Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. J962289, Anthony Trendacosta, Juvenile Court Referee.
Merrill Lee Toole, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Fred Klink, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KRIEGLER, J.
B.V. (B.), a prior court dependent, was a ward of a legal guardianship until the guardianship terminated by operation of law on his 18th birthday in June 2007. Thereafter, he filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition to reinstate dependency court jurisdiction so that his caretaker could continue to be eligible for foster care funding. The dependency court denied the petition on the ground it lacked power to reinstate jurisdiction. B. appeals the order, contending it was an abuse of discretion. We hold that the Arnold Kennick Juvenile Court Law, sections 200-987 do not confer jurisdiction over a former guardianship ward who is over 18 years old and not a current dependent of the court. Accordingly, we affirm the dependency court’s denial of the petition.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
B. was detained at birth in June 1989 and declared a dependent of the court the following year. In 1994, Ms. T. was appointed his guardian under a permanent plan of legal guardianship. In 1997, with the guardianship in place, the dependency court terminated dependency jurisdiction.
On April 24, 2008, when he was 18 years old, B. filed a petition under section 388 to reinstate dependency jurisdiction “for the purpose of continued financial services until social security becomes responsible for youth.” On April 25, 2008, the dependency court denied the petition: “While the court retains jurisdiction over legal guardianships even after termination of the court case, this court believes that power ends with the automatic termination of the legal guardianship upon the child’s18th birthday. Thus, this court does not have any residual authority to reassert jurisdiction over an adult. If, however, proof can be provided [that] a [section] 388 [petition] was filed prior to the 18th birthday[,] the court may reconsider this denial.”
Under section 388, “[a]ny parent or other person having an interest in a child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court or the child himself or herself through a properly appointed guardian 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” to modify any order of the court previously made.
He alleged he suffered from medical and behavioral problems and autism, and that Ms. T., in whose home he continued to reside, no longer received foster care funding for him. He was awaiting approval of his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
On August 22, 2008, B. filed a new section 388 petition to reinstate dependency jurisdiction, alleging that Ms. T. had filed a reinstatement petition in April 2007, prior to his 18th birthday, but it was not acted on and apparently was lost. Further, he contended that, even if no petition was filed prior to his 18th birthday, section 366.3, subdivision (b), gave the dependency court discretion to reinstate dependency jurisdiction. On November 25, 2008, the dependency court denied the section 388 petition. The dependency court found Ms. T. did not file a section 388 petition in 2007. The dependency court ruled that section 366.3, subdivision (b), does not authorize the dependency court to reinstate dependency jurisdiction after a guardianship is “terminated... by operation of law when the child turns 18.... Taking [B.’s] argument to its logical course, arguably the court could reach and assume jurisdiction for any 18- or 19- or 20-year-old who possibly was once a dependent of the court. I don’t think that the intent of the legislature reaches that far.”
Section 366.3, subdivision (b) sets forth the procedure for terminating a legal guardianship, except for termination by emancipation; and, if the guardianship is terminated, the dependency court may reassert jurisdiction and develop a new permanent plan for the child. (See In re Carlos E. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1408, 1418.)
B. does not challenge this finding in the appeal.
DISCUSSION
B.’s Section 388 Petition was Properly Denied
B. contends denial of his section 388 petition was an abuse of discretion, because section 391 required the dependency court to maintain jurisdiction over him after he turned 18 to protect him from harm. Respondent contends the dependency court had no authority to reinstate jurisdiction over B. as an adult. We conclude the dependency court had no authority to reinstate jurisdiction over B.
“The juvenile court is a special department of the superior court whose powers are limited to those granted by the Juvenile Court Law [citation] plus those incidental thereto. (§ 245 ....) Under the Juvenile Court Law, the juvenile court is authorized to make orders pertaining to abused or neglected children who come within the court’s jurisdiction. [Citation.]” (In re Ashley M. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 1, 6-7, fn. omitted; see also In re Jody R. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1615, 1622-1623.)
Section 245 provides in pertinent part: “Each superior court shall exercise the jurisdiction conferred by this chapter, and while sitting in the exercise of such jurisdiction, shall be known and referred to as the juvenile court.”
“Juvenile court jurisdiction of a minor is originally obtained pursuant to the provisions of... section 300. While the juvenile court is precluded from initiating jurisdiction over a person who has reached the age of 18 (In re Gloria J. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 835, 838), after it has properly obtained jurisdiction, it ‘... may retain jurisdiction over any person who is found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court until the ward or dependent child attains the age of 21 years.’ (§ 303; In re Ruth M. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 475, 480, fn. 4.)” (In re Robert L. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 789, 793, fn. omitted; accord, In re Holly H. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1330.) Section 391 gives the dependency court discretion to continue jurisdiction over a child who has reached the age of 18 if the Department of Children and Family Services failed to comply with its obligations to assist the child with the transition to independent living. (§ 391, subd. (a)(3).)
Section 303 provides: “The court may retain jurisdiction over any person who is found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court until the ward or dependent child attains the age of 21 years.”
Section 391, subdivision (a)(3), provides in pertinent part: “The court may continue jurisdiction if it finds that the county welfare department has not met the requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) [to help the child transition to independent living] and that termination of jurisdiction would be harmful to the best interests of the child.”
The dependency court also has jurisdiction over the ward of a legal guardianship after dependency jurisdiction has been terminated. (§ 366.3, subd. (a).) Section 366.3, subdivision (a), provides in pertinent part: “Following establishment of a legal guardianship, the court may continue jurisdiction over the child as a dependent child of the juvenile court or may terminate its dependency jurisdiction and retain jurisdiction over the child as a ward of the legal guardianship, as authorized by Section 366.4.”].) Section 366.4 provides in pertinent part: “(a) Any minor for whom a guardianship has been established resulting from the selection or implementation of a permanency plan pursuant to Section 366.26 is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.”
Here, the Juvenile Court law provides no basis for reinstating dependency jurisdiction over B. after he became an adult. As B. was not a current court dependent, there was no dependency jurisdiction to retain or continue under sections 303 or 391. (See §§ 303, 391.) Moreover, dependency court jurisdiction over him as a ward expired when he turned 18 and his wardship ended by operation of law. (See §§ 366.3, 366.4; Juvenile Council Forms JV-350 and JV-330 [guardianship ends when child turns 18]; compare, In re D. R. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 480, 484-487 [dependency court had jurisdiction to reinstate jurisdiction under section 303 over the ward of a guardianship where the ward requested reinstatement when he was younger than 18].)
To the extent B. contends the Department had an independent duty to file a section 388 petition to reinstate jurisdiction before his 18th birthday, the argument is forfeited by his failure to assert it in the opening brief. (Mocek v. Alfa Leisure, Inc. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 402, 409 [we do not consider arguments first raised in a reply brief].)
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
We concur: TURNER, P. J., ARMSTRONG, J.