Filed 4/10/17 In re G.F. CA1/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE


In re G.F. et al, Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
W.F.,
Defendant and Appellant.

A148763

(San Francisco City & County
Super. Ct. Nos. JD15-3278, JD15-
3278A)

INTRODUCTION
W.F. (Father), the father of G.F. and W.F. Jr., claims the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering the case transferred from San Francisco City and County to Sonoma County, where the children were living with their mother (Mother). He asserts there was no change in circumstances warranting the transfer, and no evidence the transfer was in the children’s best interests. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
We set forth only those facts necessary for resolution of the issues raised on appeal. In June 2015, the Sonoma County Child Abuse Hotline received a referral from a reporting party who witnessed Mother and Father arguing. The reporting party saw Mother follow Father to a parking lot, heard a “car screeching and screams,” and saw Mother return with cuts on her side and an injury to her hand. The reporting party also observed that Mother had a “black eye and busted lip.” Sonoma County investigated, because the family resided in Cotati. The family came to the attention of the San Francisco Human Services Agency (Agency) after the family moved to San Francisco with an open case from Sonoma County.
In September 2015, the Agency filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition alleging G.F. and W.F. Jr. were at risk due to their parents’ history of domestic violence and substance abuse, and their mother’s abuse of an older sibling. G.F. has Down’s Syndrome and is developmentally delayed. He requires extensive services, including physical therapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy. The children were residing with both Father and Mother, who in August 2015 had moved to the home of the children’s paternal grandparents in San Francisco. The paternal grandmother indicated it was “not O.K.” for Father, Mother, and the two young children to permanently reside with them.
In early September 2015, Mother was hospitalized for a back injury in Santa Rosa. She tested positive for methamphetamine and methadone, but claimed it was due to an incorrect reading of the test results. Father and Mother both had prior criminal convictions for, among other things, drug-related crimes. Father was on probation. The Agency reported “[t]here are no current safety threats necessitating the removal” of the children, who continued to live with Father at the paternal grandparents’ home in San Francisco.
The juvenile court continued the matter to November 4, 2015 for a settlement conference regarding jurisdiction and disposition. G.F. was then three years old; W.F. Jr., was a one year old. The Agency’s report for that hearing indicated both parents had a history of substance abuse. Mother was still hospitalized due to her back injury, and indicated she would like to return to her apartment in Cotati, where her then 18-year-old son lives, after she was discharged. Father was acting as “the primary caregiver for the children,” and “appears to be managing the children’s daily needs and has support from the paternal grandparents.” Father reported being sober since September 2014, and attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings twice weekly. He took five random drug tests, one of which was positive for alcohol. Father reported G.F. was receiving services from the Golden Gate Regional Center.
Both parents filed a waiver of rights, submitting the petition on the basis of the Agency’s reports. The juvenile court sustained the amended petition, continued custody with both parents, and ordered services for both.
In January 2016, the Agency filed a section 387 detention report seeking removal of the children from Father. The report indicated the paternal grandparents witnessed Father using drugs and “smoking a substance in the bedroom with his two children present,” and that Father has mental health issues. Father had hit the paternal grandfather on the knee with a metal pipe, then left the home and had not returned. The paternal grandfather reported he and his wife are unable to care for the children. The Agency indicated the children are now both living with Mother in Cotati. G.F. “will transfer to North Bay Regional Center” and to Cotati Unified for preschool. The court ordered the children removed from Father and placed with Mother. The court also ordered continued services for both parents, and supervised visitation for Father.
In March 2016, the Agency filed a request under section 388 to change jurisdiction of the matter to Sonoma County. The Agency indicated Mother “continues to reside in Sonoma County. It has been difficult to connect [Mother] to all her court ordered services as the services to be provided; therapy, parenting, substance abuse, regional center servi[c]es, all reside within Sonoma [C]ounty.” As an example, the Agency explained that Mother’s mental health provider, the YWCA, “stated they are not able to provide services for [Mother] for free, because they do not accept [Medi-Cal] or have an agreement with San Francisco County. They stated they would be able to provide her [with] free services if she was a Sonoma [C]ounty client.”
The Agency filed a “transfer out” report in preparation for the April 2016 hearing. The report indicated a social worker had verified Mother’s residence in Sonoma County by making a home visit. The report also stated G.F. had his regional services transferred to the North Bay Regional Center in Santa Rosa, and that “mother and children would be able to access services closer and in a more timely manner if the case is transferred. Sonoma County Child Services could better supervise and support mother due to her residing within the county and their connection with the various services.”
At the first hearing on the section 388 petition, Mother’s counsel sought to “set the matter for a brief contest on the issue of transfer.” According to the children’s attorney, Mother was “possibly moving back to San Francisco.” Father’s counsel indicated Father was incarcerated. The court set the matter for a contested hearing two weeks later.
Neither Mother nor Father were present at the contested hearing. Counsel for Mother, Father, and the children all objected to the transfer. Mother’s counsel stated Mother was looking at apartments and planning to move to San Francisco next month. Mother’s counsel stated Mother told her she “has in fact already been looking at apartments, she has identified an apartment in the Tenderloin. However, she continues to look because she doesn’t like the Tenderloin in terms of the area. But she does absolutely have a plan to move next month.”
Two referrals had been made in Sonoma County regarding Mother, and the Agency investigated and found them inconclusive. The children’s attorney expressed concerns about the placement with Mother. The social worker explained it was difficult to investigate urgent referrals in Sonoma, noting “[f]or me to go all the way to Cotati it would take me much longer to investigate. [¶] That is part of the reason for transferring . . . [because] Sonoma County would be better able to supervise that placement.” The social worker explained “Mom has had the same address actually for multiple years. She just, she left the apartment, lived with the father and kids here, but she has always maintained that apartment in Cotati.”
