Court Opinion

ID: 9353811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-12 20:02:10.39175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:11:55.171421
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/12/23 In re V.A. CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 In re V.A. et al., a Person Coming
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.
 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH                                           D080637
 AND HUMAN SERVICES
 AGENCY,
                                                                   (Super. Ct. No. J519862AB)
           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 M.A. et al.,

           Defendants and Appellants.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Marissa A. Bejarano, Judge. Affirmed.
         M.A. and J.A., in pro. per., for Defendants and Appellants.
         Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County
Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
         This is the second appeal by maternal grandmother and grandfather
(collectively, Grandparents) involving two of their grandchildren, V.A. and
L.A., since the children were freed for adoption in April 2021. In a prior
appeal, we affirmed an order denying their request for placement of the
children under the relative placement preference of Welfare and Institutions

Code section 361.3.1 (In re V.A. (Jan. 18, 2022, D078798) [nonpub. opn.].)
Thereafter, the juvenile court denied the Grandparents’ petition under
section 388 for an order mandating visitation with both the Grandparents
and the minors’ siblings, who are in the Grandparents’ care. Grandparents
again appeal, contending in this instance that the juvenile court failed to
consider the best interests of the children in ruling on their petition. We
conclude that the court properly exercised its discretion in determining that
Grandparents failed to make a prima facie showing of changed
circumstances. Accordingly, we affirm the order.
              FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      A. Earlier Proceedings
      San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency)
filed a juvenile dependency petition for V.A. in September 2018 because her
parents were homeless and unable to care for her. A second petition, this one
concerning L.A., was filed in January 2019 because she tested positive for
amphetamine at birth. Parental rights were ultimately terminated.
      Both the Grandparents and V.A.’s paternal relatives (Aunt and Uncle,

collectively the V’s)2 sought placement of V.A. from the beginning of this
case. The Agency began the Resource Family Approval (RFA) process at
around the same time for both sets of relatives. V.A. was placed with the V’s

1     All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code, unless otherwise noted.

2      Uncle is the biological brother of V.A.’s father. Although L.A. is not
related to the V’s, we refer to them as Aunt and Uncle in this opinion for ease
of reference.

                                       2
in November 2018 after they were approved as a resource family. L.A. was

placed with them within days of her birth.3
      In considering the Grandparents’ RFA application, the Agency had
“ ‘serious concerns’ ” about a 2004 child welfare incident involving the

maternal grandmother, and initially denied approval.4 After an appeal by
Grandparents, the Agency changed its position and approved Grandparents’
RFA application as a resource family in December 2020.
      V.A. and L.A. have lived with the V’s from the time they were infants.
During this same period, Grandparents consistently visited with the girls,
and the girls were able to spend time with their brothers during these visits.
In August 2020, Grandparents filed a request to change the court’s prior
placement order, noting that the Agency had recently granted them RFA
approval. In March and April 2021, the juvenile court considered
Grandparents’ request. The court recognized it was required to act in the
best interest of the dependent children, “not in the interest of extended
family members,” and that “separating a child from a long[-]term primary
caregiver can be deeply harmful psychologically.” After expressly stating it
had “consider[ed] each factor” in section 361.3, the court found “clear and
credible evidence that it is in [V.A.’s] and [L.A.’s] best interest to stay in their
current home” with the V’s.

3     Shortly after L.A.’s placement with the V’s, DNA testing confirmed that
V.A.’s father was not related to L.A. L.A.’s father was eventually located and
confirmed as her biological parent in February 2020. Paternity is not an
issue in this appeal.

4     Given the Grandparents’ prior appeal and the Agency’s subsequent
reversal of its position on their RFA status, it is unnecessary to discuss the
details of this incident.

