In re Dean L
Filed 3/16/06 In re Dean L. CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| In re DEAN L. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
| ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CHRISTINA H., Defendant and Appellant. | G036058 (Consol. with G036097) (Super. Ct. Nos. DP009648 & DP010226) O P I N I O N |
Appeals from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald P. Kreber, Judge. Affirmed.
Jennifer Mack, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Benjamin P. de Mayo, County Counsel, Dana J. Stits and Aurelio Torre, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
No appearance for the Minors.
* * *
Introduction
Christina H. challenges the juvenile court's order denying her petition for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. (All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) The juvenile court concluded Christina had not made a prima facie showing by clear and convincing evidence that modification of the court's previous orders would be in the best interests of the minor children, Dean L. (now two and one-half years old) and Ryan L. (now one and one-half years old), and denied Christina's petition without a hearing. We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Christina's petition without a hearing, as she had not shown either changed circumstances, or the proposed modification would be in the children's best interests. Therefore, we affirm.
Statement of Facts
Dean L. and his half brother Elijah T. were detained under the protective custody of the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) on January 20, 2004, after three‑year‑old Elijah was found alone in a public park. (A fuller discussion of the facts leading to their detention can be found in our earlier opinion, In re Elijah T. (July 20, 2005, G035058) [nonpub. opn.].) Christina H. is the mother of Dean and Elijah; Kelly L. is Dean's father. At the time of his detention, Dean was six months old. SSA's juvenile dependency petition alleged failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)), no provision for support (§ 300, subd. (g)), and abuse of sibling (§ 300, subd. (j)). (Christina's parental rights to her two older children, Kelsey T. and Ronnie T., were terminated in May 2000. A fuller discussion of the facts leading to their detention, and the ultimate termination of Christina's parental rights, can be found in our earlier opinion, In re Kelsey T. (Mar. 27, 2001, G027320) [nonpub. opn.].) Elijah and Dean were placed together in long-term foster care.
At a jurisdictional hearing on February 17, 2004, Christina and Kelly pleaded no contest to the petition, as amended. The juvenile court found the allegations of the amended petition true by a preponderance of the evidence. At a dispositional hearing on April 9, the juvenile court declared Elijah and Dean to be dependent children, found by clear and convincing evidence that it would not be in their best interests to be placed in the custody of Christina and Kelly, found reunification services need not be provided to Christina (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10) & (13)), and set a permanency hearing for Elijah (§ 366.26).
In May 2004, Christina gave birth to Ryan. (Kelly is Ryan's father.) Due to Christina's admitted use of methamphetamine during her pregnancy, Ryan was immediately detained and placed in the same foster home as Elijah and Dean. The juvenile dependency petition for Ryan alleged failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)) and abuse of sibling (§ 300, subd. (j)). On November 29, 2004, the petition was amended by interlineation, and Christina and Kelly pleaded no contest to its allegations. The court found the allegations of the amended petition true by a preponderance of the evidence, declared Ryan a dependent child, and found reunification services need not be provided to Christina.
Christina filed petitions under section 388 on two separate occasions. In the first, she asked that the court set aside the order denying her reunification services, and the order setting a permanency hearing for Elijah. In the second, she asked that the children be returned to her care, and that reunification services be ordered. The court denied both petitions without a hearing.
On January 31, 2005, the court terminated Christina's parental rights to Elijah. In In re Elijah T., supra, G035058, we affirmed the juvenile court's order denying Christina's section 388 petition without a hearing, and the order terminating her parental rights.
On May 18, 2005, Christina filed a modification petition under section 388, asking the court to (1) return Dean and Ryan to her care, (2) permit Dean and Ryan to return to her care on a 60-day trial basis, or (3) order six months of family reunification services. Christina's supporting declaration stated (1) she was employed full-time, and had a home that was appropriate for the children; (2) her weekly monitored visits with the children were going well; (3) she had completed a six-month parenting class; (4) she was halfway through a 52-week child abuse class; (5) she had graduated from the perinatal program, had been clean for over one year, continued to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and had regularly tested negative for drugs; and (6) she had â€
