Opinion
D070747
02-03-2017
In re A.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KATIE B. et al., Defendants and Appellants; KATHY R., Objector and Appellant.
Marisa L. D. Conroy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Katie B. Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Cesar C. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant Kathy R. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Dana Shoffner, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. SJ13118A-B) APPEALS from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kenneth J. Medel, Judge. Affirmed. Marisa L. D. Conroy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Katie B. Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Cesar C. Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant Kathy R. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Dana Shoffner, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Katie B. (mother) and Cesar C. (father) (together parents) appeal the juvenile court's termination of their parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 with respect to minors A.C. and C.C. Mother contends the court erred in determining the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply in this case. Kathy R. (grandmother) appeals the denial of her petition under section 388 requesting placement of A.C. and C.C. under her care. Mother and father join in grandmother's arguments. We conclude mother failed to show she had a beneficial parent-child relationship with the children under any standard of review and, even if she were to establish a beneficial parent-child relationship, the benefits of adoption clearly outweigh maintaining the relationship. We also conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying grandmother's section 388 petition. We affirm the judgment and order.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
Mother and father were never married. However, a paternity test determined father is the biological father of both children. Mother is married to another man, who was in custody at the time of the conception of A.C. and C.C. and does not want to be involved in the dependency process. The court entered a judgment of non-paternity as to the other man. Father joined mother's briefing contending his parental rights must be reinstated if mother's rights are reinstated. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.725(a)(2); In re A.L. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 75, 80.) He also joined in grandmother's arguments. Since he did not raise any independent appellate issues, we address only the issues raised by mother and grandmother.
BACKGROUND
A
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) received a referral in March 2015 after both mother and newborn C.C. tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine when C.C. was born, which indicated recent use. Mother reported she used crystal methamphetamine three days before the birth of C.C. The Agency received a second referral the same day reporting mother and father were found smoking methamphetamine in the bathroom of mother's hospital room.
Mother had a history of using marijuana and methamphetamine since she was 12 or 13 years old. She denied using drugs during her pregnancy with her older child, A.C., or using drugs around A.C. However, child welfare services was involved with her family in June 2014 at which time she signed a safety plan, agreed to drug test, meet with a substance abuse specialist, attend Narcotics Anonymous meetings, and attend a drug treatment program. A.C. was placed with maternal grandparents. Mother stopped attending the voluntary drug treatment program after three weeks because she had "a lot going on" and it was hard to get to the program. Mother said she could stop using drugs and did not think she had "that much of a drug problem." She stated she messed up a few days before giving birth to C.C. The social worker noticed mother would constantly scratch and pick at the skin on her face, arms and legs during the interview, which caused her to bleed. She had healed sores on both thighs.
Father had been released from prison at the end of February 2015. He did not know mother was six weeks pregnant at the time he was arrested. Father also had a history of using marijuana since the age of 15 as well as experimentation with cocaine and crystal methamphetamine. He was arrested at age 21 for bringing a car filled with marijuana over the border. After being released from probation, he was involved in a fight and went to prison for 18 months. Father denied current use and denied using drugs in the hospital bathroom. He stated he was in the room with C.C. when mother smoked a cigarette in the bathroom.
C.C. was placed in a confidential licensed foster home. Mother signed another safety plan providing A.C. would continue living with the maternal grandmother, who would supervise visits.
B
The Agency filed dependency petitions for A.C. and C.C. alleging mother admitted to using methamphetamine three days prior to C.C.'s birth despite prior intervention of the Agency. Both mother and father were alleged to have a significant substance abuse history and their inability to stop using drugs created a substantial risk that the children would suffer serious physical harm or illness.
The Agency assessed placement with the maternal grandparents. However, due to the grandparents' own extensive child welfare history and maternal grandfather's criminal history, which is nonexemptible, they could not be cleared for placement.
The children were placed together in a licensed foster home. Mother had two visits with A.C. and C.C. after the initial detention hearing, which were supervised by grandmother. Father did not attend any scheduled visits. Mother did not attend a requested drug test and missed an appointment to begin inpatient drug treatment.
At the April 2015 jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the Agency recommended placing the children in licensed foster care. Mother requested the Agency continue to evaluate grandmother for placement with the understanding she would move from the home she shared with grandfather if she were approved to have custody of the children. The court granted the request for evaluation.
