Maternal grandmother of the minors appealed from four different juvenile court orders issued after the juvenile court had terminated parental rights and denied placement with her. In a previous appeal in 2002, the appellate court had affirmed the juvenile court’s placement orders in their entirety. In this appeal, grandmother challenged the juvenile court’s denial of her 388 petitions (requesting a change in placement) without a hearing and the court’s issuance of an order restraining her from contacting the minors and terminating her de facto parent status. The appellate court rejected grandmother’s contentions and affirmed. Grandmother’s petition made no showing that her own circumstances had changed to such an extent that she should now be considered an appropriate placement for the minors. The entire petition simply rehashed previous allegations that the foster parents were unfit. Further, even if there had been a showing of changed circumstances, there was no showing that a change in placement was in the minors’ best interest. Therefore, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the 388 modification petition. Further, there was no merit to grandmother’s claim that the restraining order, issued pursuant to section 213.5, was unconstitutional because section 213.5 is vague and overbroad. A reasonable person would have known that grandmother’s behavior (making unauthorized contact with the children, hiring an investigator to spy on them, videotaping their home, publicly defaming their caretakers, and going to their schools unannounced) would be interpreted as “stalking.” Further, the orders were supported by substantial evidence. Finally, appellant’s de facto parent status was properly terminated, given her behavior. Appellant by her own action forfeited any custody interest she might have had.