Full Opinion

Filed 10/28/26 In re J.V. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) In re J.V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C104385 Court Law. (Super. Ct. Nos. JD241458, SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JD242877, JD242878) CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. R.M., Defendant and Appellant. R.M., who we will assume is a nonrelative extended family member (NREFM) of J.V., A.S., and K.S. (the minors) for the purposes of this appeal, challenges juvenile court orders summarily denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 1 petitions requesting that the minors be placed with her. R.M. contends the juvenile court applied the wrong standard and should have granted her a hearing because she made the required prima facie showing. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1 Because R.M. has not established error or abuse of discretion, we will affirm the juvenile court’s orders. BACKGROUND Because the record on appeal only contains the documents R.M. filed in the juvenile court, our recitation of the background is limited. R.M. and her husband L.M. have eight children, including E.M. (born in 2019), whom they adopted in 2024. E.M.’s mother, A. (mother), had three more children, the minors involved in this appeal. J.V. was born in 2020, A.S. was born in 2022, and K.S. was born in 2023. R.M. and E.M. met J.V. when he was born, and they would visit with him by video during the COVID-19 pandemic. J.V. was removed from his mother’s care when he was eight months old. R.M. requested placement and was initially approved as an emergency placement, but the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (the Department) ultimately declined placement. R.M. and E.M. were allowed supervised visits with J.V. R.M. asserts that J.V. and E.M. developed a strong bond with each other. J.V. was eventually returned to A.’s care. According to R.M., A. tried to keep the children around each other as much as possible, they loved being around each other, and they engaged in various activities together, including holidays, birthdays, church, and outings. At some point the minors were removed from A.’s care and placed in foster care. R.M. asked the social worker for visits, which began in June 2024. R.M. had difficulty scheduling the visits, but she started the Resource Family Approval (RFA) process and informed the social worker. In September 2024, R.M.’s home was conditionally approved for placement. The juvenile court did not allow R.M. to participate in a September 2024 dependency hearing. The social worker later informed R.M. that placement was 2 discussed at the hearing, and the juvenile court denied R.M.’s request for placement. The juvenile court granted J.V.’s foster parents de facto parent status. R.M. filed a relative information form, identifying herself as a NREFM. She requested placement and adoption of J.V. and placement of A.S. and K.S. In November 2024, R.M. and her husband filed requests for prospective adoptive parent designation (JV-321) for J.V. and K.S. The record does not contain such a request for A.S., but it is likely such a request was filed because the record contains the juvenile court’s denial of requests as to K.S. and A.S. The juvenile court reasoned that R.M. and her husband did not meet the requirements of section 366.26, subdivision (n) or California Rules of Court, rule 5.726.2 The record does not contain a denial as to J.V. In December 2024, R.M. filed section 388 petitions seeking a hearing to consider placing K.S. and A.S. with her. 3 R.M. alleged that the minors’ foster families were mistreating them and that placing the minors in her home was in their best interest. The juvenile court summarily denied the petitions in January 2025, reasoning that R.M. had failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or that the requested 2 Undesignated rule references are to the California Rules of Court. Section 366.26, subdivision (n) permits a juvenile court to designate a “current caretaker” as a prospective adoptive parent under certain circumstances, including that the child has lived with the caretaker for at least six months. Rule 5.726 similarly permits a juvenile court to designate a dependent child’s caregiver as a prospective adoptive parent. 3 R.M. claims she also filed a section 388 petition as to J.V., but as she acknowledges, there is no such request in the record. Moreover, although the record includes a certificate of mailing regarding the juvenile court’s order on R.M.’s section 388 petition as to J.V., the record does not include a copy of the juvenile court’s actual ruling as to J.V. 3 placement was in the minors’ best interest. R.M. appealed from those denials in case No. C103336, but in March 2025 this court dismissed the appeals as untimely. 