In re B.R. CA3

Filed 4/12/22 In re B.R. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

In re B.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C094639 Court Law.

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES (Super. Ct. No. AGENCY, STKJVDP20160000359)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C.T., maternal grandmother (grandmother) of the minors, B.R., Y.T., L.W., and J.W., appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying her request that the court place the minors with her. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 361.3, 388, 395; statutory section citations that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS On September 11, 2020, grandmother filed a relative information form, identifying four minors, B.R., Y.T., L.W., and J.W., noting three of the minors had special needs or disabilities. Grandmother noted that the minors had not seen the maternal family in some time and requested visits and placement of the minors with family, listing two maternal aunts and the minors’ adult half sibling as relatives who would assist with their care. On October 26, 2020, grandmother filed a section 388 petition requesting that the court change its placement order and place the minors with her. In support of her request, grandmother stated that the San Joaquin County Human Services Agency (Agency) completed an evaluation and that her home was approved, but the Agency chose not to place the minors in her care. In her petition, grandmother stated that placement of the sibling minors in separate foster homes caused them emotional harm. Grandmother stated that she had placement of the minors, after they were removed from the mother, T.C. in a prior 2016 dependency case. In that case, mother was able to successfully reunify with the minors and they were returned to her care. Grandmother argued that there was a statutory presumption that placement with a relative was in the best interest of the minors and, because of the prior placement of the minors, it would not be detrimental to their physical and emotional well- being to place them in her care again. She also indicated she was prepared to provide permanence for all four minors through adoption or guardianship, should reunification services be denied or reunification efforts fail. On November 4, 2020, mother filed a response in support of grandmother’s section 388 petition. Mother’s response stated that the minors were detained on or about May 28, 2020, following a petition filed under section 300 (a), (b), (f), (g), and (j). Mother and father were incarcerated. A fifth minor, A.W., a half sibling to L.W. and J.W., was also removed with the subject minors and placed in a separate foster home.