In re R.R. CA4/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/4/24 In re R.R. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re R.R., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E083678
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. INJ1500079)
v. OPINION
M.R.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Elizabeth Tucker,
Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Tracy M. De Soto, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Catherine E. Rupp,
Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
In this appeal, M.R. (mother) challenges the denial of her petition to reinstate
reunification services. Finding no error, we affirm.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTS
A. Prior Dependency and Criminal History.
There have been a total of eight referrals regarding mother’s children between
2003 and 2021, with three substantiated claims of general neglect.1 One referral led to
the initiation of dependency proceedings that resulted in the termination of mother’s
parental rights to, and adoption of, two half siblings in December 2009. In 2015, R.R.
(born in 2008) and A.G. (born in 2014) were removed from their biological father and
placed with mother. Mother’s criminal history spans from 2004 to 2015 and includes
1 Mother’s child welfare history includes: (1) August 2003—a half sibling
missed a substantial amount of school when mother failed to “take the half-sibling to
school because she gets drunk and does not wake up in the morning”; (2) July 2004—a
half sibling was “unkempt, wore dirty clothes, and had a severe lice infestation” and
mother left the half sibling with “different men” when she wasn’t home and continued to
make excuses not to bring the child to school; (3) August 2004—mother’s home was
“unhealthy,” all the occupants had head lice, and mother allowed the half siblings to play
in the street at night and unsupervised; (4) October 2004—mother’s boyfriend hit the half
siblings, mother shaved a half sibling’s head because of lice and would not allow the
child to wear a hat, and mother left the half siblings in the car unattended while she
visited a strip mall; (5) March 2015—mother left the children (R.R. was six years old and
A.G. was six months old) in the biological father’s care and he was arrested for child
endangerment (he left the children alone in the home within reach of methamphetamine,
a butcher knife, and a razor blade), possession of methamphetamine, and being under the
influence of a controlled substance; and (6) May 2021—A.G. was a victim of general
neglect when it was reported that she “had two accidents [at school] within the last
week,” and during a virtual meeting with school personnel, mother’s “‘speech did not
sound clear, her thought process did not seem together, she was all over the place, [and
she] mumbled and rambled.’”
2
contributing to delinquency of a minor, possession of cocaine with intent to sell, failure to
appear, possession of controlled substances, and disturbance by loud/unreasonable noise.
B. Present Dependency Petition and Detention.
On September 21, 2021, Riverside County Department of Public Social Services
(Department) received an immediate response referral alleging mother and her live-in
boyfriend were involved in a domestic violence altercation. The boyfriend grabbed
mother’s hair, causing her to fall and take A.G. down as well. Mother filed a police
report and asked police to remove boyfriend from her home. She declined to press
charges. The boyfriend admitted to the social worker that he used methamphetamine
(and “blue pills”/Fentanyl) and had overdosed in the prior two weeks, but denied pulling
mother’s hair. He said he hears voices but does not take medication for his
schizoaffective disorder. The social worker ended the interview when the boyfriend
began screaming that “‘CPS’ had closed his case and [the worker] had no right to be in
his home once again.”
When the social worker interviewed mother, she stated the children’s biological
father was deceased. She referred to boyfriend as her “fiancé,” maintained that they
argued when she refused to let him take her jewelry to sell for drugs, stated that he was
diagnosed with split personality disorder, and claimed she did not want him in the house.
Mother admitted that she used illicit substances as a youth, was arrested for the sale of
narcotics several years ago, and lost custody of her two oldest children who were
adopted. A.G. said that boyfriend kicks and pinches mother, or pulls her hair, when he is
3
upset. R.R. was diagnosed with autism, bipolar disorder, a seizure disorder, and
schizophrenia, is a client of the Inland Regional Center, and has an individualized
education plan.
A criminal protective order (no contact with an expiration date of September 22,
2024) was issued to restrain boyfriend from being around mother. The social worker
expressed concern that mother continues to expose the children to unsafe people and
situations, placing them at risk of abuse and neglect.
