In re M.H. CA2/8

INTRODUCTION

J.S., the paternal grandmother of minor M.H., purports to appeal from the orders denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388, and terminating parental rights over M.H. under section 366.26. J.S. contends the juvenile court erred in issuing these orders because it failed to ensure that she would have continued visitation with M.H. after the child was adopted. We conclude J.S.’s claims fail because the record shows that the court previously ordered unmonitored visitation between J.S. and M.H., and that such order remained in effect following the termination of parental rights. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying J.S.’s section 388 petition for increased visitation, or in failing to order postadoption visitation at the section 366.26 hearing. We accordingly affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Section 300 petition

W.Z. (Father) and A.H. (Mother) are the parents of M.H., a boy born in October 2022. Father is deceased, and has no other children. Mother has five older children, four of whom were prior dependents of the juvenile court. This matter came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children…