4 In February 2025, the Department approved R.M. and her husband as a resource family. The approval stated that the family had the capacity to provide three beds for children aged 0-7 years, male or female. In May 2025, R.M. filed a second set of section 388 petitions asking that the minors be placed with her and her husband. She asserted circumstances had changed because R.M. and her husband had been approved as a resource family, and the requested placement was in the best interest of the minors because E.M. had a strong bond with them and R.M. could provide a loving home that would promote emotional stability. R.M. stated she had formed a bond with the minors that could only grow to become beneficial, and the law favored placing the siblings together. The juvenile court summarily denied the petitions, finding that they lacked proper service and failed to show changed circumstances. R.M. filed a third set of section 388 petitions in June 2025, presenting the same arguments and information. The juvenile court summarily denied the petitions, finding that R.M. had made an insufficient showing of changed circumstances and that the requested placement was not in the minors’ best interest. DISCUSSION R.M. contends the juvenile court applied the wrong standard and should have granted her a hearing because she made the required prima facie showing. Section 388 permits a person having an interest in a dependent child to petition the juvenile court for a hearing to “modify an earlier order on the basis of changed circumstances or new evidence.” (See In re N.F. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 112, 120.) 4 On the court’s own motion, we incorporate by reference the record in case No. C103336. 4 The petitioner bears the burden of showing that new evidence or changed circumstances exist and that the proposed modification would be in the child’s best interest. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) A prima facie showing is required to trigger the right to an evidentiary hearing. (In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 205.) If the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make a prima facie showing, the juvenile court need not schedule a hearing. The prima facie requirement is not met unless the facts alleged, if supported by creditable evidence, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition. (Ibid.) In determining whether a prima facie showing has been made, we may consider the entire history of the case. (In re Daniel F. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 701, 711.) We review a trial court’s denial of a section 388 petition for abuse of discretion. (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 525.) Significantly, R.M. does not argue the juvenile court erred in finding that R.M. failed to show changed circumstances or that the requested placement would be in the minors’ best interest. Rather, she claims an NREFM is permitted to file a section 388 petition to show that the Department failed to comply with the section 309 and rule 5.637(a) requirement to locate and identify all of the minors’ relatives and “kin,” which she contends includes NREFMs, and failed to comply with its duties under section 16002, subdivision (a)(1) to consider the “existence of siblings in every placement decision.” R.M. claims that when an NREFM makes such a showing, the juvenile court must hold an evidentiary hearing even if there is no prima facie showing of changed circumstances and best interests, relying on In re Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708 (Isabella G.) and In re R.T. (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1284 (R.T.). We disagree. Isabella G. and R.T. addressed the statutory preference for placing a dependent child with a requesting relative. (Isabella G., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 718; R.T., supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 1295.) Section 361.3 requires that when a relative seeks placement of a dependent child, the relative “ ‘shall be the first placement to be 5 considered and investigated’ ” based on factors including “the best interest of the child, the parents’ wishes, and the fitness of the relative.” (R.T., at p. 1295.) Section 361.3 defines a relative as an “adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship.” (§ 361.3, subd. (c)(2).) In R.T., the juvenile court awarded permanent placement to a paternal ex-girlfriend and did not evaluate an aunt and uncle who had requested placement of the child prior to the disposition hearing. (R.T., supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1298-1299.) The appellate court reversed the juvenile court’s denial of the aunt and uncle’s section 388 petition, holding that the juvenile court was required to evaluate the aunt and uncle before selecting a nonrelative for permanent placement. (Id. at pp. 1300-1301, 1308-1309.) Similarly, in Isabella G., the dependent child’s grandparents requested placement from the beginning of the case, but the child services agency failed to conduct a home assessment before the case was referred for a section 366.26 hearing. (Isabella G., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at pp. 718, 722-723.) According to the appellate court, the juvenile court erred in determining that section 361.3 did not apply after reunification services had been terminated, that the grandparents had to show under section 388 that a new placement was necessary, and that the change of placement was in the child’s best interest. (Id. at pp. 723-725.) R.M. points to no authority establishing that as the adoptive parent of a minor sibling, she is a “relative” under section 361.3. She is neither a blood relative nor someone with an affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, nor has she adopted any of the minors. (See § 361.3, subd. (c)(2).) Isabella G. and R.T. are not on point and do not support R.M.’s contention that she is entitled to a hearing. In any event, the record indicates that the Department and the juvenile court were aware of R.M., her husband, and the siblings, and there is no showing that the siblings have not been sufficiently considered. R.M. has not established error or abuse of discretion. 6 DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed. /S/ MAURO, Acting P. J. We concur: /S/ BOULWARE EURIE, J. /S/ MESIWALA, J. 7