Filed 1/20/23 In re G.F. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115 .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 SIX

In re G.F., A Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

2d Juv. No. B321178

(Super. Ct. No. 19JD-00392

(San Luis Obispo County)

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL 

SERVICES,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.W., 

 Defendant and Appellant.

A.W. (Mother) appeals an order of the juvenile court

denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 

modification petition regarding visitation with her minor 
2

daughter, G.F.1 We conclude that the court did not abuse its 

discretion by summarily denying the petition because Mother did 

not present new evidence or a change of circumstances regarding 

the court’s previous finding of detriment to G.F. by visitation

with Mother. We affirm.

This appeal concerns Mother’s post-permanency planning 

petition to modify the juvenile court’s previous finding of

detriment precluding visitation with her daughter. Following 

nine months of no contact, Mother sought to resume a 

relationship with her daughter, now approaching adulthood and 

not desiring a relationship with Mother. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mother is a parent to G.F., her older sister, and her 

younger brother. In 2016, Mother left the children in the care of 

their father, R.F. (Father). Father was later incarcerated in 

prison serving a three-year sentence. The family law court then 

issued an order placing G.F. in the care of her paternal uncle and 

his wife as potential guardians.

In November 2019, G.F. reported that her uncle had been 

sexually molesting her for nearly a year. On November 22, 2019, 

the San Luis Obispo County Department of Social Services (DSS) 

filed a dependency petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions 

(b), (d), and (g). The petition alleged that Mother was homeless, 

had mental health issues, and had not protected G.F. from her 

uncle’s sexual abuse. The petition also alleged that Father was 

incarcerated and would remain so until October 2020. At the 

time of the filing of the petition, G.F.’s two siblings were subjects 

of dependency proceedings; family reunification services 

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
3

regarding those children were terminated due to the parents’ lack 

of participation. 

On November 25, 2019, the juvenile court ordered that G.F. 

be detained. Among other things, the court ordered weekly 

supervised visits for Mother with discretion to DSS to increase 

visitation and allow unsupervised visits. 

DSS filed jurisdiction and disposition reports for the March 

25, 2020, combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. DSS 

recommended that family reunification services be bypassed to 

Mother and Father pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), 

and that the juvenile court set a permanent plan hearing 

regarding G.F. DSS reported that Father was incarcerated for a 

parole violation. Mother also had been sentenced to county jail 

for driving a car without consent. DSS stated that Mother 

informed it that she had already engaged in many years of 

counseling and did not require additional services.

The juvenile court sustained the allegations of the 

dependency petition and declared G.F. a dependent of the court. 

The court also bypassed family reunification services for the 

parents and set the matter for a permanent plan hearing 

pursuant to section 366.26. The court ordered monthly 

supervised visitation to Mother with discretion to DSS to increase 

visitation and allow unsupervised visits. It also vacated the 

family law court order granting custody of G.F. to her uncle and 

his wife.

On July 22, 2020, the juvenile court held a permanent plan 

hearing. Mother waived her appearance and submitted on the 

DSS report. G.F. was then living with a non-related extended 

family and thriving. DSS reported that G.F. and Mother had 

frequent contact but that their relationship was strained. DSS 
4

recommended that G.F. remain in the present planned 

permanent living arrangement while it examined adoption and 

guardianship alternatives.

On January 20, 2021, the juvenile court held a postpermanency planning hearing. DSS reported that G.F. and 

Mother visited frequently and that Mother had completed parent 

education classes and a drug and alcohol assessment. Mother

had requested reinstatement of family reunification services, a 

request that DSS was considering. DSS recommended that 

Mother continue with the drug and alcohol services. At the 

hearing, DSS informed the court that it would support family 

reunification services after Mother engaged in mental health 

counseling and drug and alcohol services. The court permitted 

Mother unsupervised visitation and set a second postpermanency planning hearing for July 2021.

In its report for the second post-permanency planning 

hearing, DSS recommended that G.F. remain a dependent. DSS 

reported that Mother was then homeless and had not provided 

information regarding her counseling or drug and alcohol 

services. G.F. informed DSS that she feared Mother’s mood 

swings and that Mother had been stalking her. G.F. requested a 

no-contact order regarding Mother.

At the second post-permanency planning hearing, G.F. and 

Mother were present with their respective attorneys. Mother 

stated that she did not oppose G.F.’s no-contact request. The 

juvenile court continued the hearing to consider G.F.’s request. 

