In re A.Z. CA1/4

Filed 12/13/23 In re A.Z. CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re A.Z., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN MATEO COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A167042 v. (San Mateo County S.N. et al., Super. Ct. No. 17-JD-0105) Defendants and Appellants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2017, the San Mateo County Human Services Agency filed — and later amended — a petition alleging A.Z. (the child) had suffered, or was at substantial risk of suffering, physical harm in the care of his biological parents, S.N. and A.Z. (collectively, parents).1 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300,

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion, reciting only those

facts necessary to resolve the limited issue before us. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We deny parents’ motion to augment and correct the record and their motion to “request records.”

1

subd. (b)2) The juvenile court detained the child; in May 2018, it terminated parental rights. Parents appealed the order terminating their parental rights. In November 2018, we dismissed the appeal. (San Mateo County Human Services Agency v. A.Z. (Nov. 15, 2018, A154748); see In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) The following month, after the child was adopted, the court terminated the dependency proceeding and its jurisdiction over the child. On December 30, 2022—more than four years later—parents filed a petition asking the juvenile court to reinstate their parental rights and to return the child to their care (section 388 petition). Parents alleged the dependency was a “fraud” and that the child was kidnapped in 2017. That same day, the court summarily denied the petition on the grounds that parents had not alleged a change of circumstance or new evidence as required by section 388. Representing themselves, parents have appealed the December 30, 2022 order. Parents insist the child was kidnapped, and they contend the juvenile court lacked authority to terminate their parental rights. Although parents’ briefs do not comply with Rules of Court, rule 8.204, we have carefully considered the information and assertions raised therein. We conclude parents have not demonstrated the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying their section 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing. In the juvenile court, parents failed to identify a substantial change of circumstance or set forth new evidence warranting a change to the order terminating parental rights. They also made no showing that returning the child to their care would promote the child’s best interests. (In re G.B. (2014)