Filed 12/6/22 In re V.R. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Cal ifornia 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(a). This 

opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re V.R., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B312319

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SELIA C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. CK72824D

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Marguerite D. Downing, Judge. Affirmed.

Elizabeth Klippi, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Selia C. (mother) contends that 

the juvenile court erred in summarily denying her Welfare and 

Institutions Code1 section 388 petition, which sought to alter the 

order granting the maternal grandmother legal guardianship of 

her daughter, V.R. (born March 2012). We affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Petitions Concerning V.R.’s Half-Siblings

In 2008, a court sustained a petition under section 300 that 

mother and the father of her child, Rosemary R., had a history of 

engaging in violent altercations in Rosemary’s presence, placing 

Rosemary and mother’s other child, Damian C.,2 at risk of 

physical and emotional harm. The children were placed in the 

home of the maternal grandparents. Mother was permitted to live 

in the same home and the children remained under the 

supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services

(Department). 

In January 2010, the Department filed another petition on 

behalf of Rosemary and Damian, alleging that mother had a 

history of illicit drug abuse, including of methamphetamine, was

a current user of marijuana, and had been under the influence of 

drugs while the children were in her care. The Department also 

filed a petition on behalf of mother’s third child, Francisco A., in 

connection with mother’s drug use. The three children were 

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.

2 This name is sometimes also written as “Damien” in the record. 
3

detained. In October 2010, a court found that mother was not in 

compliance with the case plan and terminated family 

reunification services. The children were placed with maternal 

grandmother. In 2012, maternal grandmother became the legal 

guardian of Rosemary, Damian, and Francisco. 

2. The 2012 Petition and Related Proceedings

In May 2012, the Department received a referral alleging 

that a domestic violence dispute had taken place between mother 

and V.R.’s father, Ronald R. (father). Mother called maternal 

grandmother and asked her to pick mother up. When maternal 

grandmother arrived, mother ran outside, carrying the infant 

V.R., and was bruised and crying. The police arrived, but mother 

refused to file a report. 

Maternal grandmother told a social worker that father had 

threatened mother that if she ever involved the Department with 

V.R. or ever left him or took V.R. from him, he would shoot 

maternal grandmother, V.R.’s half-siblings, and mother. Mother 

denied that she had called maternal grandmother or that there 

was any domestic violence between her and father but admitted

that they had argued. Father also admitted that they had argued 

but denied any violence. 

The court authorized a removal order and V.R. was 

detained. The Department filed a petition alleging that mother 

and father have a history of engaging in violent altercations in 

V.R.’s presence, endangering her and her siblings, and that 

father has a history of substance abuse and is a current abuser of 

marijuana. (§ 300, subds. (a), (b), (j).)

At the detention hearing, the court held that a prima facie 

case for detaining V.R. had been established. The court ordered 

the Department to provide mother and father with family 
4

reunification services and ordered monitored visits. At the 

jurisdiction hearing, mother and father pleaded no contest to the 

court sustaining an amended petition that removed the 

allegations under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (j). At the 

disposition hearing, the court found by clear and convincing

evidence that substantial danger existed to V.R. and there was no 

reasonable means to protect her without removal from the 

parents’ custody. The court ordered family reunification services 

for father only, noting that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) 

applied to mother.

3 The court also ordered visitation for both 

parents. 

In November 2012, V.R. was placed with maternal 

grandmother. 

In the six-month status report, the Department stated that 

father had completed a parenting course and participated in 

individual counseling. Father was also participating in couple’s 

counseling and a six-month anger management class. The 

Department stated that father was in compliance with the court 

ordered programs and recommended that family reunification 

services continue and that the court calendar a supplemental 

progress report in three months to address father’s progress and 

3 This subdivision states that reunification services need not be 

provided when the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence,

“[t]hat the court ordered termination of reunification services for any 

siblings or half-siblings of the child because the parent or guardian 

failed to reunify with the sibling or half sibling after the sibling or half 

sibling had been removed from that parent or guardian pursuant to 

Section 361 . . . and that, according to the findings of the court, this 

parent or guardian has not subsequently made a reasonable effort to 

treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or half sibling of 

that child from that parent or guardian.” (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10)(A).)
5

the possible return of V.R. to father.

