In re O.T. CA4/3

Filed 5/31/23 In re O.T. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re O.T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

G061952 ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. Nos. 21DP0733, 21DP0734, 21DP0735, 21DP0736) Plaintiff and Respondent, OPINION v.

J.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Isabel Apkarian, Judge. Affirmed. Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minors. * * * J.S. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order in which it summarily 1 denied her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition because she failed to make the requisite prima facie showing for an evidentiary hearing. The juvenile court described this as a “sad case.” We agree. At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court bypassed reunification services based on the prolonged physical abuse Mother knew her boyfriend inflicted on her four children, and the sexual abuse he perpetrated against her oldest daughter. The evidence showed Mother at best minimized this abuse. Mother filed her section 388 petition as an “‘escape mechanism’” to avoid a hearing on the termination of her parental rights. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) Unsuccessful, she now also challenges the court’s ensuing order terminating her parental rights, claiming that the court’s order denying her modification petition was erroneous. As we explain, her relationships with her four children had not improved appreciably by the time Mother filed her modification petition to justify the relief she requested. Thus, the juvenile court did not err in concluding Mother failed to show a change in circumstances warranting an order for reunification services, let alone immediate return of the children to her care. Nor did she demonstrate that additional reunification services or returning her children to her would be in the best interests of the children, who were thriving in the care of their paternal grandmother and uncle. We therefore affirm the juvenile court’s orders denying Mother’s modification petition and terminating her parental rights.