The social worker indicated he asked Mother about the proposed transfer, and she initially said she did not care. Later Mother “opened up saying she didn’t want it transferred to Sonoma County and that she would just move to San Francisco if that happened. When [the social worker] asked her where [she] would go, she said she’d find a place, but she didn’t have a specific place to go to.” Mother’s attorney represented to the court that Mother “has ascertained several places that she can afford. It’s a matter of really just moving.” The social worker also indicated the Agency “had issues linking her up with mental health and substance abuse programs [in Sonoma County] because they don’t work with our county. Like the mental health program, because they do not have a contract and they don’t work with San Francisco, she would have to pay out-of-pocket.” Services for G.F., the child with Downs’ Syndrome, had already been transferred to the North Valley Regional Center in Sonoma County.
The children’s attorney asked the court to “put this over for a month to see if [Mother] in fact moves and has a plan. Because I think keeping this case here [in San Francisco] indefinitely if she is not moving back, I understand the Agency’s position . . . .” The court ruled “I am going to put this over . . . and I want . . . a signed lease or rental agreement from [M]other in hand. And if I do not have it this matter is being transferred.” The court then continued the matter for almost three weeks.
At the continued hearing, neither Mother nor Father appeared. Mother’s attorney indicated “I do not have with me today a signed lease agreement or rental agreement that shows a San Francisco address.” Counsel for the Agency stated “[i]t appears Mother has been evicted,” and Mother’s attorney agreed. The children’s counsel objected to the transfer because she was “concerned about services for her clients.” Father’s attorney objected to the transfer, stating “[w]e don’t believe that it’s in the children’s best interest for the [Agency] to transfer this case knowing what happens when cases are transferred where there is a lack of oversight.” The court ordered the case transferred.
DISCUSSION
Father maintains the Agency failed to meet its burden of proof under section 388 to transfer the matter to Sonoma County.
Section 388 provides in part: “Any parent or other person having an interest in a child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court. The petition shall be verified and . . . shall set forth in concise language any change of circumstance or new evidence that is alleged to require the change of order or termination of jurisdiction.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388, subd. (a)(1).) “To prevail on a section 388 petition, the moving party must establish that new evidence or changed circumstances exist so that the proposed change in the court’s order would promote the best interests of the child . . . . The determination of whether to change an existing order is ‘committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court, and [its] ruling should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established.’ An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court has exceeded the bounds of reason by making an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd determination.” (In re Marcelo B. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 635, 641–642.)
“Whenever a petition is filed in the juvenile court of a county other than the residence of the person named in the petition, or whenever, subsequent to the filing of a petition in the juvenile court of the county where that minor resides, the residence of the person who would be legally entitled to the custody of the minor were it not for the existence of a court order issued pursuant to this chapter is changed to another county, the entire case may be transferred to the juvenile court of the county where that person then resides at any time after the court has made a finding of the facts upon which it has exercised its jurisdiction over the minor, and the juvenile court of the county where that person then resides shall take jurisdiction of the case upon the receipt and filing of the finding of the facts upon which the court exercised its jurisdiction and an order transferring the case.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 375, subd. (a).)
The evidence demonstrated a change of circumstances in that the children were no longer living in San Francisco with Father and their paternal grandparents, but in Sonoma County with Mother. Mother had not resided in San Francisco since September 2015. The children had been placed with Mother in Sonoma County since January 2016, after the paternal grandparents reported Father’s violent behavior and drug use. The paternal grandparents also indicated they could not care for the children at their San Francisco home, and Father was incarcerated.
Father claims the court improperly “turned the entire burden of proof on its head . . . by requiring [Mother] to prove that she had already moved back to San Francisco County in order to prevent the court from transferring the case.” To the contrary, the Agency submitted evidence of changed circumstances and evidence that Mother was residing in Sonoma County. There was no evidence to the contrary, only the statement by Mother’s counsel that Mother had “ascertained several places that she can afford” in San Francisco. The court continued the contested hearing to give Mother’s counsel the opportunity to rebut that evidence by demonstrating Mother had signed a lease or rental agreement for a home in San Francisco. Mother neither appeared at that hearing nor provided any evidence.
Father next claims the Agency failed to show it was in the children’s best interests to transfer the matter to Sonoma County. The evidence, however, showed transferring the matter to Sonoma County would facilitate better supervision of the family and easier access to services. The children had been living with Mother in Sonoma County since January 2016, and had been receiving some services there. Further, in order for certain Sonoma County services for Mother to be paid for, the case had to be in Sonoma County. Additionally, the social worker indicated that logistically the case could be better supervised in Sonoma, noting “[f]or me to go all the way to Cotati it would take me much longer to investigate.” The court acknowledged “the competing needs and desires here. But it is about the children and the services, and we have a child . . . with special needs . . . .”
Father has failed to show any abuse of discretion in ordering the transfer.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.



_________________________
Banke, J.


We concur:


_________________________
Humes, P.J.


_________________________
Dondero, J.