In re I.H. CA4/3

Filed 11/10/26 In re I.H. CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE In re I.H., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, G066745 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 23DP0942, v. 23DP0943) I.H., et al., OPINION Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, June Jee An, Judge. Affirmed. Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, I.H.  Christopher R. Booth, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant, S.T. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Debbie Torrez and Chloe R. Maksoudian, Deputy County Counsels, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minors. * * * I.H. (Father)1 appeals from orders denying his petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3882 to modify prior orders and grant additional reunification services for his two sons. Father also appeals from orders terminating his parental rights. Mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights. On appeal, she raises no independent appellate issues and instead joins in father’s opening brief. On appeal, Father contends the juvenile court summarily denying his section 388 petition (388 petition) was an abuse of discretion because he presented sufficient prima facie evidence his circumstances changed. We disagree and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3 “In August 2023, the children’s mother contacted law enforcement and informed them she had left the children, I.H., who was 10 years old and I.T., who was three, alone for 24 hours, had used cocaine, and 1 Father and one of the minors herein have the same initials. Further references to I.H. are to a minor. 2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless indicated otherwise. 3 We take the factual background in part from our prior opinion. (I.H. v. Superior Court (Jan. 13, 2026, G066086) [nonpub. opn.].) 2 did not know where she was.4 She told police Father lived in Arkansas and had not seen the children for several years. “On September 1, 2023, SSA filed the initial petition which alleged Father had not maintained contact or provided care for the children and that his whereabouts were unknown. On September 5, 2023, the court found the children came within section 300 and detained them from the care of Father. “On September 12 and 20, 2023, SSA spoke with Father who expressed a willingness to reunify with the children. SSA informed Father it was recommending he participate in parent education and individual counseling. As to counseling, SSA asked Father to address the events leading to the petition, past trauma, building a relationship with the children, and barriers that affect parenting. Father initially agreed to participate in recommended services to reunify with the children. “On September 27, 2023, SSA filed its Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing Report, recommending the court declare dependency and order family reunification services to Mother and Father including the recommendations for Father. The court later adopted this recommendation, and, in November 2023, Father pled no contest to the section 300 petition. “Father self-enrolled in parenting school. SSA informed Father that it had set up a counseling referral and gave Father instructions on how to make an appointment. 4 Because mother does not challenge any findings related to her, we do not discuss them. 3  “The children were placed with a resource parent. I.H. reported he was doing great in that placement and that his resource parent loved him and I.T. I.H. did not want to be placed with Father and was initially resistant to conducting virtual visits. But, on November 16, 2023, I.H. and I.T. had a video call with Father which went “amazingly well” and lasted for 90 minutes. “In December 2023, Father completed the parenting course. Father reported the class was beneficial, that he wanted to guide the children, utilize positive reinforcement, and react calmly when they are being difficult. Father worked as a truck driver and changed his routes so he could be home in the afternoon and in the evening. “Father lived in a studio apartment and told SSA the children would stay in the bedroom area, and he would stay in the living room area. On January 22, 2024, the court continued the hearing to February 26, 2024. The February 26th hearing was continued for a six–month review in August 2024 so SSA could assess Father’s residence for the children. Father told SSA he was in the process of getting a new place and SSA should list his current address for the assessment. “On March 7, 2024, an Arkansas social worker assessed Father’s residence and deemed it not suitable for the children because Father lived in a one–bedroom apartment with his mother and three dogs. Per the social worker, there was ‘no feasible way to accommodate two children and their belongings.’ Arkansas would reassess once Father moved into a larger home. “Father informed SSA he had been submitting applications for a three–bedroom apartment, but he had been unable to secure one. Father 4 anticipated moving into a two–bedroom apartment in his same apartment complex. “Regarding therapy, despite a referral for services in Arkansas, as of August 2024, Father had not yet started therapy. Father did not believe he needed therapy. Father also told SSA he did not have the funds for therapy and requested that SSA pay for his therapy. “Father told SSA he had video chats with the children twice a week for 90 minutes. During the calls, I.H. and Father interacted by playing video games, and Father would have short conversations with I.T. due to I.T.’s age. “On August 26, 2024, the court set the matter for a 12–month permanency review hearing. The court found that the father’s progress towards alleviating the causes necessitating placement had been moderate and reasonable services had been provided to the Father. Father did not challenge these findings. “In its October 28, 2024, status review report, SSA recommended the termination of reunification services and the setting of a [section 366.26] hearing. Father continued to live in the residence which was deemed unsuitable. The children were doing well in their resource parent’s care and the resource parent wanted to adopt the children. During this reporting period, SSA noted that Father’s cooperation with the case plans and efforts were minimal. Father had not participated in therapy and