4 The court adopted this 

recommendation. 

In a progress report, the Department stated that father 

maintained a consistent visitation schedule with V.R. and 

completed all court-ordered counseling, classes, and drug testing. 

Father reported being ready to have V.R. returned to his custody. 

Mother and father were no longer living together. The 

Department recommended that V.R. be released to father and 

receive family maintenance services and the court so ordered. 

The court also ordered continued monitored visits for mother and 

that father could not supervise the visits, nor could mother reside 

with father.

In a status report, the Department stated that V.R. was 

doing well with father. Mother’s visits with V.R. were 

inconsistent. Between March and May 2013, mother had regular 

visits with V.R. at maternal grandmother’s home. In May, mother 

reported that she and maternal grandmother were no longer on 

speaking terms. As of the date of the Department’s report, she 

had not visited V.R. for two months. The Department

recommended terminating jurisdiction and awarding sole legal 

and physical custody of V.R. to father, and that mother be 

allowed monitored visitation. 

In September 2013, the court awarded custody of V.R. to 

father and ordered supervised visitation for mother. 

4 The status report also attached certificates reflecting mother’s 

participation in individual counseling and completion of parenting and 

domestic violence classes. It also attached 13 drug tests performed by 

mother, of which one, taken June 28, 2012, was positive for 

methamphetamine. 
6

3. The 2014 Petition and Related Proceedings

In August 2014, the Department received a referral 

alleging that mother and father had participated in two armed 

robberies and that V.R. was present at the first of these. Mother 

and father were arrested in connection with the robberies. V.R. 

was initially released into the care of paternal grandmother but

was placed with maternal grandmother in September 2014.

Mother told the Department that she and father had 

decided to take V.R. to the beach and some neighborhood kids 

tagged along. She stated that she was unaware that the kids

were committing robberies. Mother also admitted that her visits 

with V.R. were supposed to be monitored by paternal 

grandmother but sometimes only father monitored her visits and 

that she sometimes stayed over at paternal grandmother’s home. 

In September 2014, the Department filed a section 300 

petition alleging that mother and father failed to protect V.R. 

because they committed robberies while V.R. was under their 

care and supervision and because father had a history of illicit 

drug use and was a current user of marijuana. (§ 300, subd. (b).) 

At the detention hearing, the court found that a prima facie 

case for detaining V.R. had been established. The court ordered 

the Department to provide family reunification services and 

monitored visits for both parents. 

In the jurisdiction/disposition report, the Department

stated that mother continued to deny being involved in the 

robberies but acknowledged that V.R. was present that day. 

Mother also denied that she or father used drugs. She stated that 

father had a marijuana card but would not smoke around V.R.

and that she did not observe him under the influence. Mother 

also admitted that she had been living with father. Father denied 
7

the robberies and denied that V.R. was present. He admitted to 

smoking marijuana twice a day but denied using drugs around 

V.R. 

In December 2014, the court sustained the petition. The 

court ordered family reunification services and monitored 

visitation for the parents, including during their incarceration.

5

In the six-month status review report, the Department

reported that both parents had been convicted of second degree 

robbery and were sentenced to three years in prison. Mother had 

completed parenting classes, domestic violence classes, and anger 

management classes at her incarceration facility and had 

completed a few visitations with V.R. Father had not completed 

any classes and was not in compliance. At the six-month review 

hearing, the court ordered further family reunification services. 

The 12-month status review report stated that mother was 

in partial compliance and father was not in compliance. V.R. was 

doing well in maternal grandmother’s care and got along well 

with her older half-siblings. Maternal grandmother informed the 

Department that she took V.R. to visit mother at the detention 

center several times and that mother consistently called and 

wrote to V.R. Father did not call or write to V.R. In January 

2016, the court found that continued jurisdiction was necessary, 

that mother was in compliance with the case plan, and that

father was not in compliance with the case plan. The court 

ordered further family reunification services. 