On October 5, 2021, the Department filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions
Code2 section 300, alleging mother’s actions endangered the health and safety of R.R.
and A.G. According to the petition, mother engaged in a physical altercation with her
boyfriend on September 21, 2021 (b-1), has a history of engaging in domestic violence in
the children’s presence (b-2), has limited ability to protect the children from boyfriend’s
drug abuse as evidenced by her allowing him to physically abuse her and overdose on
drugs in front of the children (b-3), and has a child welfare history of substantiated
allegations of general neglect. On October 20, 2021, mother denied the allegations in the
petition, along with Indian heritage. The juvenile court found the Indian Child Welfare
Act did not apply. It expressed concern about mother’s decision to expose her children to
boyfriend’s drug abuse and violence and noted the case involved “similar relationship
issues” as her 2015 dependency case. The court found sufficient evidence to establish a
2 All further unattributed statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
4
prima facie case under section 300, “reluctantly” followed the Department’s
recommendation, and ordered the children remain in mother’s care.
C. Amended Petition and Jurisdiction/Disposition.
On November 17, 2021, the Department filed a first amended petition adding a
count related to mother’s child welfare history in Los Angeles (b-5) and mother’s history
of abusing controlled substances, including alcohol as evidenced by her positive test on
September 22, 2021 (b-6). According to the jurisdiction/disposition report, mother
claimed the incident with her boyfriend was the only incident of physical violence in their
relationship, agreed to call law enforcement if he returned to her home, admitted he has a
drug addiction, and minimized her child welfare history, claiming her older children were
removed because a maternal aunt “wrongfully reported” her and sabotaged her home. On
November 22, 2021, the juvenile court sustained the allegations in the first amended
petition except for b-6, declared the children dependents, and ordered family maintenance
services. Mother’s case plan identified the following family maintenance services:
domestic violence program for victims, parenting education, individual therapy,
substance abuse testing, and substance abuse services (if appropriate).
D. First Six-month Review Report and Hearing.
According to the family maintenance and status review report filed May 5, 2022,
mother had yet to enroll in a domestic violence program, explaining she preferred an in-
person program because she had difficulty with online classes; she enrolled in parenting
classes on February 22, 2022; she was learning and benefiting from her weekly individual
5
therapy; and in March 2022, she began participating in the substance abuse prevention
program. Although mother had positive urine tests for alcohol on September 22 and
November 15, 2021, she had not tested during this reporting period. The social worker
expressed concerns about mother speaking with boyfriend’s mother and wanting to have
contact with and support him, even though it was his substance use and domestic
violence against her that led to the Department’s involvement. Thus, she opined that
termination of the dependency “at this time could place the children at risk of further
exposure to unsafe situations involving domestic violence and substance use as [mother]
has not yet completed her case plan services and continues to minimize her role in the
circumstances that led to the Department’s involvement.”
On May 18, 2022, the juvenile court continued services, but modified the case
plan to end substance abuse testing unless mother appeared under the influence.
E. First Section 387 Supplemental Petition and Detention.
Two months later, the Department obtained a protective custody warrant and
removed the children from mother. R.R. was hospitalized, and A.G. was placed in a
foster home. The Department filed a section 387 supplemental petition alleging the
previous disposition did not effectively protect the children because mother failed to
benefit from services since she allowed boyfriend back into the home despite their
extensive domestic violence history.
According to the supplemental detention report filed July 25, 2022, on July 13, the
Department received an immediate response referral with allegations of general neglect.
6
Mother allowed boyfriend to stay at her home after his release from jail; the couple
argued and engaged in a physical altercation that resulted in boyfriend’s arrest. Mother
told the children to lie and not say anything about the boyfriend’s presence in the home.
It was also reported that R.R. wipes mother after she uses the restroom, and she has been
seen leaving R.R.’s room at night while half-naked. The social worker met with mother
and the children in the home. The children denied seeing boyfriend recently, and R.R.
denied assisting mother in the restroom or her being half-naked in his room. Mother
denied all allegations made in the recent referral. She claimed that boyfriend showed up
to retrieve a bag of his belongings on July 12, refused to leave, and threatened her; thus
she sent her friend a text message to call law enforcement. She confirmed that he was
under the influence during this incident as his eyes were “huge.” She said the children
had seen boyfriend and did not know why they denied seeing him when the social worker
asked.
