In In re Heraclio A. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 569, the juvenile court established a legal guardianship for a child pursuant to section 366.26, appointed a nonrelative as guardian, and terminated its dependency jurisdiction. (42 Cal.App.4th at p. 573.) DCFS subsequently filed a section 388 petition, seeking to change the permanent plan from a legal guardianship to adoption because the guardian wanted to adopt the child. (42 Cal.App.4th at p. 573.) The juvenile court reinstated its dependency jurisdiction, terminated the parents' rights, and continued the child in the guardianship pending the completion of adoption. ( Id. at pp. 573-574.) On appeal, the parents contended that the juvenile court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the section 388 petition because it had previously terminated its dependency jurisdiction. The court in Heraclio A. rejected this contention, holding that under sections 366.3 and 366.4, a juvenile court that has terminated its dependency jurisdiction after establishing a legal guardianship may properly reinstate dependency jurisdiction at a later time to conduct a hearing on section 388 petitions to implement a different permanent plan. In so holding, the court in Heraclio A. cited the legislative history of sections 366.3 and 366.4. ( In re Heraclio A., supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at pp. 575-576.) According to the author of the key legislation underlying these sections, legal guardianships ordered by the juvenile court differ from those established under the Probate Code. ( Id. at p. 576.) The legislation's author had stated: "'It is important to include guardianships in the dependency law where the guardianship was created as a result of a permanent plan. One problem is with cases where the juvenile court needs to re-examine the guardianship; there is no mechanism in current law to do this. . . .. . . The establishment and termination of this type of guardianship is different from that for a Probate Code guardianship . . . . In the "dependency" guardianship, the court has continuing direct responsibility regarding the placement of the minor with the guardians and regarding the termination of the guardianship and establishment of a new guardianship. The procedure for exercising the court's continuing responsibility to the minor placed with a guardian is specified by this bill.'" (Ibid.) The court in Heraclio A. concluded: "The legislative intent was to recognize the differences between the two types of guardianships and to provide the juvenile court with continuing jurisdiction over guardianships established in juvenile court. Thus, the statutory scheme authorizes the juvenile court not only to exercise jurisdiction over these minors as wards of a guardianship, but also as dependents." (42 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.)