Court Opinion

ID: 9909565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 18:02:33.175141+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:39.713209
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/13/23 In re A.Z. CA1/4

                NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

        IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                            DIVISION FOUR

 In re A.Z., a Person Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 SAN MATEO COUNTY HUMAN
 SERVICES AGENCY,
          Plaintiff and Respondent,                            A167042
 v.
                                                               (San Mateo County
 S.N. et al.,
                                                               Super. Ct. No. 17-JD-0105)
          Defendants and Appellants.

                                    MEMORANDUM OPINION
        In 2017, the San Mateo County Human Services Agency filed — and
later amended — a petition alleging A.Z. (the child) had suffered, or was at
substantial risk of suffering, physical harm in the care of his biological
parents, S.N. and A.Z. (collectively, parents).1 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300,

        1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion, reciting only those

facts necessary to resolve the limited issue before us. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin.,
§ 8.1.) We deny parents’ motion to augment and correct the record and their
motion to “request records.”

                                                        1
subd. (b)2) The juvenile court detained the child; in May 2018, it terminated
parental rights. Parents appealed the order terminating their parental
rights. In November 2018, we dismissed the appeal. (San Mateo County
Human Services Agency v. A.Z. (Nov. 15, 2018, A154748); see In re Sade C.
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) The following month, after the child was adopted,
the court terminated the dependency proceeding and its jurisdiction over the
child.
         On December 30, 2022—more than four years later—parents filed a
petition asking the juvenile court to reinstate their parental rights and to
return the child to their care (section 388 petition). Parents alleged the
dependency was a “fraud” and that the child was kidnapped in 2017. That
same day, the court summarily denied the petition on the grounds that
parents had not alleged a change of circumstance or new evidence as required
by section 388.
         Representing themselves, parents have appealed the December 30,
2022 order. Parents insist the child was kidnapped, and they contend the
juvenile court lacked authority to terminate their parental rights. Although
parents’ briefs do not comply with Rules of Court, rule 8.204, we have
carefully considered the information and assertions raised therein.
         We conclude parents have not demonstrated the juvenile court abused
its discretion by denying their section 388 petition without an evidentiary
hearing. In the juvenile court, parents failed to identify a substantial change
of circumstance or set forth new evidence warranting a change to the order
terminating parental rights. They also made no showing that returning the
child to their care would promote the child’s best interests. (In re G.B. (2014)

         2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions

Code.
                                         2
227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1157, 1160 [“court did not abuse its discretion in
declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on [the parent’s] first section 388
petition”]; In re Brittany K. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1505–1507 [no
abuse of discretion in summarily denying section 388 petition]; In re Samuel
A. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1, 6–7 [general and conclusory allegations are
insufficient to warrant a hearing on a section 388 petition].) Parents’ other
allegations do not furnish a basis for reversal, as their complaints about the
dependency proceeding — which terminated in 2018 — are not cognizable in
this appeal. (See In re A.S. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1511, 1515.)3
                                     DISPOSITION
       The December 30, 2022, juvenile court order summarily denying
parents’ section 388 petition is affirmed.

                                              HIRAMOTO, J.

WE CONCUR:

BROWN, P. J.
GOLDMAN, J.
San Mateo County v. S.N. (A167042)

       3 Although we do not decide the appeal on this basis, we note the

juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the section 388 petition because
the child “was not a ‘dependent child of the juvenile court’ and there was no
action pending in which the . . . court could change, modify, or set aside a
previously made order.” (In re A.S., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1514–1515
[juvenile court should have dismissed parent’s section 388 petition filed six
years after termination of dependency proceeding].)
       * Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa,

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
                                          3