After meeting with mother and the children, the social worker received a call from
the family specialist, R.V., who said that boyfriend was in the background during two of
mother’s telehealth sessions in May and June 2022. She knew it was boyfriend because
he had introduced himself after walking in on a session. A.G.’s therapist, G.R., also
confirmed boyfriend’s presence in the home. Mother inconsistently engaged in the
children’s therapy appointments, but cited transportation issues as the reason. On
July 25, A.G.’s caregiver reported that A.G. said “‘a guy’” had been in the family’s home
“every day” and “her mom told her not to tell or they would get taken away.” The
7
Department recommended the children remain out of the home while mother works on
her personal issues that cause her to continue to place herself and the children at risk.
On July 26, 2022, the juvenile court detained the children from mother, and
ordered supervised visits once a week for two hours.
F. First Section 387 Supplemental Jurisdiction/Disposition Report.
In preparation for the section 387 jurisdiction/disposition report, the social worker
interviewed mother and the children. Mother said that“she did not understand the
domestic violence between her and [boyfriend] at the time as she had not yet participated
in the domestic violence classes.” She claimed that boyfriend manipulated her and made
it difficult to end the relationship. Over the past few months, he would “come by her
home to pick up his clothes,” and on July 12, 2022, he unexpectedly appeared at her door.
Mother noticed he was under the influence and asked him to leave, but he refused and
threatened her with a knife. Although she reiterated that boyfriend was not living in her
home, when asked about him being seen at her home during therapy sessions, mother
maintained that he was “not staying there and would not comment on how often or how
long [he] would remain in her home.” R.R. confirmed that mother’s boyfriend came to
their home sometimes, and said he was frequently nice to the children but only
sometimes nice to mother. R.R. was upset with boyfriend and blamed him for being in
foster care. A.G. denied seeing boyfriend in the home.
8
On August 26, 2022, the juvenile court sustained the allegations in the section 387
petition, removed the children from mother, terminated family maintenance services, and
ordered her to participate in reunification services.
In the intervening months, mother completed a 10-week domestic violence
program and continued to participate in individual therapy; her visitation progressed to
unsupervised, overnight/weekend visits. Although mother remained connected to
boyfriend through social media, she denied having any contact with him. Both the
maternal grandmother and a family friend reported there was no evidence of mother
having any contact or relationship with boyfriend. The social worker communicated with
several relatives or friends of the family for placement of the children; however, none
were able to care for them, meet the criteria, or take both children. The social worker
noted that both children were currently placed together in a medically fragile home to
meet R.R.’s need.
G. Children Returned to Mother’s Care.
On January 25, 2023, the juvenile court returned the children to mother’s care and
ordered family maintenance services. During the next five months, mother appeared to
be benefitting from her services; she ended her relationship with boyfriend, was meeting
the children’s physical and emotional needs, was utilizing community resources when
needed, and provided a safe environment for her children. Thus, the Department
recommended termination of the dependency and vacatur of all future hearings.
However, on July 14, 2023, before the court could consider termination of the
9
dependency, the Department filed a second section 387 supplemental petition alleging the
previous disposition was ineffective in protecting the children because mother failed to
benefit from her services as evidenced by boyfriend’s presence in her home.
H. Second Section 387 Supplemental Petition and Detention.
According to the detention report for the second section 387 supplemental petition,
on July 3, 2023, a male called social worker Melissa Martin from mother’s phone, and
said, “‘This is Jack, Isaac’s dad.’” When Martin responded, the male quickly ended the
call. Martin called mother who claimed that it was the maternal grandfather who had
made the call. Mother put the maternal grandfather on the phone, but his voice sounded
much older than the original caller. Martin searched Riverside County family law
records and discovered that boyfriend has a son named Isaac. Isaac’s mother and Martin
share the same first name, Melissa. Martin requested law enforcement conduct a welfare
check at mother’s home, but several hours later boyfriend was not there.
