Filed 10/22/15 In re R.D. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 specifie d 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.D., a Person Coming Under th e Juvenile Court Law. 2d Juv. No. B262195 (Super. Ct. No. J069709) (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
ERIC S.,
Defendant and Appellant.

Eric S. appeals an order summarily denying his peti tion for modification and terminating his parental rights to his daughter, R.D

. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § § 388, 366.26.) 1 He contends he made a prima facie showing in his section 388 petition that entitled him to an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
BACKGROU ND Eric S. is the biological father of R.D

. At R.D. ’s birth in November 2013,
she and her mother, Penny D., tested positi ve for methadone and opiates.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.2 Penny was married to another man, Troy D., who was incarcerated. After paternity tests in December, Troy D. waived presumed father status.

The Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) removed R.D. from Penny. HSA filed a petition in which it alleged R.D. was at risk of serious physical harm because Penny abused heroin, methadone, alcohol, and presc ription medication;
Eric abused m ethamphetamine and heroin; and neither Penny nor Eric had adequately

a ddressed their mental illness.

Penny continued to use methadone and alcohol. Eric maintained his sobriety. Eric and Penny resume d their romantic r elationship. In February 2014, Penny arrived at a supervised visit with R.D. under the i nfluence of drugs or alcohol.
Eric was with her and seemed un concerned about her behavior. On another occasion in February, Eric told a social worker that Penny drin ks wine, but he d id not think it was
an issue. He felt it would be safe to return R.D. to Penny.

In March 2014, the juvenile court found Eric to be R.D.’s presumed
fath er. It found that Eric posed a risk to R.D., sustained the petition against him, an d ordered reunification services for him with supervised visits. Eric’s case plan required him to participate in counseling and medication management for depression, a pa renting class, weekly Co

- Dependents Anonymous meetings to address Penny’s substance a buse issues, and random substance abuse testing. Eric appeared for court hearings, visited R.D., and participated in reunification services. He did not disput e the allegations against him. He acknowledged that he knew Penny was using opiates, methadone, and alcohol during the pregnancy. He consistently attended indi vidual counseling and took
anti

- psychotic me dication as prescribed. He completed a parenting class. His drug tests were negative except one missed test. He attended weekly Al

- A non meetings

.

In May 2014 , Penny’s mother reported that Penny and Eric engaged in
domestic violence. On June 21, Penny reported that Eric had “smash [ ed ] his guitar over her leg.” On June 23, a bystander found Penny intoxica ted and unconscious in her car.3

The juven ile court terminated reunification services for Penny after a contested hearing
on June 24.
A social worker advised Eric that continuing contact with Penny would be detrimental to his efforts to reunify with R.D

. E ric continued to see Penny daily and t o spend nights with her. He said she hit him twice i n July. He was arrested in July for battery on a person he thought was following Penny.

Eric said he continued to see Penny “because she manipulates [him], and then [he] feel [s] bad.” He said, “I ju st don’t know why the Court won’t let us be

to gether so we can be a family.”

Eric continued to participate in reunification services, but showed no insight into domestic violence’s effect on children . H e told his counselor he was not in a relationship with Penny although he was seeing her daily

. HSA recommended his
reunification services be terminated. The juvenile court set the matter for contested hearing in September.

R.D. was in a delicate condition. The agency reported in August that R.D.
was h ospitalized three times for respiratory problems. Her treating physician reported
that she has significant pulmonary disease, and described her as “an infant with high

risk asthma, who will require a caregiver who is able to quickly recogniz e and respond to changes in [ her ] respiratory status at any moment.” The physician reported that R.D. is developmentally delayed, and requires a caregiver who will “be able to read her social and emotional cues well, and remain patient and nurturin g” in the face of
cha llenges. Penny continued to use heroin and
, in August 2014 , was arrested for residential burglary. Eric maintained cont act with her after her release. In September,

t he juvenile court terminated reunifica tion services to Eric.

Eric filed a petition f

or modification in December. He alleged his circumstances had changed

. Eric alleged that custody or additional reunification
services would be in R.D. ’s best interest because he participate d in reunification4

services and “gained insight into the destruct ive nature of his relationship with the mother and how it has prevented him from obtaining custody of [R.D.].” Eric offered a letter from the director of his anger management class, who wrote that Eric is gaining insight and should comp l ete the course. E ric offered a letter from his individual therapist, who wrote that Eric “has been highly motivated toward s changes” and intends to continue therapy. Neither letter stated that Eric had resolved his co dependency issues or that R.D. should be placed with Er ic

.

The juvenile court found that Eric ’s petition did not make a prima facie showing for modification

. It denied his request for modification without a hearing

.

After a contested hearing, t he juvenile court found that R.D. was adoptable and that no exceptions to adoption were established. It terminated the

pare ntal rights of Penny and Eric.
DISCUSSION

A parent may petition the juvenile court to change its order based upon “change of circumstance or new evidence.” ( § 388, subd. (a).) We review de nial for
abuse of discretion

. ( In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318

- 319.)

In a petition for modification, t he “ parent need only make a prima facie showing to trigger the right to proceed by way of a full hearing.” ( In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 C al.4th 295, 310 .) But Eric did not allege any change of circumstance or new
evidence to trigger a hearing . Before t he juvenile court terminated Eric’s reunification services, it heard and considered evidence that he participat ed in services and
counselin g. In his petition for modification, Eric offered new details about his participation in classes, and reasser ted that he had resolved his co dependency problem,
but he did not allege new facts that would support modification

. The burden is on the parent t o prove changed circumstances to revive the reunification issue. ( Ibid. ) Section 388 provides a means of addressing a legitimate change of circumstances, but its prima facie requirement safeguards against delays in providing permanency for children.5

( Ma rilyn H. , at p. 310.) The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petition without a hearing.
DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P.J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.6 Bruce A. Youn g, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Cameryn Schmidt, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Leroy Smith, County Counsel, Cynthia Krause, Assistant County Counsel,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.