Prior to the June 2015 contested adjudication and disposition hearing, the Agency provided an addendum report regarding placement and services. The social worker had provided mother with behavioral health referrals to treat her depression and a list of approved therapists for her to engage in voluntary services in April 2015. By June, there was no indication she had enrolled in therapy. A substance abuse specialist referred mother to a treatment facility, which required mother to continuously call to secure a bed. She failed to do so and did not contact the substance abuse specialist for additional referrals. Father claimed he was participating in services, although the social worker had not received confirmation from his parole officer.
Visits between the parents and the children were scheduled twice per week, but the parents did not always show up and other times they were late. The maternal grandmother was cleared to supervise the visits, but the interaction between mother and grandmother was not positive and grandmother reported she no longer wished to supervise the visits.
The Agency initiated a home evaluation for a paternal uncle, who lived in Tijuana, Mexico, for consideration of placement for the children. Grandmother would be considered a secondary option if she obtained a separate residence.
Both parents waived their rights and submitted on the petitions. The juvenile court made a jurisdictional finding for each child and found true the allegations in each petition.
C
In the December 2015 six-month review report, the Agency stated mother had a hard time finding stable housing and lived out of her car at times. Mother reported she had been admitted to a mental health facility and was diagnosed with adjustment disorder. Mother also reported she could not go to her parents' home because her father filed a restraining order against her. Mother had disputes with her parents regarding money and a car, which her father reported as stolen when she failed to make payments.
Mother entered a drug treatment program, but left the program saying she did not think it was right for her. Mother was encouraged to meet with a substance abuse specialist for drug treatment referrals. She stated she did not have a drug problem, but said she would enroll in a program to reunify with her children. When asked why she did not show up for a drug test, mother responded "there was just a lot going on." Despite receiving referrals for individual therapy several times, mother did not enroll in therapy or participate in parent education.
Father had limited contact with the Agency. He failed to provide documentation regarding his participation in services. He requested visitation but failed to follow-up to have visits scheduled.
The children were placed with the paternal uncle in July 2015, but he became unable to care for the children due to the need for him and his family to constantly travel for work. The children moved into foster care in August 2015 and the Agency restarted the maternal grandmother's relative assessment.
The children adapted well to their foster home environment and their medical and emotional needs were met. Although a previous caregiver reported A.C. cried constantly, the current caregiver said A.C. did not cry more than normal. A.C. attached well to the caregivers. There were no concerns with C.C.
Mother visited the children somewhat regularly when they were with their uncle, but after about a half an hour she began texting on her phone. When the children went to foster care, mother and grandmother visited the children. Grandmother primarily interacted with the children while mother texted on her phone, sat on the couch or went out of the room for periods of time. Mother also appeared edgy on occasion. Mother used inappropriate language in front of the children. When she did have occasion to visit with the children alone, A.C. would run out of the room and mother had to be directed by a visitation coach to stop A.C.
Mother scheduled a visit for A.C.'s birthday, but postponed it a day to get a cake. Mother met A.C. in a park and brought a small cake. She said father was supposed to come with plates and forks. After an hour and a half of trying to reach father, mother and grandmother asked to go to a friend's house to have the cake. As A.C. was leaving with the social worker at the end of the visit, father arrived and gave A.C. a present. He spent three minutes with A.C. before A.C. had to leave.
In two visits before the scheduled December 2015 six-month review hearing, mother was attentive with both children, played with them and fed them snacks. C.C. would cry and look for mother when mother set C.C. down. Although mother advocated for father to visit the children, he did not follow through to set up his own visitation.
The Agency recommended termination of family reunification services. The Agency noted although mother cares for and loves her children, she did not demonstrate the ability to take steps necessary to provide the children with a safe and stable environment. Father demonstrated little interest in the reunification process.
In a February 2016 addendum report, the Agency noted mother missed three visits with the children. It also indicated she had only recently begun looking into therapy and drug treatment services.
Just prior to the contested six-month review hearing, grandmother submitted a section 388 petition to place the children in her home. She provided a letter stating she has a bond with the children, she had moved out of her husband's home and her first priority is to care for her grandchildren. The court continued the hearing on the grandmother's petition to allow the Agency to consider the placement request.
The court terminated services for both parents on February 8, 2016. The court observed mother had not obtained treatment for her drug issues and had not participated in parenting or individual therapy services. As a result, the court found it would be detrimental to the health and emotional well-being of the children to return them to mother. The court noted mother improved in her interaction with the children when she visited, but also noted a decline in visits recently. The court found father did not visit the children and had not shown participation in services. The court concluded it had no evidence that providing additional services may result in the return of the children. The court set a section 366.26 hearing to terminate parental rights and determine permanent placement.
