N.F., In re (2023) B318674 B318674; filed 8/10/23. ![[Files/CaseFiles/B318674.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/B318674.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Distinguishing In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1: post-permanency section 388 hearing after dependency jurisdiction ended; the court retained only guardianship jurisdiction and did not reopen dependency. > That reasoning does not apply to the court’s order denying mother’s section 388 petition here for the simple reason that the hearing was not a dependency proceeding as N.F. no longer was a dependent of the juvenile court. — N.F., In re (2023) B318674, slip op., p. 12.