In re Charlene L.

Filed 5/30/06  In re Charlene L. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.  S.  Patricia Spear, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

            Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, Fred Klink and Frank J. DaVanzo, Deputies County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

            No appearance for Minors.

            Darlene L. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court's summary denial of her petition for modification under section 388 of the Welfare and Institutions Code[1] seeking the return to her custody of Charlene L. (now age 15) and James C. (now age 14).  Because we conclude that Mother's section 388 petition did not make an adequate prima facie showing triggering any right to a hearing, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            For five years minors Charlene and James resided with their maternal aunt, who was also their legal guardian.  In July 2005, the children went to Mother's house and reported seeing the aunt smoking marijuana and taking ecstasy pills, reported acts of neglect and abuse by the aunt and refused to return to the aunt's house.  Mother contacted the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (Department), who took the children into protective custody and placed them into foster care.

            The Department filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the minors, with allegations against the aunt.  The court ordered the minors detained and ordered â€