In re M.S. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Sep 28, 2021 No. D078954Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother's section 388 petition because she failed to demonstrate changed circumstances, as opposed to changing circumstances, and failed to show that a change in placement was in the child's best interests.

Issues

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion in denying the mother's section 388 petition for modification of placement?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The juvenile court found Mother had not established “a true change of circumstances that warrants placement in the best interest of the minor.””

“Mother bore the burden of showing “changed, not changing, circumstances.” (Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 615.) She did not meet this burden.”

“Although other evidence in the record and Mother’s testimony show some progress, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion on relying on different evidence to find Mother’s instability demonstrated that her circumstances had not changed.”

Filed 9/28/21 In re M.S. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re M.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D078954 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. SJ12981D)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

L.F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kimberlee A. Lagotta, Judge. Affirmed.

Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Lonnie J. Eldridge, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

L.F. (Mother) appeals an order denying her Welfare and Institutions

Code,1 section 388 petition to return her daughter M.S. to her care based on a change in circumstances. The order was entered at the same hearing as the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and finding M.S. adoptable at her selection and implementation hearing. (§ 366.26.) We conclude that the juvenile court did not err in making its ruling and therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 In September 2016, Mother gave birth to M.S. while she was incarcerated. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned the juvenile court after M.S. was left with no caregiver, but the court dismissed the petition in January 2017 when Mother was released from custody. M.S.’s biological father (Father) was identified,

but he was then deported to Mexico.3 Mother accepted voluntary services and was reunited with M.S. In July 2018, the Agency again petitioned the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b), on behalf of one-year-old M.S. The Agency alleged that there was a substantial risk that M.S. would suffer serious physical harm or illness due to Mother’s erratic behavior when under the influence of narcotics while caring for M.S.

In re M.S. CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

O'ROURKE, J.

DATO, J.

AI Brief