D
The Agency conducted a home evaluation of grandmother and denied placement based on her past history with child protective services. The Agency noted A.C. and C.C. were well-adjusted to their current caregivers who were willing to adopt them.
E
In preparation for the permanent plan review hearing pursuant to section 366.26, the Agency's report recommended termination of parental rights for both children and requested the court determine they are adoptable. The Agency reported that father was arrested in February 2016 on drug charges and was on probation. Mother was arrested in April 2016 for possession of stolen property, false identification, and grand theft auto and had a court date pending. The current caregivers wished to adopt both children and obtained an approved home study.
At a visit in March 2016, both parents were late. A.C. said "bye bye Mama" to the caregiver as the children went with the parents. Mother held C.C. on her lap as she watched A.C. play. Both parents sat on a bench and laughed as they watched A.C. play. Mother changed the children's diapers and made a bottle for C.C. during the visit. The parents kissed the children goodbye. When the children returned to the caregiver's home, A.C. reached up from the car seat and said "Mama!"
Mother attended a visit in April 2016 with the grandparents. The grandparents interacted with the children. Grandfather drove the children around in his electric wheel chair and grandmother ran around the room with them. Mother sat on a bench and fed C.C. a bottle. Mother changed the children's diapers.
At the next scheduled weekly visit in April 2016, the grandparents arrived without either of the parents. They reported mother was arrested because she was driving a stolen vehicle. Mother was pregnant again and they were not sure if she was "using" again. The children again took turns sitting in the grandfather's lap as he took them for rides in his electric wheelchair. Grandmother played on the ground with them. The children laughed and engaged in play.
Both parents attended three visits with the children in May 2016. At the first visit, the children went willingly to the parents and A.C. showed excitement that mother brought fast food. The parents sat on a bench and watched the children eat and play. Father played with A.C. on the play structure and attempted to engage A.C. in basketball while mother fed C.C.
At the second visit, father entertained A.C. with his tablet making music and playing a game while mother sat on the floor and did a puzzle with C.C. Mother became fidgety and scratched sores on her arms when the social worker talked to her. When A.C. went outside to play, mother put on sunglasses and talked to the social worker with more comfort. She asked about unsupervised visits. When A.C. fell trying to get on a slide, father tried to console the child, but A.C. reached for mother. Mother held A.C. and said it was okay. The children separated without difficulty. When the children returned to the caregiver's home, A.C. ran to the front door and C.C. reached for the caregiver.
At the third visit, mother sat on a bench laughing and smiling as the children played with toys. Father gave the children rides on bicycles and played with them on a slide. Mother made a bottle for C.C. and changed the children's diapers. Mother was 22 weeks pregnant. Mother stated she was sober and going to prenatal appointments. She intended to keep the new baby and hoped to get A.C. and C.C. back. The caregiver reported mother sends text messages periodically, but seldom calls to check on the children.
The Agency reported both children are specifically and generally adoptable. They are specifically adoptable because the caregivers' wishes to adopt them and have an approved home study. They are generally adoptable because there are 23 families in San Diego willing to adopt both children and 53 families who would be willing to adopt each child individually. The caregivers are highly motivated to adopt the children, who had been in their care for a year. They are willing to commit to the life-long needs of the children including saving for the children's college education. The children looked to the caregivers as parents who met their daily needs.
In a July 2016 addendum report, the agency reported the parents had one additional visit with the children in June 2016. When the parents arrived late to the visit, grandmother was already there playing with the children. The children glanced at the parents, but continued playing with grandmother. When mother came up to A.C. to give a kiss, A.C. kicked and said, "no g'ma" pointing at grandmother. Father picked up C.C. and spoke in both Spanish and English as he engaged in appropriate child play. The parents interacted with C.C. while grandmother interacted with A.C. The parents and grandmother kissed the children good-bye. The children slept in the car on the drive home and reached for the caregivers' nanny as she got them out of the car.
The grandparents attended another visit in June 2016 and reported the parents had been arrested the previous day. The children interacted with the grandparents and did not ask for the parents. The social worker had to remind grandmother to change the children's diapers during the visit. When A.C. asked for a drink, grandmother said she did not have anything, but found a drink in the diaper bag along with snacks. When A.C. tried to jump on a big ball on a play structure, grandmother said "be careful" but it took several prompts before she took the ball away and distracted A.C. with another activity. When A.C. tried to ride a small bike down the slide, grandmother smiled and said "no, be careful, we don't do that." The social worker reported grandmother did not stay firm when it came to an "obvious safety concern," but she did manage to take the bike and engage A.C. in another activity.
