1 Filed 4/28/15 In re J.T. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

In re J.T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. S.T., Defendant and Appellant. E061335 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ112684) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Tamara L. Wagner, Judge. Affirmed. Jack A. Love, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, a nd Carole A. Nunes Fong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent2 Defendant and appellant S.T. (mother) is the mother of J.T., who was three years old at the time of the latest challenged orde r. Mother appeals from the juvenile court’s order of June 5, 2014, deny ing her petition under Welfare a nd Institutions Code section
388. 1 Mother argues the court abused its disc retion when it denied her petition. Mother also argues the court erred at the October 7, 2013, disposition hearing when it found the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) had complied with the notice requirements imposed by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C., § 1901, et seq.) As discussed below, we reject both arguments and affirm the juvenile court’s orders. S TATEMENT OF F ACTS AND P ROCEDURE Prior Child Welfare Issues re J.T. ’s Three Older Siblings—2006-2013 Mother lost her parental rights to J.T.’s th ree older siblings in 2013. Prior to that, his two oldest siblings were declared depend ents in 2006 because of mother’s transient lifestyle and participation in domestic violen ce. Another older sibling was detained at birth, declared a dependent child and returned to mother on family maintenance in 2007. The two oldest siblings were returned to mother on family maintena nce in 2008. The dependency was terminated later that year. The children were agai n detained in 2010 because mother physically abused one of th em and abused drugs and alcohol. They never returned to mother’s care.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.3 Prior Dependency for J.T.—2011-2013 In March 2011, mother gave birth to J. T., her fourth child, while in a prison treatment program, and she received family maintenance services for him. In March 2012, J.T. was detained when mother was incarcerated for an outstanding warrant. J.T. was returned to mother eight days later on fa mily maintenance. In July 2012, J.T. was again detained after mother go t into a physical altercation with another resident in her transitional living facility. In August 2012, J.T. was returned to mother’s care on family maintenance. In February 2013, J.T.’s depe ndency was terminated and mother was given full custody. Detention on Current Dependency - July 2013 Only five months later, in July 2013, J.T. and his one-month-old brother, M.T., were detained after mother called police duri ng a physical altercation with M.T’s father. 2 M.T. fell off the bed during the altercation. Mother admitted to drinking alcohol earlier in the evening and driving w ith the two children while dr unk. DPSS detained the children. 3 On July 24, 2013, the juve nile court ordered the children detained and granted mother supervised visits. Also on that da te, mother filed a form ICWA-020, Parental Notification of Indian Status, in which she checked the box denoting “I may have Indian