At the August 4, 2021, hearing, the court granted the request 

after finding that contact with Mother would be detrimental to 

G.F.’s best interests.
5

The juvenile court held a third post-permanency planning 

hearing on February 2, 2022. The court later granted G.F.’s 

modification petition seeking to transfer her educational rights to 

her court-appointed special advocate. DSS had filed a status 

report recommending that G.F. remain a dependent child. DSS 

reported that Mother had contacted it only once, by a brief 

telephone call. DSS expressed no opposition to G.F.’s request for 

transfer of her educational rights.

Mother’s May 2022 Modification Petition

On May 17, 2022, Mother filed a section 388 modification 

petition, requesting court-ordered supervised phone calls or video 

chats with DSS discretion to evolve to unsupervised in-person 

visits. Mother also requested court-ordered family therapy 

between herself and G.F., noting that G.F. was soon attaining 

majority. Mother stated that she had secured housing and was 

employed as a respite worker with autistic children. The juvenile 

court denied the petition without a hearing, stating that Mother 

did not state new evidence or a change of circumstances and 

failed to show the proposed modification would promote G.F.’s 

best interests.

Mother appeals and contends that the juvenile court erred 

by denying her modification petition without an evidentiary 

hearing. Father is not a party to the appeal.

DISCUSSION

Mother argues that she established changed circumstances 

and that resumption of modest visitation would promote G.F.’s 

best interests. Mother points out that she obtained housing and 

employment and had observed the no-contact order following its 

issuance. She relies upon In re J.M. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 833 

[juvenile court erred by denying modification petition concerning 
6

infant where mother reformed, evidentiary hearing occurred, and 

infant’s counsel joined in the petition] and Serena M. v. Superior 

Court (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 659 [visitation is the most critical 

component of reunification services plan].

A petition to change or modify a juvenile court order 

pursuant to section 388 must factually allege that 1) there are 

changed circumstances or new evidence to justify the requested 

order, and 2) the requested order would serve the minor’s best 

interests. (§ 388, subds. (a) & (c).) The petitioner bears the 

burden of proof on each issue by a preponderance of evidence. (In 

re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 48, overruled on other 

grounds by In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614. 636, fn. 5.) The 

change of circumstances supporting the request must be 

material. (In re N.F. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 112, 120-121.) 

The juvenile court must liberally construe the petition in 

favor of sufficiency. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(a); In re 

Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309-310.) Nonetheless, if the 

juvenile court finds that even so construed the petition fails to 

make a prima facie case as to either or both tests under section 

388, the court may deny the petition without an evidentiary 

hearing. (In re Daniel F. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 701, 711.) In 

determining whether a petitioner has established a prima facie 

showing, we may consider the entire factual and procedural 

history of the case. (Ibid.) We review the denial of a section 388 

petition for an abuse of discretion. (Ibid.)

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by 

summarily denying Mother’s modification petition. Mother’s 

alleged changed circumstances failed to explain the cessation or 

amelioration of her mood swings or stalking behaviors and how 

G.F. would benefit from visitation with her. G.F. had requested 
7

the no-contact order with the support of her therapist after she 

(G.F.) refused contact with Mother for several months. G.F. had 

stated that she did not feel safe with Mother due to Mother’s 

mental health issues. It is laudable that Mother has obtained 

housing and employment, but those changes are not material to

G.F.’s safety concerns regarding her relationship with Mother.

Unlike the circumstances in In re J.M., supra, 50 

Cal.App.5th 833, G.F. is a now 17-year-old girl advocating for 

herself regarding a no-contact order with Mother. At the time of 

the most recent status report, DSS reported that G.F. still did not 

desire contact with Mother. In re J.M. concerned a mother’s

commendable reformation following termination of reunification 

services and the failure to reunify with her infant.

Serena M. v. Superior Court, supra, 52 Cal.App.5th 659,

concerned a mother’s appeal from the juvenile court’s order 

terminating reunification services. There, the mother had no 

visitation during all 18 months of the dependency. On appeal, 

the reviewing court stated that visitation was the most critical 

component of a reunification services plan, but that the court 

could deny visitation where forced contact was harmful to the 

child. (Id. at p. 673.) Here, the court ordered the bypass of 

reunification services to Mother and Father. Moreover, Mother 

had supervised visits or the right thereto with G.F. for nearly two 

years of the dependency.
8

DISPOSITION

The order denying Mother’s modification petition is 

affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P.J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.
Linda D. Hurst, Judge

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rita L. Neal, County Counsel, Ann C. Duggan, Deputy, for 

Plaintiff and Respondent.