Court Opinion

ID: 9394648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-15 22:02:49.290651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:01.418391
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/15/23 In re A.E. CA4/2
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION TWO

 In re A.E. et al., Persons Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                            E079216

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                       (Super.Ct.No. J-249616-17)

 v.                                                                       OPINION

 K.S.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steven A. Mapes,

Judge. Affirmed.

         Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Svetlana Kauper, Deputy County Counsel for

Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                              1
       Years after the paternal grandmother of the children in this juvenile dependency

matter was appointed as the children’s legal guardian, the maternal grandmother sought,

in successive petitions, to be added as a legal guardian or become the children’s sole legal

guardian. The trial court summarily denied both. We affirm, as it was not an abuse of

discretion for the trial court to find that making the maternal grandmother a legal

guardian did not promote the children’s best interest.1

                                      BACKGROUND

       In the underlying dependency matter, plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino

County Children and Family Services (CFS) filed section 300 petitions for the children

(born 2008 and 2010), both initialed A.E., in 2013. A post-disposition status review

report stated that defendant and appellant K.S. (maternal grandmother) was assessed at

one point for placement but was denied due to prior, nonexempt criminal charges. The

juvenile court terminated reunification services for the parents in 2014 and, later that

year, after finding that the beneficial parental relationship exception to the termination of

parental rights applied, appointed the paternal grandmother as the children’s legal

guardian. It then dismissed its dependency jurisdiction and retained jurisdiction over the

children as wards of the legal guardianship. (See § 366.3, subd. (a)(3).)

       Eight years later, maternal grandmother filed two section 388 petitions, which are

at issue in this appeal, as well as a petition for probate guardianship, which is a part of the

appellate record as an exhibit to one of the section 388 petitions. (See Kimberly R. v.

       1   Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                              2
Superior Court (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1077 [“A section 388 petition may seek any

conceivable change or modification of an existing order”].) The first section 388

petition, filed on May 20, 2022, asked the juvenile court to “change” the legal

guardianship over the children, stating that the guardian has “abused the power of the

guardianship by mentally and physically abusing my grandkids.” The petition stated: “I

want to be able to get guardianship, share guardianship, or [get] visitations.” The first

section 388 petition also requested the juvenile court to transfer the case to Riverside

County.

       In the probate guardianship petition attached to the section 388 petition, maternal

grandmother made several allegations against the guardian. Many were directed at the

guardian’s treatment of maternal grandmother, including that the guardian “has used my

grandchildren’s guardianship as leverage to humiliate [maternal grandmother] in front of”

the children and that the guardian “has verbally abused [maternal grandmother] by

excessively yelling at” her. Others, however, were directed at the guardian’s treatment of

the children, such as an allegation that the guardian’s son-in-law, who lives with the

guardian, peeped through the bathroom window while one of the children was inside.

The petition also alleged that the guardian had slapped both children and mentally and

physically abused them.

       On May 25, 2022, the juvenile court summarily denied the petition, specifying on

a form that the petition was denied in part because the proposed change of order did not

promote the best interest of the children.

                                              3
       On June 8, 2022, maternal grandmother filed a second section 388 petition.

Alleging that “[t]here has been nothing but ongoing yelling, insulting, humiliations, [and]

embarrassments caused by [the guardian] every time I would . . . go visit my grandkids,”

the petition asked that the guardianship order be changed such that maternal grandmother

and the guardian “share the guardianship 50/50” or, in the alternative, for unsupervised

visits “to avoid humiliations, gossip, and embarrassments.” The trial court summarily

denied the petition the next day, again indicating that the proposed change did not

promote the best interest of the children.

       In her notice of appeal, maternal grandmother wrote: “I find that the judge the

county counsel and CFS did not help me solve the issues.” Although she did not mark

the box on the form indicating that she was appealing from a section 388 petition, the

case number written on the notice of appeal matches those written on the first page of

both of the section 388 petitions.

                                       DISCUSSION

       On appeal, maternal grandmother contends that “[t]he petition” warranted at least

a hearing. She does not specify which section 388 petition she refers to, but her citations

to the record in the argument sections of her briefs are to only the first petition. We

conclude that the appeal encompasses only the first section 388 petition, but that it should

not be dismissed due to defects in the notice of appeal, as CFS has argued. We also note

that the analysis below would apply with equal force to the second section 388 petition.

                                              4
       “A juvenile court order may be changed, modified or set aside under section 388 if

the petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) new evidence or

changed circumstances exist and (2) the proposed change would promote the best

interests of the child.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806.) The

petitioner “need only make a prima facie showing of these elements to trigger the right to

a hearing on a section 388 petition and the petition should be liberally construed in favor

of granting a hearing to consider the [petitioner’s] request.” (Ibid.)

       “However, if 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 Zachary G., supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 806; see also Cal. Rules of Court, rule

5.570(d) [petition may be denied “ex parte” if the petition “fails to state a change of

circumstance or new evidence that may require a change of order or termination of

jurisdiction or fails to show that the requested modification would promote the best

interest of the child”].) “When determining whether the petition makes the necessary

showing, ‘the court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case.’”

(In re Samuel A. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1, 7.) “We review the summary denial of a

section 388 petition for abuse of discretion.” (Ibid.)

       Focusing solely on whether maternal grandmother demonstrated the second

required element (that the proposed change would promote the best interest of the

children), we see no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s ruling. Maternal

                                              5
grandmother requested legal guardianship status over the children or, in the alternative,

visitation rights, but at no point has she addressed her criminal record, which in the past

made her ineligible for placement. This alone strongly suggests, if not outright

establishes, that the juvenile court was within its discretion to deny the requests.

       To the extent the petition makes other requests, the juvenile court was within its

discretion to deny them as well. At one point, maternal grandmother requested a

“change” in the children’s legal guardianship order, but she did not specify what that

change should be. The first step in establishing that a proposed change in court order

would be in the child’s best interest is articulating a specific change for the court to

consider. (See In re Zachary G., supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 806 [petitioner must

establish that “the proposed change” would promote the child’s best interests], italics

added.) In addition, maternal grandmother requested that the case be transferred from

San Bernardino County to Riverside County, but she did not state in the petition how

such a transfer would be in the children’s best interests. In her appellate briefs, she does

not mention the request to transfer at all.

                                       DISPOSITION

       The order denying maternal grandmother’s section 388 petition, filed May 20,

2022, is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
                                                                         RAPHAEL
                                                                                              J.

       We concur:

                                              6
CODRINGTON
       Acting P. J.
FIELDS
                 J.

                      7