Filed 9/30/26 In re G.C. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re G.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile
Court Law.
STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY F091651
SERVICES AGENCY,
(Super. Ct. No. JVDP-25-000056)
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. OPINION
B.C. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Annette Rees,
Judge.
* Before Detjen, A.P. J., Harrell, J. and Guerra, J.
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for B.C., Defendant
and Appellant. Sean Burleigh, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for G.J.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas Boze, County Counsel, and Michael Kalanta, Deputy County Counsel;
Gordon-Creed, Kelley, Holl & Sugerman, Jeremy Sugerman and Anne H. Nguyen for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
B.C. (mother) and G.J. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating
parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26) as to their daughter G.C. (the child).
Mother raises no issues from the termination order.2 Instead, she requests judicial notice
of her earlier appeal from an order denying a section 388 petition in case No. F090896.
In the event the case was returned to the reunification phase, mother wanted this court to
recognize that the present appeal would be rendered moot. As respondent notes, we
affirmed the order denying mother’s section 388 petition in case No. F090896. (In re
G.C., July 16, 2026, No. F090896 [nonpub. opn.].) Finding no remaining issues to
address, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) filed an original
petition alleging the child was described by section 300, subdivisions (b)(1), (g) and (j).
The petition alleged the child was at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm as
a result of mother’s significant history of substance abuse. At a contested jurisdiction
and disposition hearing held on August 14, 2025, the juvenile court sustained the
allegations in a first amended petition and ordered family reunification services were not
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 Father raises no independent issues, except to note that any reversal of the order
terminating mother’s parental rights should result in reversal of the order terminating his
parental rights as well.
2.
to be provided to mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), (11), and (13).
Father was not provided with family reunification services due to his status as an alleged
father, and a section 366.26 hearing was set for December 12, 2025.
On November 3, 2025, mother filed a section 388 petition requesting an order that
family reunification services be provided to her. Mother asserted that she was dedicated
to engaging in services to be a safe parent for the child. On November 25, 2025, the
juvenile court held a contested hearing on mother’s section 388 petition. Mother’s
section 388 petition was denied, and the section 366.26 hearing remained as scheduled.
In an unpublished opinion filed on July 16, 2026, we concluded the court did not abuse
its discretion in denying mother’s section 388 petition, and we affirmed the court’s order.
(In re G.C., supra, F090896.)
In its report for the section 366.26 hearing, the agency recommended the juvenile
court terminate parental rights. At the contested hearing held on April 21, 2026, the court
found the child was likely to be adopted and terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
In the present appeal, mother requested judicial notice of her prior appeal in case
No. F090896. She asserts that the purpose of this request is to delay any ruling in the
present case until a decision was reached on her challenge to the order denying the
section 388 petition. We grant mother’s request for judicial notice of case No. F090896,
which includes our unpublished opinion affirming the denial of mother’s section 388
petition requesting reunification services. Since the proceedings did not return to the
reunification phase, the orders terminating parental rights have not been reversed or
otherwise set aside.
In light of mother’s unsuccessful appeal of the order denying her section 388
petition, we are unable to grant any effective relief to the parents. As respondent notes,
there is no outstanding argument that the juvenile court erred when it terminated parental
rights on April 21, 2026. Accordingly, we presume the court’s orders are correct, and
3.
mother has not met her burden to affirmatively show error. (In re J.F. (2019) 39
Cal.App.5th 70, 79.)
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
4.