In re V.A. CA4/1
Filed 1/12/23 In re V.A. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 V.A. et al., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH D080637 AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. J519862AB) Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
M.A. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marissa A. Bejarano, Judge. Affirmed. M.A. and J.A., in pro. per., for Defendants and Appellants. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. This is the second appeal by maternal grandmother and grandfather (collectively, Grandparents) involving two of their grandchildren, V.A. and L.A., since the children were freed for adoption in April 2021. In a prior
appeal, we affirmed an order denying their request for placement of the children under the relative placement preference of Welfare and Institutions
Code section 361.3.1 (In re V.A. (Jan. 18, 2022, D078798) [nonpub. opn.].) Thereafter, the juvenile court denied the Grandparents’ petition under section 388 for an order mandating visitation with both the Grandparents and the minors’ siblings, who are in the Grandparents’ care. Grandparents again appeal, contending in this instance that the juvenile court failed to consider the best interests of the children in ruling on their petition. We conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in determining that Grandparents failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances. Accordingly, we affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Earlier Proceedings San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition for V.A. in September 2018 because her parents were homeless and unable to care for her. A second petition, this one concerning L.A., was filed in January 2019 because she tested positive for amphetamine at birth. Parental rights were ultimately terminated. Both the Grandparents and V.A.’s paternal relatives (Aunt and Uncle,
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)