                                         3
      Based on its consideration of all the evidence, the juvenile court denied
placement with Grandparents, terminated parental rights, and designated
the V’s as the prospective adoptive parents. After Grandparents appealed,
we affirmed in an unpublished decision. (In re V.A., supra, D078798.)
      B.   Grandparents’ Current Petition for Visitation Order
      In the April 2021 hearing discussed ante, the court provided that the
V’s would have discretion whether to allow visitation by the siblings and
Grandparents. It noted the V’s “have no issues as to visitation.” The court
declined to adopt a formal order and instead “encourage[d] the parties to get
together to set a schedule.”
      In an October 2021 hearing for a post permanent plan review, the court
reaffirmed its earlier decision that the V’s should “remain in charge of
assessing how to best facilitate visitation between biological relatives and the
girls.” Noting its disappointment with continuing unfounded allegations of
abuse, the court said it could not find that “it would be in the best interest of
the girls to order any specific visitation plan.”
      In March 2022, after we issued our opinion in the prior appeal,
Grandparents filed a section 388 petition seeking court-ordered visitation. In
their petition, Grandparents asserted they had a significant relationship with
the children, but that the V’s curtailed and ultimately stopped their visits.
They argued that it would be in the best interest of V.A. and L.A. to reinstate
visitation both with their brothers and Grandparents.
      In its March 2022 report, the Agency explained that the children had
been living with the V’s for more than three years, that they continued to do
well, and that the V’s were close to finalizing their adoption of the children.
The report noted, however, that the children were receiving developmental
services and had been referred for therapy to address emotional distress and

                                         4
behavioral issues they suffered after contact with Grandparents and repeated
investigations into false child abuse accusations.
      The Agency prepared another report in May 2022 explaining that the
number of visits with Grandparents and siblings had been reduced, and the
visits ultimately ended, due to the behavioral issues the children displayed
following their visits. A behavioral specialist who provided services to the
children reported that the girls did not fight with one another once the visits
with Grandparents were discontinued. She also recommended that the
children receive “higher level mental health services” because of their trauma
and to help the V’s address it. The V’s said they are open to further contact
with Grandparents and siblings if and when the children are stable enough.
      The May 2022 update also noted that the Agency received multiple
reports regarding the V’s, which were investigated, determined to be
unfounded and closed. For example, an anonymous report was made alleging
V.A. and L.A. were being emotionally traumatized and physically abused in
the V’s home. The Agency investigated the report and closed it as unfounded.
The V’s expressed concerned that the Grandparents were responsible for at
least some of the reports. The Agency confirmed that the grandmother filed
at least one of them.
      Although the Agency “generally supports” maintaining connections
between children and family, “for this particular situation” its May 2022
report opposed the Grandparents’ section 388 petition because it was not in
the children’s “best interest to have court-ordered contact with the maternal
family members.” The Agency stated, “It appears they have not been able to
accept that the girls are not placed with them and [it is] this lack of
acceptance that may have affected their interactions with the girls, either
consciously or unconsciously.” According to the Agency, it was

                                        5
“commendable” that the Grandparents wanted to help the girls, but “the
concern is that they appear to be the source of the children’s distress.” It
would have been more helpful, the Agency believed, if the Grandparents had
“respect[ed] the caregivers’ wishes in ceasing visitation until the girls are
stable and strong enough to have visits with them again.” It recommended
that visitation should continue be a case management decision rather than
an order of the juvenile court.
      At the May 2022 hearing on the section 388 petition, the court heard
argument about whether Grandparents made a prima facie showing that
there was a change of circumstances since the October 2021 court order
giving the V’s discretion in scheduling Grandparents’ visitation with the
children. The court also heard argument as to whether it was in the best
interest of the children to change the orders.
      Following argument, the court found there was no “formal visitation
order” for the benefit of Grandparents. Instead, the court had “encouraged
the parties to get together to determine whether or not a visitation schedule
could be established.” Without an existing visitation order, it was
“questionable” whether there had been a change in circumstance. In any
event, however, the court found it was not in the children’s best interest to
now order visitation because they exhibited anxiety, sleep disturbances, and
behavioral struggles before and after past visits. It also noted that
Grandparents admitted they had made a child welfare referral against the
V’s on at least one occasion. Under these circumstances, the court concluded
that the Grandparents had failed to make a prima facie showing and
summarily denied the section 388 petition.

