The court has the authority to summarily deny a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition for failing to show a prima facie case for change (In re Aljamie D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 424, 431). A parent seeking modification of an order under section 388 bears the burden of proving that a change of circumstances exists and that the proposed modification of the order is in the child's best interests. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47.) The Court will not reverse the trial court's order denying the petition unless the parent establishes that the court abused its discretion. (Ibid.) "'"The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court."' " (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.) Where, as here, the court concludes that the party with the burden of proof failed to carry its burden, the question is not whether substantial evidence supports the judgment, but whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law. (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528.) Furthermore, once it has been determined that reunification services should be terminated, the focus shifts to the children's need for permanency and stability. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) The California Supreme Court made it clear in In re Jamson O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 414, that the disruption of an existing psychological bond between dependent children and their caretakers is an extremely important factor bearing on a section 388 motion. The court has also held that time is of the essence to young children, when it comes to securing a stable, permanent home for them; prolonged uncertainty is not in their best interest. (In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 674.) "'There is little that can be as detrimental to a child's sound development as uncertainty over whether he is to remain in his current 'home,' under the care of his parents or foster parents, especially when such uncertainty is prolonged.'" (Ibid; quoting Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency (1982) 458 U.S. 502, 513-514.) The Court made it clear in In re Jamson O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 414, that the disruption of an existing psychological bond between dependent children and their caretakers is an extremely important factor bearing on a section 388 motion. The court has also held that time is of the essence to young children like A.M. and H.M. when it comes to securing a stable, permanent home for them; prolonged uncertainty is not in their best interest. (In re Josiah Z. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 664, 674.) "'There is little that can be as detrimental to a child's sound development as uncertainty over whether he is to remain in his current 'home,' under the care of his parents or foster parents, especially when such uncertainty is prolonged.'" (Ibid; quoting Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency (1982) 458 U.S. 502, 513-514.)