Subsequently, boyfriend called Martin and confirmed that he had called from
mother’s phone on July 3. He said he hid in the closet while law enforcement searched
the home and claimed to have been “in the home continuously since he was released from
jail last year.” Boyfriend explained that mother did not want him to be homeless;
however, after the phone incident mother kicked him out. Boyfriend expressed concern
that the children were not being properly cared for because “if he is not there to cook and
clean, the children do not eat.” He also expressed concern that A.G. gets yelled at a lot
while R.R. is talked to sweetly. According to boyfriend, on multiple occasions, he has
10
seen R.R. go into the bathroom while the mother is in there naked. He said he does not
know what goes on in there, but he has seen “[R.R.] exit the bathroom with an erection.”
Boyfriend added that A.G. told a relative that she has to wipe mother’s female parts.
Boyfriend’s sister confirmed that mother remains in a relationship with boyfriend, that he
spends a significant amount of time at mother’s home, and that the two frequently call
each other on the phone.
Martin met with mother and the children at home. R.R. said he has felt “unsafe”
in the home recently because boyfriend is mean and threatened to kill him. One night
while mother was asleep, boyfriend accused R.R. of “‘doing things’” with mother and
said he would kill R.R. if he was not honest about it. R.R. said it was not true that mother
had touched him, that she asked for assistance in the restroom, or that he had seen her
naked. A.G. denied seeing boyfriend in the home. When Martin asked about a mug in
A.G.’s room that had boyfriend’s name printed on it, A.G. said it was a gift from her
mother. Mother denied allowing boyfriend into her home. Regarding his use of her cell
phone on July 3, she claimed A.G. took it to him when he asked for it. Martin asked
A.G. if she gave mother’s phone to boyfriend. A.G. was “hesitant” but when Martin said
that she “had already heard from the mother that the boyfriend asked to use the phone,”
A.G. confirmed that boyfriend asked to use mother’s phone to call his son. When Martin
asked where boyfriend was when he requested mother’s phone, A.G. pointed to mother’s
bedroom. A.G. “appeared to be on the verge of crying” and agreed with Martin that it
was difficult to keep these secrets. Mother maintained boyfriend “force[d] her to be in a
11
relationship with him,” constantly harassing her, and threatening to kill her and R.R. She
said the police were no help because they kept releasing him from custody.
On July 12, 2023, the Department obtained a protective custody warrant to remove
the children from mother’s care for a second time. After he was detained, R.R. disclosed
that Mother broke his cell phone because she was angry when he refused to do his chores.
According to R.R., “it was normal for his mother to get angry to the point of yelling and
breaking things.” The juvenile court detained the children and ordered a hair follicle test
and psychological evaluation for mother.
I. Second Section 387 Jurisdiction/Disposition Report and Hearing.
According to the second section 387 jurisdiction/disposition report, filed
August 22, 2023, R.R. denied seeing boyfriend at any point before or after the night he
threatened R.R. When the social worker asked about other incidents where mother had
confirmed boyfriend’s presence, R.R. declined to answer and said he did not feel
comfortable talking about the allegations. A.G. stated she could not remember anything.
Mother continued to deny allowing boyfriend back into the home and asserted she had
benefitted from her services because she now wanted nothing to do with him. She said
she could not change her phone number because of “‘CPS’, ‘the schools, etc.’” When
she continued to claim that boyfriend had returned to her home to retrieve his clothes, the
social worker “reminded [her] that when the children were removed from her care a year
ago, she [said that boyfriend’s] sister had picked up [his] belongings.” The social worker
12
also noted that mother continued to keep boyfriend’s mother’s ashes and his bicycles
(only recently throwing them away).
Jose Garcia, R.R.’s in home support services worker, stated that he has never seen
boyfriend in the home; however, he has witnessed boyfriend call mother, telling her “to
find a place for her kids because he was going to kill her” and tell the children that he
would make sure they never see her again. A week before the children were removed the
second time, mother began calling Garcia daily to report that boyfriend was harassing
her. Mother claimed to have called the police numerous times; however, according to
police records, they responded to calls on May 13, 2021, September 21, 2021, May 12,
2022, July 12, 2022, and July 7, 2023. Boyfriend called the Department and stated the
allegations he made about mother were a result of his mental health issues and drug use,
that he was unsure if he was seeing things or what was going on, and that mother does
her best for the children and him. Mother participated in weekly visits with the children
as well as regular phone contact.
