Opinion
B332183
06-06-2024
In re A.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. THOMAS H., III, Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Thomas H., III, in pro.per., for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. DK15312A Lucia J. Murillo, Juvenile Court Referee. Dismissed.
Thomas H., III, in pro.per., for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
STRATTON, P. J.
On June 19, 2018, the juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Mother and appellant Thomas H., III (Father), to their son A.B. (born January 2016). This court affirmed the termination of Father's parental rights. (In re A.B. (Feb. 1, 2019, B290838) [nonpub. opn.].) A.B.'s adoption was finalized on September 9, 2019.
In 2021 and 2022, Father filed Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petitions seeking to reunify with his child, both of which were denied. Father appealed each denial, and each appeal was dismissed because Father had raised no arguable issue. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835.)
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Just two days after his most recent appeal was dismissed, Father filed the instant section 388 petition asking the trial court to "reopen the case and allow me to try to gain custody of my child." On August 9, 2023, the trial court denied Father's petition without a hearing and Father now appeals.
Father's notice of appeal states that he appeals the order denying his section 388 petition and the termination of his parental rights. In his opening brief, Father contends "[t]his case should be overturned" because it was not disclosed to his counsel or the court that A.B.'s original foster parent had anxiety disorder.
A biological parent whose parental rights have been terminated generally lacks standing to file a modification petition pursuant to section 388. Except for very narrow circumstances not present here, once the termination order has been issued, the juvenile court has "no power to set aside, change, or modify it." (§ 366.26, subd. (i)(1).)
Because Father filed this section 388 petition for reinstatement of parental rights after his parental rights were terminated, the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to consider his petition.
We understand Father's section 388 petitions are based on his strongly held belief that he should be allowed to reunite with A.B., but it is not possible: at this point the courts have no legal power to change or undo the termination of Father's parental rights. (§ 366.26, subd. (i)(1).) Father presents no arguable issue, and his appeal is therefore dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994 [where appellant does not establish error, the reviewing court may dismiss the appeal].)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: GRIMES, J., WILEY, J.