In re S.S. CA2/5

DISCUSSION

I. Summary Denial of Section 388 Petition

Father contends the juvenile court erred in denying his petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. We review a summary denial of a section 388 petition for abuse of discretion. (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 460 (Angel B.).) A. Mootness As a preliminary matter, we reject the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (Department’s) contention that father’s challenge to the juvenile court’s summary denial of his section 388 petition is moot. The Department is incorrect that no effective relief can be granted. The juvenile court retained jurisdiction when it appointed S.S.’s legal

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 guardian, and its order may still be set aside or modified under section 388. (B.B. v. Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 563, 569; In re Priscilla D. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1207, 1215-1216 [legal guardianship “is not irrevocable,” and “nothing precludes a parent whose parental rights have not been terminated from seeking to regain custody of their dependent minors. Indeed, the dependency scheme provides for such a result in the case…