According to the addendum to the second section 387 jurisdiction/disposition
report, filed October 5, 2023, the children were doing well in their individual placements,
although they missed each other. R.R.’s caregiver reported he was stable on his
medication and was scheduled for psychological and medication evaluations. Mother’s
August 16th hair follicle test was negative for all substances. Her psychological
evaluation was conducted on August 27, 2023. Dr. Kenneth Garrett concluded that she
grew up in an abusive home and would have been a dependent herself if her situation had
13
been reported to child protective services. He noted that it is “clear that [mother] has
difficulty controlling the flow of her life.” He recommended that she show a more
consistent capacity to keep a clean home, maintain herself appropriately, prevent any
further contact with boyfriend, complete all her classes, and show an understanding that
she has to take some responsibility for allowing an individual with substance abuse and
violent tendencies into her life. Dr. Garrett stated that if mother could establish “some
control over this ongoing issue of her ex-boyfriend interfering [with] and violating her
privacy” and show reasonable stability in her life, then “an expansion of her current
visitations could occur in the near future.” The Department recommended bypassing
services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(11).
At the section 387 contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing, mother’s counsel
argued for reunification services because mother has not been in a relationship with
boyfriend, has called law enforcement when he shows up, has no control over his actions,
and he is no longer living in the area. Counsel argued that mother has completed services
before, is living independently, and is applying for financial support from SSI. The
juvenile court followed the Department’s recommendation and denied reunification
services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (b)(11). The court gave little
credit to mother’s claims, stating: “I do think it’s very clear that [boyfriend] was around
the home, and the Court’s quite concerned with information that the mother was telling to
the children regarding not being honest about that situation.” The court declined to set a
section 366.26 hearing because the children were not a proper subject for adoption, and
14
no one was willing or appropriate to accept legal guardianship. Mother’s supervised
visits were reduced to a minimum of once a month.
J. Section 388 Petition, Section 366.3 Post Permanent Plan Review Report, and Hearing.
On February 8, 2024, mother filed a section 388 petition. She requested the
juvenile court order family reunification services. She asserted the changed
circumstances involve her attending individual and domestic violence counseling and
maintaining consistent visitation and phone contact with the children. Mother explained
the requested change was in the children’s best interest because they “are very bonded to
[her,] have spent their lives in her care[, and their] father is deceased.” The court set a
hearing for April 9, 2024.
The Department opposed mother’s request. Acknowledging her engagement in
services, it noted that “this is the second dependency for [her] regarding the same issues
of Domestic Violence and Drug Use.” While this dependency was established because of
domestic violence between mother and boyfriend, and she was granted a restraining order
against him, she continued to allow him to enter her home and engage in further domestic
violence. On March 15, 2024, one day after mother told the social worker that she had no
contact with boyfriend, he called the social worker and said that “he did not feel it is fair
that [mother] should lose her children.” When asked how he obtained the social worker’s
contact number, he provided different explanations. Given this evidence, the Department
argued the current circumstances show that mother has failed to provide a change in
circumstances to suggest that she could protect her children from further neglect.
15
According to the section 366.3 post permanent plan review report, filed March 26,
2024, R.R. continued to participate in psychiatric services for ADHD, an unspecified
schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder, an unspecified depressive disorder,
and an autism spectrum disorder. He takes psychotropic medication, has an active IEP,
and attends special education classes. He is becoming more talkative, is a very smart
child, is making positive changes at school, and is improving his personal hygiene since
his caretaker developed a schedule. Although he was doing well in his placement, he
expressed a desire to return to mother who was participating in monthly visitation. R.R.
and A.G. reside in the same home. The Department recommended legal guardianship;
the children’s caregiver was committed to their continued placement in her home, but
was not committed to legal guardianship.
On April 4, 2024, mother filed a document stating that she had completed her
domestic violence victim program on March 29.
