In re A.B. CA2/8

Filed 7/11/23 In re A.B. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re A.B., A Person Coming B325988 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. Nos. DK15312 AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

THOMAS H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Hernan D. Vera, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————

On June 19, 2018, the juvenile court of Los Angeles County terminated the parental rights of Mother and appellant Thomas H. (Father), to their son A.B. (born January 2016). The court designated A.B.’s then-caretakers as his prospective adoptive parents and set a permanency planning review. On August 27, 2019, the juvenile court conducted a permanency planning review, finding by clear and convincing evidence that return of A.B. to the physical custody of his parents would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child. The court ordered adoption as the permanent plan for A.B. On December 5, 2022, Father filed a petition under Welfare & Institutions Code1 section 388. He advised the juvenile court that circumstances had changed in that he and A.B.’s mother were now employed. Father stated it was in A.B.’s best interest to know his own parents. Father also advised the juvenile court that he and Mother had been in an off-and-on relationship since 1997, when he was 21 years old and she was 18 years old. On December 6, 2022, the juvenile court denied the section 388 petition without setting it for a hearing on the merits. The court found there were no changed circumstances to justify granting the petition and a modification of the court ordered plan of adoption was not in A.B.’s best interest. Father timely appealed. On May 17, 2023, counsel for Father filed a no issue brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835. That same day we notified Father that a no issue brief had been filed on his behalf and we invited him to file a supplemental letter setting