In re Lucas S.
Harvey B. (Father) appeals from an August 1, 2012 juvenile court order denying Father’s Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition.[1] Father contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s July 2, 2012 order setting a section 366.26 hearing as to minor Lucas S., born in 2005. Father also contends that he presented prima facie evidence to support an evidentiary hearing on his modification petition filed pursuant to section 388 and therefore the juvenile court’s summary denial of his petition on August 1, 2012 was an abuse of discretion. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a motion for dismissal of Father’s purported appeal challenging orders and findings from the July 2, 2012 hearing. DCFS also filed a motion for judicial notice of our prior opinion in In re Lucas S. (Sept. 22, 2011, B229906) [nonpub. opn.] (Lucas I) and the record regarding that matter pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452 and 459. Father filed a “motion to strike [his] opposition to [DCFS’s] partial motion to dismiss and permission to file an amended opposition to [DCFS’s] partial motion to dismiss†and a motion to take judicial notice of an unrelated opinion in which our Supreme Court granted review and later transferred the matter to us with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause. Taryn S. (Mother) is not a party this appeal.
We grant DCFS’s motion for dismissal of Father’s purported appeal challenging orders and findings from the July 2, 2012 hearing because Father’s notice of appeal states only that Father appeals from “[d]enial of 388 petition on August 1, 2012.†We grant DCFS’s motion for judicial notice of our prior opinion, Lucas I, supra, B229906, and the record regarding that matter pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452 and 459. We grant Father’s motion to strike his opposition and file an amended opposition. We deny Father’s motion to take judicial notice of the superseded, unrelated opinion in which our Supreme Court granted review and later transferred the matter to us with directions to vacate our decision and reconsider the cause because it cannot be cited as authority.
Because Father did not allege a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would promote the best interests of Lucas, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it summarily denied Father’s section 388 petition for modification on August 1, 2012. We affirm the order of the court.
Comments on In re Lucas S.