At the section 388 hearing, county counsel asked the juvenile court to deny
mother’s request, submitted on the Department’s recommendation as to R.R. (find his
psychotropic medication necessary and appropriate) and A.G. (set a section 366.26
hearing as she is adoptable). Mother’s counsel asked the court to grant mother’s petition,
arguing that she had completed a domestic violence program, continued to engage in
individual counseling, and consistently visited the children. He stated that mother did not
ask boyfriend to call the social worker and claimed she had “no idea how he has injected
himself into the situation.” He asserted that she denied having contact with boyfriend,
16
denied knowing his current whereabouts, and denied living with him. Counsel
preemptively objected to the court making section 366.3 findings as to R.R. and setting a
section 366.26 hearing for A.G. The children’s counsel submitted on the Department’s
reports and recommendation, and agreed with the court denying mother’s request for
services.
After reading and considering all the reports filed for the hearing, the juvenile
court denied the section 388 petition, stating: “[a]t this time the Court does not find
sufficient change in circumstances to grant the request[,] nor do I think it would be in the
children’s best interest to grant the request.” The court proceeded with the section 366.3
hearing, adopted the findings/recommendations proposed by the Department, found
R.R.’s psychotropic medication was appropriate and necessary and set a further section
366.3 hearing. The court also set a section 366.26 hearing for A.G. Mother was advised
of her appellate rights. Her counsel restated his objection to the court’s actions.
Mother appeals the denial of her section 388 petition, but has not challenged the
order setting a section 366.26 hearing for A.G.
II. DISCUSSION
Mother challenges the denial of her section 388 petition seeking additional
reunification services, along with the finding that she has not established changed
circumstances and it is not in her children’s best interest to reinstate services.
“Section 388 allows a parent to petition to change, modify, or set aside any
previous juvenile court order. [Citation.] ‘The petitioner has the burden of showing by a
17
preponderance of the evidence (1) that there is new evidence or a change of
circumstances and (2) that the proposed modification would be in the best interests of the
child.’” (In re J.M. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 833, 845.) “We review a juvenile court’s
denial of a section 388 petition for abuse of discretion, and review its factual findings for
substantial evidence. [Citation.] We may disturb the exercise of the court’s discretion
only when the court has made an unreasonable or arbitrary determination.” (Id. at
p. 846.)
Initially, we reject mother’s claim that the juvenile court “summarily denied [her
petition] at the prima facie stage, and . . . prevented [her] from participating in an
evidentiary hearing.” An evidentiary hearing was held on April 9, 2024, and the court
heard argument from mother’s counsel regarding her request. The court found mother
failed to meet her burden on both prongs. We agree with the court’s finding.
Mother asks us to follow the “best interest” factors set forth in In re Kimberly F.
(1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 532 (Kimberly F.): “(1) the seriousness of the problem
which led to the dependency, and the reason for any continuation of that problem; (2) the
strength of relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent and caretakers;
and (3) the degree to which the problem may be easily removed or ameliorated, and the
degree to which it actually has been.” As she acknowledges, the court that decided
Kimberly F. later rejected application of these factors when the juvenile court has
terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing for selection of a permanent plan.
(In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527 (J.C.).) Instead, the J.C. court followed the
18
Supreme Court’s direction in In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, “that after
reunification services have terminated, a parent’s petition for either an order returning
custody or reopening reunification efforts must establish how such a change will advance
the child’s need for permanency and stability.” (J.C., at p. 527; see In re Angel B. (2002)
97 Cal.App.4th 454, 464 [“That need often will dictate the conclusion that maintenance
of the current arrangement would be in the best interests of that child.”].)
Nonetheless, since the juvenile court did not set a section 366.26 hearing for R.R.,
mother argues the distinguishing factor in J.C. is not relevant in the case at hand. We
disagree. It is not the selection of a permanent plan that shifts the focus from the parents’
performance to the best interest of the children; rather, it is the termination of
reunification services. “After the termination of reunification services, the parents’
interest in the care, custody and companionship of the child are no longer paramount.”
(In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.)