2 M.T.’s father is not J.T.’s father.

3 M.T. is not the subject of this appeal . He is mentioned only where necessary. Each of the two ch ildren was eventually placed with his respective pa ternal grandparents.4 ancestry” but failing to give the names of a ny particular tribes. The court found that ICWA may apply and ordered DP SS to provide IC WA notices. On August 15, 2013, DPSS sent ICWA notices to the three Cherokee tribes listing J.T.’s father’s name, but under mother’s name the tribe was listed as “No Tribe Specified.” No notices were sent to any Bl ackfeet tribes. The Ch erokee tribes responded that the two children are not eligible for tribal membership ba sed on the information provided. On August 16, 2013, the social worker interviewed mother regarding her Native American ancestry. Mother reported that she might have Cherokee ancestry on her mother’s side through her great grandfather and Blackfeet ancestry on her father’s side through her great grandmothe r. DPSS did not send additi onal ICWA notices based on this new information. Jurisdiction and Disposition—October 2013 On October 7, 2013, the juvenile court took jurisdiction of the two children and denied mother reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), because mother had failed to reunify w ith J.T.’s three older siblin gs. The court set a section 366.26 hearing and limited mothe r’s visits to once per mont h. The court followed the DPSS recommendation and found that ICWA noticing requirements has been fulfilled and that ICWA does not apply.5 Section 388 Petition Regarding M.T.—January/February 2014 On January 31, 2014, mother filed a section 388 petiti on regarding J.T.’s sibling, M.T., asking for reunification services. The hearing on the section 388 petition was held on February 13, 2014. Mother testified about the services she had completed, her visits with M.T. , and her relationship with him. The juvenile court denied the section 388 petition, sta ting it “would find that these do represent change d circumstances, but the Court’s not able to say that this finding of changed circumstances is an indication that the Court has any reasonable belief that her future course of conduct or future history, if you will, is going to be any different than her past history.” On February 18, 2014, mother appealed from the juvenile court’s denial of the section 388 petition regardi ng M.T., argued DPSS had not complied with ICWA notice requirements, and challenged the October 7, 2 013, visitation order. On August 19, 2014, this court issued a limited remand so DPSS could properly notice all identified Native American tribes, but otherwise a ffirmed the court’s orders. Placement with Paternal Grandparents—March 2014 On March 14, 2014, J.T. was placed with his paternal grandparents in Arkansas. The paternal grandparents had expressed interest in adopting J.T. and raising him with his sister, who had previously been placed with the paternal grandparents in legal guardianship.6 Section 388 Petition—May 2014 On May 15, 2014, mother filed a secti on 388 petition regarding J.T. This petition is the subject of this appeal. In this petiti on, as with the previous petition regarding M.T., mother asked for reunification services. Mother claimed that her circumstances had changed in that she had completed an outpa tient substance abuse program, consistently tested negative for drugs, completed paren ting and “aggressive replacement” classes, participated in NA/AA meeti ngs, was currently attending an additional outpatient substance abuse program and parenting progr am, was visiting J.T. regularly, and had obtained housing and employment. Mother stat ed the requested order would be in J.T.’s best interest because he has a bond with mother. In an addendum report filed June 2, 2014, DPSS reported it could not assess mother’s current circumstances in response to the section 388 petition because mother’s telephone had been disconnect ed and mother had not contact ed the social worker or provided a new means of contacting mother. DPSS recommended the court terminate mother’s parental rights to J.T. and set a Planned Permanent Living Arrangement with the paternal grandparents, with the goal of adoption, as J.T.’s permanent plan. On June 5, 2014, the juvenile court he ld a combined hearing on the section 388 petition and to determine a permanent plan for J.T. under section 366.26. Mother testified that, after the court denied her reunif ication services at th e disposition hearing on October 7, 2013, she had completed a seven- or eight- month outpatient substance abuse program at MFI, attended AA/ NA meetings, tested negative for drugs, completed an7 aftercare program through MFI, completed an “aggressive replacement treatment” and a parenting program, and was currently in an ou tpatient aftercare program to maintain her sobriety. Mother had an AA/NA sponsor and had learned copi ng skills to deal with her anger. Many services were available thro ugh the aftercare program, including drug testing, parenting, anger management and do mestic violence. Mother testified she had her own one-bedroom apartment and was wo rking full time providing day care for her uncle’s children. Mother test ified about her relationship w ith J.T., how she had visited him regularly and had mainta ined telephone contact with him after he moved to Arkansas, despite the lack of cooperation fro m the paternal grandparents. After hearing mother’s testimony and argument from coun sel, the court found that mother’s circumstances were changing but not changed, and that it would not be in J.T.’s best interest to give up the stability he had acq uired. The court denied the petition. County counsel pointed out that DPSS would need to conduct further ICWA noticing and, “in an abundance of caution” asked that the section 366.26 hearing be continued until that could be accomplished. The court po inted out the importance of complying with ICWA and proceeded to extensively question mother and the two maternal aunts who were present about any Nativ e American heritage in mother’s family. The section 366.26 hearing was co ntinued to October 3, 2014. Mother filed her notice of appeal on June 9, 2014. On October 20, 2014, DP SS filed a Request for Judi cial Notice containing the ICWA noticing documentation sent to the Black feet Nation in July 2 014 and to the three8 Cherokee tribes in September 2014. We here by GRANT the request for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, §§ 459, 452; In re Marina S. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 158, 166)
D ISCUSSION 1. ICWA Notice Mother first argues the juvenile court erred when it found at the disposition hearing on October 7, 2013, that the Indian tribes had been properly noticed and that ICWA does not apply. Spec ifically, mother contends the ICWA notices mailed on August 15, 2013, were inadequate because they did not include the information she supplied the following day that she had possi ble Cherokee and Blackfoot heritage. We agree that the notices were inad equate and that the juvenile court erred when it found that the notices complied with ICWA. However, as mother acknowledges in her reply brief, the notices sent in July and September of 20 14 do fully comp ly with ICWA. Given that the purposes 4 of the ICWA noticing requirements have been fulfilled here, we see no need to reverse the disposition and subsequent orde rs. Mother has not carried her burden on appeal to establish that reversal is required.
2. Section 388 Petition Mother also argues the juvenile court erred in June 2014 when it denied her section 388 petition. We disa gree, as explained below.

4 No tribe with which J.T. may be aff iliated was denied participation in these dependency proceedings. (See In re Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4t h 166, 174.) Two of the three Cherokee tribes responded that J.T. did not meet the definition of an Indian child within their tribes, as did the Blackfeet Nation.9 “Under section 388, a person with an inte rest in a dependent child may petition the court to change, modify, or set aside a previo us court order. The petitioning party has the burden of showing, by a preponderance of th e evidence, that ther e is a change of circumstances or new evidence, and the proposed modification is in the child’s best interest. [Citations.]” ( In re Daniel C. (2006) 141 Cal.A pp.4th 1438, 1445.) “The grant or denial of a section 388 petition is commi tted to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unle ss an abuse of discretion is clearly established. [Citation.]” ( In re Shirley K. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 65, 71.) “‘The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is wh ether the trial court ex ceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.’ [Citation.]” ( In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.) Here, as described above, mother testif ied that, after the court’s order denying reunification services, she participated in drug treatment and was enrolled in an aftercare program, was testing negative for drugs and attending AA/NA meetings, had participated in parenting, anger management and do mestic violence classes and “aggressive replacement treatment,” and had obtained her own apartment and employment so she could support J.T. should she be reunited with him. However, as the People point out, in th e eight months between the denial of reunification services and the section 388 hearing, mother missed an entire month of AA/NA meetings in December 2013/January 2014. Further, the record shows she last10 attended a meeting on March 19, 2014, and di d not resume attendance for another two months— after filing the section 388 petition. In add ition, the record in the prior appeal shows that mother had participat ed in reunification services during at least three previous dependencies to address her drug and alcohol a buse and physical abuse of J.T.’s siblings, but failed to benefit from them. Given this evidence of moth er’s long-term struggle with substance abuse and physical vi olence, and her history of faili ng to derive lasting benefit from reunification services designed to help he r safely parent J.T. and his three older siblings, we cannot say that the juvenile co urt abused its discretion when it denied her section 388 petition.
D ISPOSITION The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.

We concur: McKINSTER J. KING J.