In the 18-month status review report, the Department

recommended that family reunification services be terminated for 

5 Father appealed these findings and orders, which were affirmed on 

appeal. (In re V.R. (Aug. 11, 2015, B260998) [nonpub. opn.].)
8

mother and father. In June 2016, the court conducted a contested 

hearing as to father and terminated his family reunification 

services. The court continued the hearing as to mother to allow 

for her transportation to the court. In a last minute information 

to the court report, the Department stated that mother did not 

intend to appear at the hearing and recommended again that the 

court terminate family reunification services for mother. In 

August 2016, the court terminated family reunification services 

for mother and ordered a section 366.26 hearing.6

In the section 366.26 report, the Department stated that 

maternal grandmother had been V.R.’s primary caretaker since 

she was six months old and was committed to keeping V.R. and 

her half-siblings together. The Department recommended that 

jurisdiction be terminated and that maternal grandmother be 

granted legal guardianship. 

In April 2017, the court appointed maternal grandmother 

as V.R.’s legal guardian and terminated dependency jurisdiction 

over V.R. 

4. Section 388 Petitions

In November 2018, mother filed a section 388 petition

requesting that she be granted custody of V.R. because she was

V.R.’s mother, V.R. wanted to be with her, and V.R. was not safe 

in her current placement. The request was denied because it did 

not state any new evidence or show a change of circumstances. 

6 Mother filed a notice of intent to file writ petition that day stating 

that she intended to challenge the findings and orders made by the 

court. The writ was deemed non-operative. (S.C. v. Superior Court

(B277150, Oct. 13, 2016).)
9

In July 2019, father filed a section 388 petition asking for

V.R. be placed in his custody. Father stated that he was on a 

“straight road,” had a job and his own place, and would be able to 

put V.R. in a better school. He also stated that V.R. wanted to be 

with him. The court ordered a hearing and directed the 

Department to prepare a report. In its response to the section 388 

petition, the Department reported that father had yet to complete 

the courses previously ordered by the court or random drug and 

alcohol testing. He was unemployed, a current marijuana user, 

and had been inconsistent in his visits with V.R. The Department

recommended that no family reunification services be provided 

and that the petition be denied. In October 2019, the court denied 

father’s petition.

Father filed another section 388 petition in February 2020. 

Father stated that he had maintained a job, had a stable home, 

had completed job training, parenting and substance abuse 

courses, and had participated in counseling. Father also claimed 

that mother and maternal grandmother had kept him from 

seeing V.R. and that V.R. told him concerning things about her 

home life and maternal grandmother during their visits. Further, 

according to father, mother vandalized his home and stabbed him

in March 2018. He asked that his claims against maternal 

grandmother be investigated, that V.R. be removed from 

maternal grandmother, and that he be awarded sole custody. His 

petition attached proof of enrollment and attendance for

individual counseling, certificates of completion for the courses, 

and proof of enrollment in truck driving school. The court ordered 

a hearing and asked the Department to prepare another report. 

The hearing was continued due to Covid-19. In the meantime, 
10

father filed a third section 388 petition. The court ordered 

another hearing and asked the Department to prepare a report. 

In its response to the third section 388 petition, the 

Department stated that father maintained a suitable residence, 

had maintained employment prior to Covid-19, and had the 

support of his fiancée and extended family. Father reported that 

he had not spoken with mother since she purportedly stabbed 

him two years prior, a crime for which she went to prison.7

Father stated that mother had married and he did not know 

where she was. The Department recommended that father’s

petition be granted, that jurisdiction be reinstated, and that 

father be offered family reunification services and be ordered to 

participate in random drug and alcohol testing and a 12-step 

program. The court adopted these recommendations. 