continued to state it would be unhelpful. “During the October 2024 reporting period, the resource parent reported that although Father had been consistent with his video visits, he did not always appear to be engaged with the children and instead appeared 5 to be doing other things while he was speaking with them. The resource parent told Father they would be traveling to Tennessee during the summer and invited Father to meet the children there. Father agreed but did not show up. “In December 2024, Father told SSA he secured new housing and planned on moving shortly. SSA requested his new address to conduct a new assessment, but Father failed to provide it. “In January 2025, at I.H.’s request, Father agreed to reduce video visits to once a week. The resource parent explained that although the video visits were important, they generally involved Father and the children sharing the same virtual space without a lot of interaction. According to the resource parent, Father failed to show up for a previously planned meeting in June for I.H.’s birthday and another attempt in August, despite Father only being 30 minutes away. While the resource parent and children were in Texas visiting family, they were able to meet because Father was also visiting family in Texas at the same time. They originally planned to meet on December 29th, but, at the last minute, Father asked to change it to the 27th. However, Father failed to show up despite the resource parent waiting seven hours. Father asked to meet the next day; the resource parent agreed. Father appeared but was 90 minutes late. This was the first time Father met I.T. and the first time he had seen I.H. in six years. “In January 2025, SSA again reached out to Father to obtain Father’s new address to conduct an assessment, but Father did not respond. “In an April 2025 report, SSA explained that during visits, Father and I.H. played video games and conversed while playing but that Father usually had the television on. Father was not responsive when I.T. 6 was talking and Father appeared to be distracted. I.H. reported his visits with Father were “okay” but that he wanted to stay in the care of his resource parent and wanted his resource parent to adopt him. “In March 2025, Father informed SSA he had not yet moved to a new residence. Father stated he made a deposit to a landlord that listed the home on Craigslist; Father indicated it was a scam and he lost his money, since there wasn’t an actual home to rent. Father again voiced he did not know what to process in therapy and did not have the funds to pay for therapy. SSA recommended Father discuss with the therapist the effects of being away from his children and ways to connect with the children. Father agreed to contact a therapist to schedule an appointment and said he would ask the court to order financial assistance. “In May 2025, SSA reported that Father had been consistent with his weekly video visits but, again, appeared engaged in other activities. That same month, Father reported he found a therapist but had not started therapy. Father told SSA he was waiting to be approved by a leasing office for a three–bedroom home and would hear back by April 30, 2025. SSA requested the address multiple times from Father, but Father never provided it. Notwithstanding, SSA requested continuing an upcoming hearing to assess Father’s new home. “In June 2025, Father told SSA he had an intake appointment with a therapist in May 2025. In May 2025, Father also signed his lease agreement and told SSA he would text them a copy. However, despite SSA requesting a copy multiple times so they could assess his new home, Father never provided it. 7  “The resource parent reported that I.H. wanted to speak to Father on Father’s Day so a call was scheduled, but Father never joined. I.H. said he waited 40 minutes for Father, he did not believe Father’s excuse for not showing up, and that Father “‘always lied to [him].”’ The resource parent said the uncertainty of the process was hindering I.H.’s development and identity and that I.H. wanted to remain someplace stable. The resource parent again expressed his love for, and desire to adopt, I.H. and I.T. “On June 27, 2025, Father told SSA he was attending counseling and had his third session scheduled for that day. SSA requested Father sign a release and asked for the therapist’s contact information. SSA told Father it was important to have this information so SSA could speak to the therapist to have Father work on goals regarding the case. However, Father did not provide either to SSA. Moreover, despite multiple requests from SSA, as of July 2025, Father still had not provided his new address. “On August 28, 2025, Father told SSA he did not sign a lease but bought a fixer-upper home; however, he was still living at his apartment. Father told SSA he would send the mortgage information and address for the home. Father never did. “On September 30, 2025, the court held a contested and combined 12–month and 18–month permanency hearing. The court accepted SSA’s reports into evidence. Father appeared remotely and testified. Father testified he still had not provided SSA with his new address. Regarding housing, he testified that finances were not an issue for him; he just did not want an apartment because that was the same price as a mortgage. He instead wanted to purchase a house but was getting outbid because he was a 8 first-time home buyer, did not have credit, and did not have enough to put 20 percent down. For the first time at the hearing, Father provided the address. “Following the hearing, the court found pursuant to sections 366.22, subdivision (a), and 366.21, subdivision (f), by a preponderance of the evidence that return of the children to Father would create a substantial risk of detriment to their safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. The court found that although Father was consistent with his video visits, the children were not engaged during the calls, Father did not make himself available to meet the children, Father consistently failed to provide SSA with his address and therapist’s information, and Father consistently did not visit the children. “The court found reasonable services were provided to Father. The court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a termination of parental rights hearing on February 5, 2026.” (I.H. v. Superior Court, supra, G066086.) Father filed a