>In re
Destiny M.

















Filed 3/14/13 In re Destiny
M. CA2/1











NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115>.







IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA



SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT



DIVISION ONE




>

In re DESTINY M. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B242166 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK10689)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. YVONNE G., Defendant and Appellant; DESTINY M. et al., Appellants.	ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

It
is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 21, 2013, be modified
as follows:

1. On page 13, last sentence of the second full
paragraph beginning with “That issue” is deleted and the following sentence is
in inserted in its place:

That issue therefore is moot as to the four older children.

2. On page 13, after the second full paragraph,
the following paragraphs are to be inserted:

As to Miracle, who was in a separate medical placement, the November 16, 2012 minute order
indicates that another DCFS report dated the same day was considered by the court. The November 16 order continued the matter to
December 12, 2012 for a
receipt of a supplemental report, and to December 14, 2012 for a section 388 hearing to consider
the supplemental report with further investigation of Miracle’s caregiver and
recommendations from DCFS regarding Mother’s section 388 petition as to
Miracle. No party has requested that we
take judicial notice of these or any other further reports, hearings, or minute
orders regarding Miracle. We thus have
information subsequent to the filing of this appeal only as to the four older
daughters.

A separate interim report for Miracle on the date of the May 31, 2012 section 388 hearing
noted that Miracle was thriving in her placement, her caregiver Velinda wished
to adopt her, and Miracle told the social worker that she wants to stay with
Velinda although she misses her sisters.
Velinda would encourage visitation with the four older children and
would accept monitored visitation with Mother if Miracle requested it. A last minute information the same date
indicated that Mother would see Miracle at a DCFS office once a month for two
hours. Children’s Hospital reported that
Miracle missed a number of appointments, had several urinary tract infections,
and received poor care while she was in Mother’s custody. No such care issues had arisen while Miracle
was in the care of Velinda.

At the May 31 hearing, Miracle’s counsel argued that no
change of circumstances had taken place in terms of Mother’s ability to take
care of Miracle’s special needs, especially given that Mother continued to deny
that Miracle had suffered urinary tract infections. Counsel for DCFS and counsel for the four
other children agreed that Miracle was differently situated. Mother’s counsel stated, “My client is not
asking for Miracle home today,” but rather for more visits and reunification
services.

The court recognized that Mother’s likelihood of relapse
especially affected Miracle because of her special needs, before denying the
section 388 petition as to all five children (although the court also allowed
Mother access to Miracle’s medical appointments as one of the things that
needed addressing “if we are going to have a successful 388 for [Mother] in the
future.”)href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">[5]

This denial of the section 388 petition’s request for
reunification services as to Miracle was not an abuse of discretion. Mother did not show an genuine change of
circumstances as to Miracle, continuing to deny the medical problems that arose
when Miracle was in Mother’s care.
Unlike the older four children, Miracle was thriving in her placement
and did not express a desire to return to Mother’s care. Mother’s counsel expressly declined to
request that Miracle be returned to Mother’s home. Further, Mother did not demonstrate that
granting the section 388 petition and providing reunification services at the
time of the hearing would be in Miracle’s best interests.

There
is no change in the judgment.

The
petition for rehearing is denied.



________________________________________________________________________

MALLANO, P. J. CHANEY,
J JOHNSON, J.