In a status report dated March 2021, the Department

stated that father had three unexcused “no shows” as well as two 

positive results from drug testing. The report also stated that 

V.R. had expressed a desire to remain with maternal 

grandmother because she wanted to remain close to her half7 Because the Department’s report only contained a current criminal 

history for father, not for mother, father’s statements in his section 388 

petition and to a social worker are the only evidence that mother 

stabbed him. However, the record supports that mother was 

incarcerated in September 2019, as the court issued an “Order for 

Prisoner’s Appearance at Hearing Affecting Parental Rights” for 

mother to attend the hearing on father’s first section 388 petition. The 

Department’s response to father’s first section 388 petition, filed 

October 2, 2019, also identified mother’s address as a correctional 

facility. The Department reported mother’s address as unknown in its 

response to father’s third section 388 petition, filed October 8, 2020, 

suggesting that mother was no longer incarcerated by that time. 
11

siblings and to be able to continue having visits with her mother. 

The Department recommended that family reunification services 

be terminated. 

On April 2, 2021, mother filed a section 388 petition asking 

the court to modify the 2017 order granting maternal 

grandmother guardianship of V.R. Mother stated that she had 

completed domestic violence group counseling, parenting classes, 

and Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) and 

was participating in individual counseling. She attached a 

domestic violence group counseling certificate of completion dated 

November 18, 2020; a certificate of completion for a 12-week 

parenting course and a letter stating that she had completed the 

course on February 19, 2021; a certificate of completion of AA/NA 

dated November 1, 2020; and a March 16, 2021 letter from 

Southern California Counseling Center stating that mother had 

attended seven of 12 mandated classes, participated well, offered

appropriate feedback, appeared to have a good grasp on the topics 

(e.g., how to manage emotions, discipline, and managing stress 

and anxiety), and appeared to be open to the therapeutic process. 

Mother asked that the court terminate the legal guardianship 

and return V.R. to her, or reinstate her reunification services

and/or grant her unmonitored visits. Mother stated that the 

requested actions would benefit V.R. because V.R. needs her 

mother in her life and because mother had “made positive 

changes in [her] life, [was] ready to be the positive role model 

that [V.R.] needs, and [was] able to provide her with a safe, 

stable, and healthy environment.” 

On April 5, 2021, mother’s section 388 petition was denied 

without a hearing. 
12

Several days later, the Department filed a last minute 

information for the court report following a child abuse and 

neglect allegation from father. According to father, maternal 

grandmother allowed mother to enter the home and take V.R.

whenever she wanted, without supervision. The Department

reported that maternal grandmother had expressed feeling 

exhausted due to the demands of the Department, being treated 

“like a criminal,” and telling her what to do in her home. Several 

times, she stated that she was done being a legal guardian, but 

then recanted. Maternal grandmother stated that she wished for 

circumstances to return to normal when the Department was not 

involved. According to maternal grandmother, mother and father 

are not good people, do not deserve to reunify with V.R., and 

simply view V.R. as a trophy. Maternal grandmother stated that 

mother and father fight over who gets more visits, which results 

in mother getting upset and taking V.R. with her. Mother called 

maternal grandmother names, such as “fucking bitch,” and 

entered the home when she wanted. 

Maternal grandmother reported that, on March 21, 2021, 

mother took V.R. for over four hours and brought her home late, 

and that on March 24, 2021, mother took V.R. at noon and 

returned after 9:00 p.m. Maternal grandmother was not okay 

with this but could not stop mother because she was afraid of her 

abuse. Maternal grandmother stated that mother cursed at her, 

told her “ ‘shut the fuck up mother fucken [sic] bitch,’ ” pushed 

her, threw her into a door, and stormed inside her house. The 

Department advised maternal grandmother to call the police

when this happens, but maternal grandmother reported that the 

police would not do anything because she no longer had her 

guardianship documents. 
13

On April 28, 2021, mother filed another section 388 

petition, this time seeking modification of the order dated April 5, 

2021, denying her previous section 388 petition without a 

hearing. The petition stated that she had completed courses and 

that unspecified allegations against her were not true. Mother 

asked for custody and unmonitored visits. Mother stated that she 

had proof that the requested actions would benefit V.R. but did 

not identify any such proof. The court denied the petition without 

a hearing. 

On May 10, 2021, mother appealed the order dated April 5, 

2021, which denied her second section 388 petition without a 

hearing. 