petition for writ of mandate and/or alternative writ, arguing no substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s findings that returning I.H. and I.T. to him posed a substantial risk to the children. (I.H. v. Superior Court, supra, G066086.) Additionally, Father argued there was no substantial evidence that SSA provided him with reasonable services. (Ibid.) In January 2026, a different panel of this court disagreed and denied Father’s writ because he had been absent from the children’s lives until they were removed from Mother’s care, and he failed to comply with material aspects of his case plan. (Ibid.) Additionally, Father had not demonstrated the ability to meaningfully work with SSA toward reunification. (Ibid.) 9  SSA filed its section 366.26 report in February 2026 recommending the juvenile court terminate parental rights and free the children for adoption. At the time, I.H. was in the seventh grade, doing well in school, and ready to move from special education to general education. The resource parent sent Father the forms to facilitate I.H.’s transition, but Father neither completed the forms nor responded to the resource parent. I.H. shared that he valued the stability the resource parent’s home provided. He also noted he no longer felt responsible for caretaking for I.T. as he did in the past, because there was now an adult providing that care. Both children expressed a clear desire to be adopted by the resource parent. They also referred to the resource parent as “dad” when speaking to him and about him. The children appeared happy and well-adjusted to the resource parent’s home. Father and the children had a five-hour in-person visit in January 2026. Father arrived early, and overall, the visit was positive and engaging. As to his living situation, Father reported living in housing provided by a pastor. The address Father provided was the same one he had provided to the juvenile court in October 2025. Although he indicated he was “renting to buy,” Father did not provide documentation to support this claim beyond payments made. SSA asked Father to participate in a video call so SSA could assess the home. Although SSA made several attempts to schedule a call, Father failed to schedule a time. Additionally, a facilitator had attempted to contact Father because the resource parent had agreed to maintain contact and relationship between the children and Father, if Father was healthy and safe. However, the facilitator had ongoing difficulty reaching Father. Ultimately, communication between the facilitator and Father was 10 limited due to missed calls and brief conversations when Father was unable to speak at length. During this period of supervision, SSA concluded Father maintained periodic contact with the children primarily through virtual visits. However, Father had not demonstrated the ability to provide consistent care, housing, or stability. SSA filed an addendum in March 2026. At the time, I.H. reported his phone calls with Father had been going well. They would talk and sometimes play games during the calls. I.T. would sometimes join the calls, but not consistently. I.H. stated he would like to remain placed with the resource parent if he could not live with Father. He wanted to live with Father because he liked the idea of being with the “same culture.” The resource parent reported I.H. had been bullied at school and there were incidents involving racial comments from another student. In response, the resource parent contacted I.H.’s teacher, and the school arranged support for I.H. through a school mental health provider. The resource parent also took I.H. to a Black history festival and continued taking the children to the same Black-owned barbershop they had been going to for approximately two years. Father filed a 388 petition in March 2026 requesting the children be returned to his custody. Alternatively, Father requested additional reunification services. Father explained he was employed full time and was residing in a four-bedroom home. Additionally, paternal grandmother was available for support. Father argued the order would be in I.H.’s best interest because I.H. had indicated a preference to live with Father. Moreover, I.H. understood that, as an African American, he felt a greater sense of comfort and connection with Father. Father explained he could support both minors 11 emotionally and financially. He was also ready to set the children up for a successful future. This included “extended family members to make memories.” Father attached photos of a home to his petition. During the hearing on Father’s 388 petition, SSA requested the juvenile court deny Father’s petition because he had failed to show a change of circumstances. Specifically, Father was providing the same address he had provided in October 2024, and his residence had yet to be verified. Moreover, SSA argued the requested order would not be in the best interest of the children because I.T. had never been in the care of Father, did not know who Father was, and believed the resource parent was his father. SSA also argued I.H. wished to be adopted by the resource parent. Minor’s counsel agreed that Father had not shown a material change in circumstances because he repeatedly failed to prove he owned, leased, or had a mortgage on the home he provided pictures of. Moreover, Father provided no confirmation that paternal grandmother would watch the children, had not stated where the children would go to school, and had not explained who would watch the children if paternal grandmother could not. Father also failed to provide information about his therapy services, which had not been completed at the last hearing. Finally, Father had not allowed SSA to assess his home. Father’s counsel argued that Father had shown prima facie evidence of changed circumstances by providing pictures of his home, showing he was fully employed, and showing he had family members to support him with the children. The juvenile court determined Father had not shown changed circumstances because his employment status had never been an issue. 