We begin by considering whether mother’s circumstances have changed. Mother
came to the Department’s attention in September 2021, after it was reported that she
engaged in a domestic violence incident with her boyfriend who, while living in her
home, was using drugs and had suffered two overdoses. The boyfriend was arrested, and
mother obtained a restraining order. Based on her representation that she would not
allow boyfriend to return to her home, the Department recommended, and the juvenile
court reluctantly agreed, to allow the children to remain in mother’s home under a family
maintenance plan. The plan included a domestic violence program for victims, parenting
19
education, individual therapy, and substance abuse testing, along with not allowing
boyfriend in her home. Nonetheless, in July 2022, the children were removed from
mother’s home after the Department learned that boyfriend had been living with mother,
the couple argued, and they engaged in a physical altercation resulting in boyfriend’s
arrest. Mother lied about boyfriend living in the home and coached the children to lie
about his presence.
By Fall 2022, after completing a 10-week domestic violence program and
participated in individual therapy, mother claimed she had gained understanding about
the violence in her relationship and was no longer in contact with boyfriend. Thus, the
children were returned to her home in January 2023. Six months later, they were
removed for a second time when the Department discovered that mother had allowed
boyfriend to return to the home. Subsequently, mother claimed that boyfriend was not
welcome in her home, but she was still in possession of his mother’s ashes and his
bicycles. When confronted with this information, mother claimed that he would show up
and threaten her. Following the children’s second removal, mother again claimed that
she had stopped communicating with boyfriend; however, in March 2024, he called the
social worker to plead mother’s case. When asked how he had obtained the social
worker’s phone number, he provided different explanations. Although mother denied
any contact with boyfriend, his call to the social worker suggests otherwise.
Despite receiving more than two years of services, mother has failed to eliminate
the primary person who was responsible for the initiation of this dependency, namely,
20
boyfriend. She has repeatedly exposed her children to his presence in the home and then
lied to the Department. When caught in her lie, she blamed boyfriend for not staying
away, accusing him of threatening her. She claimed to have called the police on him;
however, police records show that only a handful of calls were made by her regarding
boyfriend. Mother has also failed to take responsibility for her role in this dependency.
Although she now professes to have “moved on and is no longer in contact with
[boyfriend],” she has made this same claim many times before. Her acknowledgment
that the work is not done, “the road is long,” and she is “still early in the process,” offers
no evidence that she will ever be capable of safely caring for her children. Mother is
similar to an addict, but her addiction is boyfriend. The short periods of his absence do
not constitute a significant change. (See, e.g., In re Jayden M. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th
1261, 1277 [“short and recent periods of sobriety are often not enough to counter a long-
standing pattern of use and relapse”].)
We now consider whether mother has shown that additional services are in the
children’s best interest. “‘[T]o prevent children from spending their lives in the
uncertainty of foster care, there must be a limitation on the length of time a child has to
wait for a parent to become adequate.’” (Michael G. v. Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th
609, 627.)
According to mother, she is the biological parent who has raised and lived with the
children for the majority of their lives, and despite “the at-times chaotic situation at
home, [she] has been a steadfast and consistent parent to [them].” She points out that
21
R.R. stated a desire to return home, and A.G. stated that mother needs her. Claiming
neither child has a “sense of permanency at this point,” mother argues “it is in their best
interest to continue reunification services to [her] so that they can benefit from [her]
healing and the work she does. Given their age and paths, it appears [she] will remain in
their lives. It is in their best interest to have the best mother they can, and [she] can only
achieve that with additional services.” The evidence argues otherwise. R.R. has always
had extensive mental health needs; however, since being placed with his current
caregiver, he has become “more talkative,” is making positive changes at school, and is
improving his personal hygiene since his caretaker developed a schedule. He is placed
with A.G. whose permanent plan is adoption. Moreover, as the Department points out,
since mother’s section 388 petition did not ask that the children be returned to her care, it
is unclear how granting her petition would advance either child’s need for permanency
and stability.
Because mother failed to show changed circumstances and that more services
would promote the children’s best interest, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion
by denying her section 388 petition.
22
III. DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
23