DISCUSSION

Mother contends that the court erred in summarily denying

her second section 388 petition, filed April 2, 2021, without 

holding an evidentiary hearing. We disagree and affirm. 

1. Legal Standards

“Section 388 allows a person having an interest in a 

dependent child of the court to petition the court for a hearing to 

change, modify, or set aside any previous order on the grounds of 

change of circumstance or new evidence. The petition must be 

verified and ‘shall set forth in concise language any change of 

circumstance or new evidence which are alleged to require such 

change of order or termination of jurisdiction.’ (§ 388.)” (In re 

Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250 (Anthony W.).)

“The parent seeking modification must ‘make a prima facie 

showing to trigger the right to proceed by way of a full hearing. 

[Citation.]’ [Citations.] There are two parts to the prima facie 

showing: The parent must demonstrate (1) a genuine change of 
14

circumstances or new evidence, and that (2) revoking the 

previous order would be in the best interests of the children. 

[Citation.] If the liberally construed allegations of the petition do 

not show changed circumstances such that the child’s best 

interests will be promoted by the proposed change of order, the 

dependency court need not order a hearing. [Citation.] We review 

the juvenile court’s summary denial of a section 388 petition for 

abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (Anthony W., supra, 87 

Cal.App.4th at p. 250.)

The petition may not be conclusory. “ ‘Specific allegations 

describing the evidence constituting the proffered changed 

circumstances or new evidence’ is required. [Citation.] Successful 

petitions have included declarations or other attachments which 

demonstrate the showing the petitioner will make at a hearing of 

the change in circumstances or new evidence.” (Anthony W., 

supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 250.) Similarly, “[w]hile the petition 

must be liberally construed in favor of its sufficiency [citations], 

the allegations must nonetheless describe specifically how the 

petition will advance the child’s best interests. [Citations.]” (In re 

G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1157.) 

2. The court’s summary denial of Mother’s section 388 

petition was not an abuse of discretion.

Having reviewed the record in full, we conclude that the 

court, which has presided over this case since September 2014,

properly exercised its discretion in summarily denying mother’s 

section 388 petition. 

With respect to the first factor, the court reasonably

concluded that mother’s completion of parenting classes and 

NA/AA and her participation in domestic violence group 

counseling and individual counseling, without more, was 
15

insufficient to demonstrate a genuine change in circumstances or 

new evidence. Despite her participation in counseling and various

courses over approximately eight years, the record supports that 

mother failed to address the issues that resulted in V.R.’s 

removal and continued to engage in concerning conduct. For 

example, mother participated in counseling and completed 

parenting and domestic violence courses in 2012, yet brought

V.R. along while she and father participated in armed robberies

in 2014. She also completed parenting, domestic violence, and 

anger management classes in December 2014, but purportedly 

vandalized father’s home and stabbed him in March 2018. 

Following further counseling and parenting courses in 2020 and 

2021, mother forced her way into maternal grandmother’s home, 

threw maternal grandmother into a door, cursed at her, and took

V.R. for unsupervised visitation in violation of court orders, 

returning her hours later. These final incidents took place only a 

few weeks before mother filed her petition. 

Further, although the letter from the counseling center 

indicated that mother participated well, the counselors did not 

opine that mother was prepared to provide appropriate care to 

V.R. Even if we assume that this time was different and the

recent courses and counseling had effected a genuine change in 

mother (which her conduct belies), the trial court had no way of 

knowing that was the case absent further explanation from 

mother, or a doctor or counselor, as to how her outlook and 

situation were meaningfully different from in the past. As the 

court in In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454 (Angel B.) 

observed, “other cases have held that simple completion of the 

kinds of classes taken . . . [citation] . . . by Mother here does not, 

in and of itself, show prima facie that either the requested 
16

modification or a hearing would be in the minor’s best interests.” 