                                        6
                                 DISCUSSION
      Under section 388, any person having an interest in a dependent of the
juvenile court may petition to change, modify, or set aside a prior order of the
court. (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The petitioner bears the burden of alleging and
ultimately proving that (1) there has been a change of circumstance or new
evidence; and (2) the requested modification is in the child’s best interests.
(Id., subds. (a)(1) & (d); In re Z.F. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 68, 72-73.)
However, “ ‘[I]f the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make
a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that the proposed
change would promote the best interests of the child, the court need not order
a hearing on the petition.’ ” (In re Daniel C. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1438,
1445; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(d).) The prima facie requirement is
satisfied only when “ ‘the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit
at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.’ ” (Daniel
C., at p. 1445.)
      Here, Grandparents contend “there was a change in circumstance when
the agency transferred discretion for visitation with our granddaughters . . .
from itself to the caregivers.” Although Grandparents argue “[t]his resulted
in termination of visitation by authority of the caregivers,” the V’s discretion
to control visitation was explicit in the court’s existing orders. Indeed, the
court explicitly acknowledged in its April 2021 order that it was not
mandating visitation when it stated, “if visitation continues,” when it
declined to adopt a formal visitation order, and when it instead “encourage[d]
the parties to get together to set a schedule.” (Italics added.) In October
2021, the court reaffirmed that the V’s should “remain in charge of assessing
how to best facilitate visitation between biological relatives and the girls.”

                                        7
The court did not find that “it would be in the best interest of the girls to
order any specific visitation plan.”
      Thus, Grandparents did not meet their section 388 burden to show
that, since the October 2021 order, there was “ ‘new evidence or that there
are changed circumstances that make a change of placement in the best
interest of the child.’ ” (In re Michael D. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1084.)
Although they argue that being prevented from visiting the children should
qualify as a changed circumstance, the court always left the V’s in charge of
coordinating a visitation schedule and contemplated that the V’s would have
discretion to determine whether and, if so, when a meeting with the children
would be appropriate.
      Moreover, there is no indication that the V’s did not comply or will not
continue to comply with the court’s direction that they consider whether to
allow visitation in the future. In fact, the V’s have stated that they “will
revisit the issue at another time.” As the Agency attorney explained,
“Visitation has been tapered down over time to adapt to the girls’ needs. It
hasn’t stopped forever. There’s no indication that these caregivers intend for
it to stop forever and the change was not really abrupt.” The V’s attorney
acknowledged that “biological connections are important,” but they “do not
come at the expense of the mental health of the child.” The Agency’s May
2022 report similarly stated that the V’s “are open to future contact with the
maternal family, but only after the girls are stable and strong enough to have
visits with the maternal family.”
      Even if the Grandparents’ visitations were irrevocably terminated such
that there might be changed circumstances, the juvenile court did not abuse
its discretion in determining that visitation is not currently in the best
interests of the children. It was reasonable for the court to rely on the

                                        8
evidence in the record, including reports from social workers and a behavioral
specialist, to deny visitation, particularly where the “petition is addressed to
the sound discretion of the juvenile court and its decision will not be
disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” (In re
Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415.)
      The court noted that it had read and considered recent social worker’s
reports, including the reports from April and May 2022. The Agency’s April
2022 report describes how the children “were having nightmares, anxiety and
screaming after visits and video chats with maternal relatives.” The May
2022 report indicates that “both girls appear to be in a trance-like state after
visits” with the maternal family. Both children “show aggressive behaviors,”
while one of them also has nightmares. The report also states that the
children “demonstrate trauma reactions when a new social worker comes to
interview them when a new allegation of abuse is made.” The Agency noted
that in September 2021 the maternal grandmother filed a report of suspected
abuse by the V’s, which was investigated and closed as unfounded.
      Attached to the social worker’s May 2022 report is a Home Activity
Plan, created by the children’s behavioral specialist, which documents 11
sessions she completed to help the children “with transitioning to and from
visits with relatives.” It reflects the caregivers’ concerns with sleep, trauma,
aggression towards others, difficulty with transitions and self-regulation.
The behavioral specialist set goals regarding the V’s support of the children,
including to provide “a lot of Special Time . . . to provide comfort and
reassurance” when returning from visits and reassuring V.A. that “she is
safe” when she is “going to sleep.”

                                        9
      The court summarized: “[T]he evidence here is that when the girls do
have visits with the maternal grandparents and the maternal family, that
they are suffering.” Based on the evidence presented, the juvenile court could
reasonably find that granting the Grandparents’ section 388 petition would
not be in the children’s best interests. (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th
454, 464.) Accordingly, we conclude that the juvenile court acted
appropriately in denying the petition.
                                DISPOSITION
      The order denying the section 388 petition is affirmed.

                                                                         DATO, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

DO, J.

                                         10