Mother was arrested on theft and forgery/counterfeiting charges and for possession of narcotics. Father was arrested on drug charges, theft and forgery/counterfeiting. --------
Grandmother had additional visits with the children at the zoo, which were reportedly fun and engaging for the children. They appeared excited when they heard they were going to the zoo with grandmother, but did not ask to see or talk to grandmother or their parents during the week.
F
An addendum report indicated grandmother submitted an administrative appeal of the Agency's denial of her request for placement of the children. After an administrative appeal hearing, the Agency sustained the original decision denying placement based on grandmother's 24-year history with child welfare and her failure to reunify twice with her own children. Grandmother had five biological children about whom there were multiple referrals regarding safety. Grandmother "reportedly left them alone repeatedly and they often missed school, had little or no food and were infested with lice." There were allegations grandmother allowed her 11-year-old daughter to have a sexual relationship with a 21-year-old man. Two of grandmother's children were removed from her care due to admitted drug use and threatening to kill herself and a child with a BB gun. Grandmother denied drug abuse and blamed her behavior on mental health issues. She said she made up the story about her daughter with a 21-year-old man because the daughter was "out of control." The administrative law judge found inconsistencies in grandmother's stories and she denied incidents where the Agency had evidence to the contrary. The administrative law judge also noted grandmother's ability to effectively discipline and place boundaries with the children in her care had not appeared to have changed from when she could not control or care for her own children. She also reportedly blacked out and disassociated from reality at times of stress.
The Agency recommended denial of the grandmother's request for placement. It described the children's relationship with grandmother as "fun and sweet," but the Agency lacked confidence in grandmother's parenting abilities.
G
The juvenile court held a combined contested hearing regarding termination of the parental rights pursuant to section 366.26 and regarding grandmother's request for modification of the petition pursuant to section 388 on July 29, 2016. The court found there was a material change in grandmother's circumstances based upon her attempts to improve her life in terms of her school progress, church leadership activities, and her relationships. However, the court did not find it was in the children's best interests to be placed with grandmother.
The court found by clear and convincing evidence the children were likely to be adopted and none of the statutory exceptions to termination of parental rights were applicable. The court terminated parental rights as to mother and father and referred the children to the Agency for adoptive placement. The court designated the current caretakers as the prospective adoptive parents. Mother, father, and grandmother appeal the court's order.
DISCUSSION
I
Termination of Parental Rights and Order of Adoption
A
"After reunification services have terminated, the focus of a dependency proceeding shifts from family preservation to promoting the best interest of the child including the child's interest in a 'placement that is stable, permanent, and that allows the caretaker to make a full emotional commitment to the child. [Citation.]' [Citation.] The purpose of a section 366.26 hearing is to 'provide stable permanent homes for' dependent children. [Citation.] At a section 366.26 hearing the juvenile court has three options: (1) to terminate parental rights and order adoption as a long-term plan; (2) to appoint a legal guardian for the dependent child; or (3) to order the child be placed in long-term foster care." (In re Fernando M. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 529, 534.)
"Adoption, where possible, is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature." (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573 (Autumn H.).) If the court finds a child cannot be returned to his or her parent and is likely to be adopted if parental rights are terminated, the court must select adoption as the permanent plan unless the court finds termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child under any of the specified statutory exceptions. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A), (B)(i)-(vi); In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 401.) The parent has the burden of establishing one of the specified statutory exceptions applies. (In re T.S. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1031, 1039.) Because a section 366.26 hearing occurs "after the court has repeatedly found the parent unable to meet the child's needs, it is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent's rights will prevail over the Legislature's preference for adoptive placement." (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350.)
The beneficial parent-child relationship exception, upon which mother relies, applies if termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child because mother has "maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) A parent asserting this exception cannot meet her burden by showing frequent, friendly and loving contact with the child or even the existence of a parent-child bond. (In re L.S. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1183, 1200; In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 529; In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 555; In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1418-1419.) Rather, the parent must show the parent serves a parental role for the child of such quality that severing the parent-child relationship would harm the child to the point of outweighing the benefits of adoption. (In re L.S., at p. 1199; In re C.F., at p. 555; In re Elizabeth M. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.)
"We apply the substantial evidence standard of review to the factual issue of the existence of a beneficial parental relationship, and the abuse of discretion standard to the determination of whether there is a compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child." (In re Anthony B. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 389, 395.)