(Id. at p. 463, citing In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415

and In re Anthony W., supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 250.) Rather,

in cases that have reversed summary denials of section 388 

petitions, the petitions were accompanied by letters or 

declarations from doctors or physicians specifically opining that 

the parent was presently capable of providing suitable care to the 

child. (Angel B., at p. 462, citing In re Jeremy W. (1992) 3 

Cal.App.4th 1407, 1416 and In re Hashem H. (1996) 45 

Cal.App.4th 1791, 1798.)

Mother’s petition also did not discuss her current living 

circumstances or relationship status. “The change in 

circumstances must relate to the purpose of the order and be such 

that the modification of the prior order is appropriate. [Citation.] 

In other words, the problem that initially brought the child 

within the dependency system must be removed or ameliorated. 

[Citation.]” (In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 612.) V.R. was 

initially removed from the home due to domestic violence. Two of 

V.R.’s half-siblings were also initially removed due to domestic 

violence in a prior relationship of mother’s. Although mother and 

father are no longer together, whether mother is currently in a 

relationship and whether that relationship is different from her

past relationships are highly relevant to a determination of

whether her circumstances had changed. The petition was silent 

on these points. Nor was there evidence that mother had a 

housing situation suitable for V.R., that she was employed, or 

that she had arrangements for childcare while she worked.8

8 The third of V.R.’s half-siblings was initially removed due to mother’s 

use of illicit drugs. In June 2012, mother tested positive for 

methamphetamine, though her drug tests over the subsequent five 
17

Turning to the second factor, mother’s claim that 

reunification or liberalized visitation is in the best interest of

V.R. because she “needs her mother in her life” is unavailing. 

“The presumption favoring natural parents by itself does not 

satisfy the best interests prong of section 388.” (In re Justice P.

(2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 192.) Rather, “a primary 

consideration in determining the child’s best interest is the goal 

of assuring stability and continuity. [Citation.] When custody 

continues over a significant period, the child’s need for continuity 

and stability assumes an increasingly important role. [Citation.] 

That need often will dictate the conclusion that maintenance of 

the current arrangement would be in the best interests of that 

child. [Citation.]” (Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 464.) “In 

fact, there is a rebuttable presumption that continued foster care 

is in the best interest of the child [citation] . . . .” (Ibid.) “To rebut 

that presumption, a parent must make some factual showing that 

the best interests of the child would be served by modification.” 

(Id. at p. 465.) 

There is no question that custody has continued over a 

significant period in this case. V.R., who was nine years old at the 

time mother filed her petition, had not been in mother’s care 

since she was an infant. V.R. has lived with maternal 

months were negative. There are no more recent drug tests from 

mother in the record. Although her completion of NA/AA was a positive 

step, the court could reasonably conclude that mother’s failure to 

address whether she has maintained sobriety for a significant period

suggests that her circumstances are changing, not changed. (See In re 

Ernesto R. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 219, 223 [to support a section 388 

petition,the purported change of circumstances must be substantial; 

mother’s “completion of a drug program, at this late a date, though 

commendable, is not a substantial change of circumstances”].)
18

grandmother since 2014 when she was two years old. Maternal 

grandmother also cared for V.R. between November 2012 and

March 2013. The record supports that V.R.’s most stable and 

significant familial relationships have been with maternal 

grandmother and her half-siblings, who are also under maternal 

grandmother’s legal guardianship. V.R. informed a social worker

that she wished to remain with her grandmother because she 

wanted to stay close to her half-siblings. Maternal grandmother 

also reported that V.R. has a close relationship with her halfsiblings. 

Mother’s vague representations that she has made positive 

changes in her life and is ready to be a role model fail to rebut the 

presumption in favor of maternal grandmother’s continued legal 

guardianship. The petition does not offer any facts supporting

that the benefits of placing V.R. with mother would outweigh the 

loss of stability and continuity that would result from removing 

V.R. from her home of many years and her half-siblings.

Moreover, given mother’s strained relationship with maternal 

grandmother, it appears unlikely that mother would prioritize 

maintaining V.R.’s bonds with maternal grandmother and V.R.’s

half-siblings if she were granted custody of V.R. 

