In re F.P. CA2/8

STATEMENT OF FACTS

We examined the facts and procedural history of the current juvenile dependency proceeding in two prior unpublished opinions. (See In re F.P. (May 14, 2012, B235638) [nonpub. opn.]; and see In re F.P. (Apr. 30, 2014, B250054) [nonpub. opn.].)2 We need not revisit those facts and history in full here. Instead, we briefly summarize the facts and history of the case to establish the context for Mother’s section 388 petitions which we address in this opinion. In 2008, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) detained Mother’s four children. Only two children, F.P. (born in June 2004) and Fr. P. (born in Feb. 2006) are the subject of Mother’s section 388 petitions which are at issue in the current appeal.3 The juvenile court sustained a petition alleging the children were at risk of harm within the meaning of section 300, subdivisions (b), (g), and (j), due to Mother’s mental and emotional problems and failure to take prescribed medications. In April 2010, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s reunification services, and, in October 2010, the court appointed the children’s paternal grandparents as their legal guardians. The…