Filed 8/5/14 In re L.R. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re L.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B253123 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK89121)

LOS ANGELES COUN TY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
G.S.,

De fendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Carlos E. Vasquez, Judge. Dismissed.

David A. Hamilton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal , for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________ _____________2 Father L.R. and appellant mother G.S. were arrested in Ju ly 2011 wh en police
executed a search warrant at their home in connection with father’s selling of methamphetamine. Appellant mother was rele ased the day after her arrest. Father, on the other hand, apparently remained in cu stody from his arrest until his release from prison in August 2013 and later deportation fro m the United States as an undocumented alien. Following mother and father’s arrest , respondent Los Angele s County Department of Children and Family Services filed on July 28, 2011, a petition under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300 1 alleging that the couple’s then 17-month-old son L.R. and 6-month-old daughter R.R. were at risk of harm from father’s po ssession in the family home of one-half pound of me thamphetamine and two loaded handguns. Both children
were detained. On September 20, 2011, th e dependency court sustaine d the petition. The court ordered mother and father to participate in parenting classes and drug awareness programs. The court also ordered monitored visitation for both parents with the minors,
with discretion to liberalize. At the six-m onth review hearing in April 2012, the court found father’s progress in correcting the proble ms that led to the ch ildren’s removal from the family home had been “minimal.” Mother, on the othe r hand, had maintained regular
contact and visitation with the children and was making progress in resolving the problems that led to the children’s removal. The court found there was a substantial probability of returning the ch ildren to mother’s custody. On July 25, 2012, police arrested mother for armed robbery. In August 2012,
mother was sentenced on the ro bbery charge to two years in state prison, plus two additional years to be served consecutively for violating prob ation. The next month in September 2012, the dependency court granted de facto parental status to the children’s foster parents, who had cared for both children for most of the time since their detention. The dependency court also gr anted the foster parents the right to make educational decisions for each child, both of whom had been identified as having disabilities. At the

1 All further section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3 12-month review hearing in November 2012, respondent recommended termination of parental rights. The court rejected the recommendation, however, based on the court’s finding that respondent had not made reasonable efforts to en able the children’s return to parental custody. At the next review hearing on July 22, 2013, the court found mother and father had not maintained regular and consistent c ontact and visitation with the children. The court additionally found that mother and fa ther had not demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete the objec tives of their treatment pl an. Finding no substantial probability the children co uld be returned to either pare nt within six months, the court terminated family reunification services a nd set a selection and implementation hearing for November 18, 2013, with the recommended plan being term ination of parental rights and adoption by the foster parents (§ 366.26). On August 9, 2013, mother lodged with the court her notice of intent to file a writ petition challenging the setting of the selectio n and implementation h earing. The court
clerk marked the notice as “received” but di d not accept it for filing because it was late; mother should have filed her notice by July 29, 2013. Mother also filed that day her notice of appeal from the court’s order setti ng the selection and implementation hearing,
which the court also marked as “receive d” but did not accept for filing. One month later on September 9, 2013, mother filed a petition under section 388 requesting modification of the court’s orde r setting the selection and implementation hearing and anticipated order to terminate pa rental rights. Her petition alleged she had fully complied with respondent’s case plan for her. She alleged as a change in circumstance her eligibility for a “mother in fant program,” which she described as a “structured program” offering counseling and guidance in parenting skills and vocational training. Her petition stated that changing the court’s order was in her children’s best interests because “I believe if the judge allo w[s] family reunificatio n with a biological parent it would be in the best interest of my children. This would devastate my entire family if my children were ad opted. I am willing to be a law abiding productive citizen and teach my childre n positive things.”4 On October 9, 2013, the court summar ily denied mother’s section 388 petition without a hearing. The court’s order stated the petition did not o ffer new evidence or a change in circumstances that established th at changing the court’s order was in the
children’s best interests. On November 6, 2013, mother file d a handwritten document and a petition for habeas corpus which asserted the court had violated her rights by not granting her section 388 petition. In these documents , mother stated she had been taking parenting and selfimprovement classes in prison. She also stated the case social worker had not brought the children to visit mother in pris on, but had instead sent only photographs of them. Mother requested appointment of coun sel to pursue an appeal fro m the court’s denial of her section 388 petition with the goal of reinstat ing reunification services, or, alternatively, placement of the children with a guardian sele cted by mother instead of termination of her parental rights. On December 20, 2013, we ap pointed counsel to represen t mother. On April 1, 2014, appellate counsel filed an opening brief stating he c ould find no arguable issues for appeal. ( In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835.) Upon co unsel’s filing of his brief, the
clerk of this court sent a letter to mother info rming her she had 30 days to file a letter or brief if she wished to raise poi nts for this court to consider. On April 15, 2014, mother filed a letter brief stating the dependency court had erred in denying her s ection 388 petition because mother (1) is an American citizen; (2) she “depended on social worker to maintain cont act with the children, who are toddlers”; (3) she “did not receive feed back from social worker (only twice) never had a visit or phone call with her children”; (4) she “continued to comp lete the necessary
classes . . . to reunite with her children”; (5 ) she “did not receive a fair hearing nor due process [because] she none of her completions are acknowledge[d]”; (6) she “has outside support from Amistad who help female parolees with children includi ng her family”; and, (7) she “is prepared to provide a safe environment for her children.” Section 388 permits a parent to petition the juvenile court to change a previous order when the change would be in a child’s best interests. Section 388, subdivision (a)5 provides: “Any . . . person having an interest in a child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . may, up on grounds of change of ci rcumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to ch ange, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made . . . .” For a petition to su cceed, a parent must present new evidence or circumstances that justify modifying a court’s prior order. ( In re B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1228; In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4t h 799, 806-807.) In deciding whether to hold a fu ll hearing on a section 388 petition, the juvenile court may choose to summarily deny th e petition without a hearing if the court finds that the “petition . . . fails to state a change of circ umstances or new evidence that may require a change of order or termination of jurisdic tion or, that the request ed modification would promote the best interest of the child.” (Cal . Rules of Court, rule 5.570(d).) Our review of the record has found no arguable issues for appeal.

DISPOSITION The appeal from the juvenile court’s or der denying mother’s petition under section
388 is dismissed.

RUBIN, J. WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P.J. FLIER, J.