B
1
In this case, the juvenile court determined mother met the visitation prong for the beneficial parent-child relationship. The court noted mother generally did a good job of attending the visits even though she was frequently late. We conclude there is substantial evidence in the record to support the court's finding, although we note mother's level of engagement during the visits did not improve until after the section 366.26 hearing was set.
2
With respect to the substantial benefit prong, courts have interpreted the phrase " 'benefit from continuing the ... relationship' " "to mean the relationship promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents. In other words, the court balances the strength and quality of the natural parent[-]child relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer. If severing the natural parent[-]child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent's rights are not terminated." (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575; accord, In re Jason J. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 922, 936 (Jason J.).)
The juvenile court observed the children appeared to have a good time with their parents during visits, but also noted both parents had a long pattern of drug use and criminal activity, which was still ongoing given that both parents were in custody again at the time of the hearing. The court determined mother failed to meet her burden of establishing the children would benefit by continuing the relationship. The juvenile court found the caregivers provided a safe and stable environment and the children regarded the caregivers as their parents. The court noted the children separated from mother and father after visits easily and were happy to return home to their caregivers. In contrast, the court noted the continued drug use and criminal activity by the parents and found "any potential harm that might result from the children not seeing their parents does not compare to the great benefit that they would receive if they remained in the caregivers' home." Substantial evidence supports the court's findings.
Although the children appeared to enjoy visiting and playing with mother during scheduled visits, there was no evidence mother occupied a parental role in the life of the children. She would feed the children snacks, which were typically provided by the caregiver and she would change their diapers. However, to establish a beneficial parent-child relationship, a parent must be more than " 'a friendly visitor or friendly nonparent relative.' " (Jason J., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 938.) The children were well adjusted to their caregivers and returned to the caregivers' home happily after visits with the parents and grandparents. The children did not ask for mother during the week and did not express disappointment even when mother failed to show up for a visit or if a visit was rescheduled. We conclude mother has not shown a beneficial parent-child relationship with the children under any standard.
II
Denial of Grandmother's Section 388 Petition
A person with a recognizable legal interest in a child may petition the juvenile court to change, modify, or set aside a previously made order "upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence." (§ 388, subd. (a)(1); In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1157.) Whether a previous order should be modified and whether a change would be in the child's best interests are determinations within the sound discretion of the juvenile court and "the trial court's ruling should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established." (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318 (Stephanie M.).)
Grandmother contends the court abused its discretion in denying her petition to grant her custody of the children based upon evidence she had changed her circumstances. She submitted evidence she had moved to a residence without grandfather and believed she was capable of caring for the children.
"After the termination of reunification services ... 'the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability' [citation], and in fact, there is a rebuttable presumption that continued foster care is in the best interests of the child." (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.)
The court in this case found the Agency did not abuse its discretion either in denying placement with grandmother or in upholding the denial on her administrative appeal. Nevertheless, the court exercised its independent judgment and determined grandmother's home was not suitable. (In re N.V. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 25, 30; Cesar V. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1027, 1033.)
The court agreed grandmother had shown changed circumstances and commended grandmother for her personal development noting she was working toward a degree from a community college, actively working with her church, and was well liked by others. However, the court found it was not in the best interests of the children to place them with grandmother. The court adopted the findings of the administrative law judge, particularly noting grandmother's 24-year history with child protective services regarding problems raising her own children. These issues included drug problems, safety issues, and mental or dissociative issues that apparently persist.
The evidence showed grandmother had difficulty parenting her own children, resulting in multiple referrals over two decades and dependency proceedings in which she failed to reunify with some of her own children. She admitted to physical or mental health conditions causing her to black out or dissociate from reality making her unqualified to be a caretaker for dependent children. In addition, there was evidence grandmother was unable to articulate changes she might make to her parenting style to protect her grandchildren if they were in her care. A social worker testified grandmother did not demonstrate the ability to set boundaries or limitations with the children. During supervised visits, grandmother required prompting to take care of the children's basic needs such as diaper changes and feeding. She also required prompting to intervene and stay firm when A.C. engaged in activities involving safety concerns. Although the children enjoyed their visits with grandmother, they did not ask to see her or to talk to her during the week. In contrast, there was evidence the children were healthy, happy and well cared for by their caregivers. The caregivers desire to adopt them and are planning for their future. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying grandmother's section 388 petition.
DISPOSITION
The judgment and order are affirmed.
/s/_________
MCCONNELL, P. J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
HUFFMAN, J. /s/_________
AARON, J.