Filed 4/12/18 In re A.M. CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE


In re A.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.R.,
Defendant and Appellant.

A153066

(City & County of San Francisco
Super. Ct. No. JD16-3352)


Mother appeals the summary denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition to modify a prior order bypassing her for reunification services regarding her now 14-year-old daughter A.M. She claims the court erred by denying her petition without a hearing. We disagree and affirm.
Factual and Procedural History
In December 5, 2016, the San Francisco Human Services Agency (agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging, under subdivision (b)(1) of section 300, that the parents were unable or unwilling to supervise or protect A.M. and her two younger brothers. When the petition was filed, the children had been living with their father and his girlfriend and had court-ordered supervised visitation with mother.
An amended petition was filed in February 2017, alleging that mother has an extensive child welfare history, including two cases in which she did not reunify with her children, and that mother has a history of mental health, anger management and substance abuse issues and her failure to make substantive progress in treatment has led to the requirement that her visits be supervised. The agency’s jurisdictional and dispositional report recommended bypassing reunification services for mother. The report details mother’s continued disregard for the visitation rules, her denial of any need to attend therapy, and her failure to complete a substance abuse assessment.
At the contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing on April 26, 2017, mother submitted on the allegations of the amended petition and the court bypassed reunification services for mother. The court took judicial notice of the findings and orders in the previous cases and found that mother had failed to reunify and that it would not be in the children’s best interests to reunify based on the reports in this case and the findings and orders in the prior cases. The children were placed in the home of their paternal relatives.
On September 1, 2017, mother filed a petition for modification seeking reunification services regarding A.M. Mother stated that she had submitted on the earlier recommendation that she receive no reunification services on the understanding that A.M. wished to remain with her current relative caregivers. However, mother had since learned from her attorney that A.M. was no longer living with those relatives and they did not want to resume caring for her. In her declaration mother writes, “I am not demanding she be placed with me now, but since one of the main reasons I settled for ‘no services’ was A.M. wanting to remain with [her current relatives], I am compelled now to request reunification services in order to work to provide her a permanent home.” Mother also reported that she continues to have weekly supervised visits with all three children, remains in individual therapy, and is taking a parenting class.
The juvenile court set the petition for hearing on September 28, 2017. At the hearing, mother’s attorney reported that A.M. had been placed with a maternal relative and that she was “content there for the time being.” Nonetheless, mother continued to request reunification services. The court denied the petition without an evidentiary hearing on the ground that there were no changed circumstances. The court explained that “the changed circumstances and impetus for this motion . . . is not that mom has changed, it’s that the child left the placement, but now she’s in another placement.” The court noted mom’s history with social services and advised that if mother “really wants to start engaging in services and there is a track record that we can see, that the agency can see that this is a positive between the mom and the daughter, you can renew [the petition] at any time.”
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal on November 17, 2017
Discussion
“Under section 388, a parent may petition to modify a prior order ‘upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence.’ [Citations.] The juvenile court shall order a hearing where ‘it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted’ by the new order. [Citation.] ‘Thus, the parent must sufficiently allege both a change in circumstances or new evidence and the promotion of the child’s best interests.’ [Citation.] [¶] ‘A prima facie case is made if the allegations demonstrate that these two elements are supported by probable cause. [Citations.] It is not made, however, if the allegations would fail to sustain a favorable decision even if they were found to be true at a hearing. [Citations.] While the petition must be liberally construed in favor of its sufficiency [citations], the allegations must nonetheless describe specifically how the petition will advance the child’s best interests.’ [Citation.] In determining whether the petition makes the required showing, the court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case.” (In re K.L. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 52, 61-62.)
The court correctly observed that the changed circumstance alleged in the petition failed to demonstrate that reunification services would now be in A.M.’s best interest. The case file contains a detailed account of mother’s mental health, anger management and substance abuse issues that have prevented her from previously reunifying with her children and have resulted in the requirement that her visits be supervised. For these reasons, mother was bypassed for reunification services just over four months before the section 388 petition was filed. Nothing in the petition suggests that these issues have been addressed, let alone resolved. Accordingly, there was no error in the summary denial of her petition.
Disposition
The order is affirmed.


_________________________
Pollak, J.


We concur:


_________________________
McGuiness, P.J.*


_________________________
Jenkins, J.











A153066