CA1/4
In re N v. CA1/4
Opinion
Opinion
I.
INTRODUCTION
A.V. (appellant), the biological father of two-year-old N.V. (the minor) appeals, contending the court erred in denying his petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 without holding an evidentiary hearing.1 Appellant asserts he made a prima facie case showing his circumstances had changed and that his requested modification–– to declare him a presumed father and grant him reunification services—was in the
1 All future undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. A party may petition the court under section 388 to change, modify or set aside a previous court order. The petitioning party has the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) there is a change of circumstances or new evidence, and (2) the proposed change is in the child’s best interests. (§ 388; In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 414-415 (Jasmon O.); In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47 (Casey D.).)
1 minor’s best interests. He claims “[t]he order summarily denying Father’s petition was an abuse of the court’s discretion, resulting in the miscarriage of justice.” We disagree and affirm.