In re A.E. CA2/5 ( 2024 )

Filed 1/12/24 In re A.E. CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
In re A.E., a Person Coming B328191
Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
21CCJP02676)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
A.T.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Ashley Price, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen Watson, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
A.T. (father) appeals from an order terminating parental
rights over his two-year old daughter A.E. (child) pursuant to
Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 and an order
denying his section 388 petition. Father contends the juvenile
court erred by denying his petition requesting reunification
services. We affirm.
The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural
history, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for
publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We therefore
resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to
Standard 8.1 of the Standards of Judicial Administration and
consistent with constitutional principles (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14
[“Decisions of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal that
determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated”]; Lewis
v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1263, fn. omitted
[three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies
constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in
reply to counsel’s arguments. [Citation.] In order to state the
1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
2
reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based,
[an appellate court] need not discuss every case or fact raised by
counsel in support of the parties’ positions”].)
II. DISCUSSION
Father contends the juvenile court erred by denying his
section 388 petition requesting reunification services, after the
juvenile court had previously denied him services.
“Section 388 provides for modification of juvenile court
orders when the moving party presents new evidence or a change
of circumstance and demonstrates modification of the previous
order is in the child’s best interest. (In re Jasmon O. (1994)
8 Cal.4th 398, 415; In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317;
In re Alayah J. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 469, 478; see In re Zacharia
D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 447 [‘“[s]ection 388 provides the ‘escape
mechanism’ that . . . must be built into the process to allow the
court to consider new information”’]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule
5.570(e).) ‘“The petitioner has the burden of showing by a
preponderance of the evidence (1) that there is new evidence or a
change of circumstances and (2) that the proposed modification
would be in the best interests of the child.” [Citation.] “[T]he
change in circumstances must be substantial.”’ (In re J.M. (2020)
50 Cal.App.5th 833, 845.)” (In re Malick T. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th
1109, 1122, fn. omitted.) We review the denial of a section 388
petition for an abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 1123.)
Here, after conducting a hearing on father’s petition and
considering father’s testimony, the juvenile court denied the
petition on the grounds that it would not be in the best interest of
the child to grant reunification services to father. The record
3
demonstrates that the child was “ha[ving] a difficult time around
[father],” “[did] not like to go with father and [would] ‘scream and
throw a fit.’” As the court observed, by the time of the hearing on
father’s petition, the child had bonded with the caregiver over a
period of 20 months, while she had only visited with father for
two months following father’s release from custody. Moreover,
the child was in a stable environment as she had been placed in
the home of the prospective adoptive parents, the same home as
three of her biological half-siblings. (See In re J.C. (2014) 226
Cal.App.4th 503, 527 [“after reunification efforts have
terminated, the court’s focus shifts from family reunification
toward promoting the child’s needs for permanency and
stability”].) On this record, we find no abuse of discretion in the
court’s denial of father’s petition.
4
III. DISPOSITION
The orders denying the section 388 petition and
terminating parental rights are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
KIM, J.
We concur:
RUBIN, P. J.
BAKER, J.
5