12 Additionally, Father was living at the same place he had been living in at the time of the last hearing. The court acknowledged Father had submitted pictures, but also that Father has failed to schedule a virtual walkthrough for over six months. The court acknowledged Father’s strongest argument regarding change of circumstances was the comments from I.H. that he would like to live with Father. However, the court determined those comments were more relevant to the children’s permanent plan and what would be in their best interest going forward. Consequently, the court denied Father’s 388 petition. The juvenile court then moved onto the section 366.26 hearing. After hearing testimony from I.H., Father, and the SSA caseworker, as well as closing arguments from all counsel over several days, the court found the children adoptable. The court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father and designated the resource parent as the children’s prospective adoptive parent. Father timely appealed. DISCUSSION I. RELEVANT LAW AND STANDARD OF REVIEW Section 388 authorizes a parent of a dependent child to petition for a hearing to modify a previous court order. (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) To trigger the right to an evidentiary hearing on a 388 petition, the parent must make a prima facie showing that (1) new evidence or changed circumstances exist and (2) the proposed modification would be in the child's best interest. (In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1157; § 388, subd. (d); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(h).) 13  “To make a prima facie showing under section 388” that would warrant holding an evidentiary hearing, “the allegations of the petition must be specific regarding the evidence to be presented and must not be conclusory.” (In re Alayah J. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 469, 478.) “‘A “prima facie” showing refers to those facts which will sustain a favorable decision if the evidence submitted in support of the allegations by the petitioner is credited.’ [Citation.] ‘Whether [the petitioner] made a prima facie showing entitling [the petitioner] to a hearing depends on the facts alleged in [the] petition, as well as the facts established as without dispute by the [dependency] court’s own file.’” (In re B.C. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 129, 141.) Thus, when deciding whether the parent has made a prima facie showing, “the court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case.” (In re K.L. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 52, 62 (In re K.L.).) “[A]fter the court has bypassed or terminated reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing, the focus of the case shifts from the parents’ interest in the care, custody, and companionship of the child to the needs of the child for permanency and stability. [Citations.] A court entertaining a section 388 petition at this stage in the proceedings ‘must recognize this shift of focus in determining the ultimate question before it, that is, the best interest of the child.’” (In re N.F. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 112, 121.) We review the juvenile court’s decision to deny a 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing for an abuse of discretion. (In re K.L., supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 62.) The court’s decision will not be disturbed unless the court “‘“has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an 14 arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination [citations].”’” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.) II. ANALYSIS A. Father’s 388 Petition In his 388 petition, Father stated he was employed full-time and resided in a four-bedroom home where each minor would have their own bedroom. He also indicated paternal grandmother would be available to help care for the children. While these efforts are commendable, they are not new or different circumstances. The juvenile court terminated Father’s reunification services in October 2025. At the time, the address Father had provided to SSA was the same address he provided in his 388 petition. Additionally, Father still had not scheduled a virtual home assessment with SSA.5 Thus, Father’s home situation had not changed. In September 2025, before the court terminated reunification services, Father reported he worked full-time Monday through Friday and worked locally. At the same hearing, Father reported maternal grandmother lived with him and worked on the weekends. In October 2025, Father’s attorney argued maternal grandmother would reside with Father so she could assist Father in caring for the children. In short, none of the circumstances Father identified in his 388 petition were new or changed since the September 2025 order terminating his reunification services. The 5 SSA asked Father to participate in a video call so SSA could assess the home. Although SSA made several attempts to schedule a call, Father failed to schedule a time. 15 court thus did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying the petition without an evidentiary hearing. Given our conclusion that Father did not meet his burden of showing there has been a change in circumstances, we need not discuss whether Father’s 388 petition also showed a prima facie case that the requested modification would be in the children’s best interest. (In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1157, italics added [“the parent must sufficiently allege both a change in circumstances or new evidence and the promotion of the child's best interests”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(d)(1) [juvenile court may deny a 388 petition if petition “fails to state a change of circumstances or new evidence that may require a change of order ... or fails to show that the requested modification would promote the best interest of the child”].) B. Termination of Parental Rights Father also appeals from the orders terminating his parental rights. He does not, however, present a separate challenge to the juvenile court’s adoptability finding or its determination that no exception to adoption applied. We therefore do not address those orders further. (See In re Adrian L. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 342, 344, fn. 1, overruled on other grounds in In re Dezi C. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1112, 1152, fn. 18; Westside Center Associates v. Safeway Stores 23, Inc. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 507, 529 [a party “effectively concedes” an issue by failing to address it in briefing].) 16  DISPOSITION The orders are affirmed. DELANEY, ACTING P. J. WE CONCUR: GOODING, J. SCOTT, J. 17