In re Ah. V. CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Apr 4, 2023 No. B318191Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying the appellant's section 388 petitions because the appellant failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or that the requested modification would be in the children's best interests.

Issues

Did the juvenile court abuse its discretion by summarily denying the appellant's section 388 petitions without a hearing?
Did the appellant establish a prima facie case of changed circumstances or new evidence under section 388?
Did the appellant demonstrate that the requested modification would promote the children's best interests?

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court did not abuse its discretion by summarily denying appellant’s section 388 petitions.”

“The juvenile court’s orders denying the petitions further stated: “The 388 petition has failed to demonstrate a prima facie showing therefore no hearing will be set.””

“Appellant failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or that a change of order would be in the children’s best interests.”

Filed 4/4/23 In re Ah. V. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 AH. V. et al., Persons B318191 Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County Court Law. Super. Ct. No. 17CCJP00988C-G)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

MICHAEL V.

Defendant;

S. JOHNS-EL,

Intervener and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Affirmed.

Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Intervener and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

******

Appellant Chiefhead S. Johns-El (appellant) challenges the orders summarily denying his petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 requesting legal guardianship over the subject children, Ah. (born 2013), Asa. (born 2014), twins Am. and Asi. (born 2016), and Mi. (born 2019), and seeking leave to participate in the children’s dependency proceedings.1 We find no abuse of discretion and affirm.

BACKGROUND Prior appeal This court previously affirmed orders that established dependency jurisdiction over Michael (born 2019), removed him from parental custody, and continued out-of-home placement of Ah., Asa., Am. and Asi. (In re Ahnyia V. (May 13, 2020, B298852) [nonpub. opn].) The sole issue raised in the prior appeal was whether the juvenile court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) complied with the inquiry and notice requirements of the Indian Child

In re Ah. V. CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

MICHAEL V.

S. JOHNS-EL,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief