]here is nothing to prevent you at any time from challenging [the] guardianship." It said, "[M]y understanding is that the guardians are allowing visitation as long as they're confident that you're sober." In 2012, Mother filed a petition to terminate the guardianship. The trial court denied the petition. It found no reason to change the status quo. Mother asked, "How long should I wait to renew it?" The court said, "It's not a question of time, it's a question of what you accomplish and the condition that your life is in." In 2013, Mother filed a second petition to terminate the guardianship. The guardians opposed the petition. They claimed that Mother had a "criminal history, . . . involving possession, sale, or use of drugs," and that, in 2011, she had "routinely locked [the child] in a bedroom, . . . unattended." The court investigator recommended that the petition be denied. The guardians claimed Mother did not meet her burden because "this child now for the first time in her life is flourishing" in their care. The court denied the petition. In 2014, Mother filed her third petition to terminate the guardianship. In that petition, she alleged, among other things, that she: 1) had a "[s]uccessful termination of probation," 2) maintained "abstinence from narcotics for over 2 years," 3) "continues participation in [a] 12 step program," and 4) had "gainful employment and [a] stable residence for nearly 2 years." The court investigator filed a report recommending that the trial court deny Mother's petition. The investigator noted, among other things, that Mother's husband had recently been "discharged from parole." Mother claimed that her probation had been "terminated." Mother interpreted this to mean that she could work at "marketing" events where alcohol is served. The investigator said R.D. "is doing well" with the guardians. The report included statements made to the investigator by Mother and one of the guardians. Mother did not attend the hearing on her petition to terminate. The trial court denied the petition. The court said it "anticipated" that Mother would "be here today to ask for a hearing, but she's not."