Although the record indicates that maternal grandmother 

wavered in her commitment to remaining a legal guardian to 

V.R., it also supports that maternal grandmother was feeling 

frustrated and harassed by the Department and father’s 

accusations when she said this and that she recanted every time. 

There is no indication in the record that maternal grandmother 

failed to properly care for V.R. due to her frustration. Thus, the

court did not abuse its discretion in determining that mother 
19

failed to make a prima facie showing entitling her to an 

evidentiary hearing. 

Mother argues that In re Aljamie D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 

424 (Aljamie D.) is analogous to the circumstances present here

and compels reversal. We disagree. In Aljamie D., the mother 

was arrested when she was observed to be under the influence of 

drugs such that she could not care for her children. (Id. at p. 427.) 

At the 12-month review hearing, the Department recommended 

the termination of family reunification services, even though 

mother had recently enrolled in a residential drug rehabilitation 

program and was participating in parenting classes and visiting

the children regularly. (Ibid.) The court terminated family 

reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. (Ibid.) At 

a review hearing, the Department reported that the mother had 

completed parenting classes and her drug rehabilitation program

and continued to test clean in random drug testing. (Ibid.) At a 

second section 366.26 hearing, the Department argued that even 

though the children wanted to be with the mother and “ ‘[e]ven 

though minors’ mother has complied with all the court orders[,]

she is not ready to reunify with her children.’ ” (Id. at p. 428.) The 

mother filed a section 388 petition, alleging that she had fully 

complied with the case plan and attaching completion certificates 

for parenting classes, a domestic violence program, and a job 

readiness course, among others. (Ibid.) She further alleged that 

the children wished to return to her and that she had visited 

them consistently. (Ibid.) The court denied the petition. (Id. at 

p. 430.)

The appellate court reversed, stating that the mother had 

clearly made out a prima facie case of changed circumstances by 

completing courses, testing clean in weekly random drug tests for 
20

over two years, visiting consistently with the children, and 

continuing to have a strongly bonded relationship with them. 

(Aljamie D., supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at p. 432.) The court 

emphasized that the Department did not dispute that the 

circumstances had changed, but only that the petition failed to 

show how modification of the placement order would be in the 

children’s best interests. (Ibid.) The court noted that the children 

had repeatedly made clear that their first choice was to live with 

the mother. (Ibid.) While the court in Aljamie D. acknowledged 

that this was not determinative, the court stated that a “child’s 

testimony that she wants to live with her mother constitutes 

powerful demonstrative evidence that it would be in her best 

interest to allow her to do so. [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

Thus, in Aljamie D., there was no dispute that the drug 

rehabilitation program and the courses mother had taken had 

effected a lasting change in the mother. Here, in contrast, the 

Department does not concede that mother has demonstrated 

changed circumstances. Rather, the Department argues that 

mother shoving maternal grandmother and taking V.R. out of the 

home for hours without authorization undermines mother’s claim 

that she has addressed the issues that resulted in V.R.’s removal 

from her care. And, significantly, nothing in the record supports 

that V.R. wanted to live with mother. V.R. told social workers at 

different times that she wanted to remain with maternal 

grandmother or to live with father, but only stated that she

wanted to continue having visits with mother. In Angel B., the 

court emphasized that the fact that the children in Aljamie D.

repeatedly expressed a desire to live with their mother was 

“clearly important and relevant to the outcome” of that case.

(Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 463.)
21

In sum, we disagree with mother’s contention that the 

court’s summary denial of her section 388 petition renders the 

relief offered by section 388 “illusory” or that the record 

establishes that she was the most stable placement option for 

V.R. Mother failed to substantiate a genuine change in her 

circumstances or to support that granting her custody or 

liberalized visitation would be in V.R.’s best interests. The court

therefore did not err in concluding that mother’s participation in 

counseling and completion of courses was insufficient to support 

ordering an evidentiary hearing.
22

DISPOSITION

The court’s order summarily denying mother’s section 388 

petition is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

LAVIN, J.

WE CONCUR:

EDMON, P. J.

RICHARDSON, (ANNE K.) J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.