In re Isabella M. CA2/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/16/24 In re Isabella M. CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re ISABELLA M., a Person B330514
Coming Under the Juvenile (Los Angeles County
Court Law. Super. Ct.
No. 22CCJP00327)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
AMANDA K.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Lucia J. Murillo, Juvenile Court Referee.
Affirmed
Donna P. Chirco, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
******
Amanda K. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her
reunification services with her child Isabella M. at a 12-month
status review hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code
section 366.21.1 As substantial evidence supports the juvenile
court’s order, we affirm.
COMBINED FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Mother has two children, Isabella M. (born April 2014) and
her half sibling Jason N., Jr. (born November 2020).2 Jason N.,
Jr.’s father is Jason N. (father). Isabella’s father, Charlie M., is
not a party to this appeal.
Referral and initial investigation
On January 23, 2022, the Los Angeles County Department
of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a call alleging
Isabella and Jason were in an unsafe situation, living in a tent in
a homeless encampment on a median on a busy street in Venice,
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 Jason is not a subject of this appeal and will be mentioned
only as necessary.
2
California. A service provider tried to arrange services for
mother and the children. Mother refused assistance, including
food and motel vouchers, and reacted aggressively towards the
outreach provider, causing the service worker concern about the
children, who appeared dirty and malnourished. Mother was
observed to have left the children outside the tent, unsupervised.
Two other people in the camp reported mother left the two
children unattended “all the time.”
In a second call to the DCFS hotline, the caller provided
more information, including that mother and the children were
from New York and recently arrived in California. Mother
claimed to have left New York because she was not getting along
with maternal grandmother (MGM) and due to domestic violence
with father. Mother stated there was a protective order in place
in New York.
A DCFS social worker made contact with mother at the
encampment on January 23, 2022. There were approximately 20
tents on a median with lanes of traffic on either side. Mother
insisted she was not homeless and that she had friends and
family in the area, but could not provide any contact information.
Mother became agitated and belligerent when the accompanying
Los Angeles Police Department officer pointed out that Isabella
was barefoot in the cold weather.
Mother claimed to be having issues with father, including
him being mentally abusive and a drug dealer. She said there
was a restraining order against him and an upcoming custody
hearing in New York. Mother admitted she had been diagnosed
with “Bi-Polar Schizo affected” but provided varying answers to
whether she was taking medication. Mother admitted using
marijuana but was unclear when she had last used the drug.
3
Jason was in a wet, dirty onesie without a diaper asleep in
a stroller. His arms and legs were streaked with dirt and covered
with sand. Isabella was also very dirty and unkempt and could
not tell the social worker when she last had a bath. Isabella
confirmed mother would leave her alone in the tent in charge of
the baby. Isabella reported Jason’s “daddy” was a bad man who
used drugs.
Mother stated father raped her in New York. Though she
was uncertain he was Jason’s father, she was hesitant to ask for
a paternity test as she believed father knew people who could
manipulate the results of such a test. Mother reported father
was a drug addict and dealer and was “organized gang stalking”
her. Mother added there had been involvement with child
protective services (CPS) in New York but did not provide
specifics. Mother admitted having been addicted to oxycodone
following a car accident in the past. She completed a 30-day
rehabilitation program, following an eight-day hospitalization,
and occasionally used marijuana and alcohol.
The officers transported mother and the children to the
police station, expressing concern about the children being in the
dangerous encampment. When mother was informed the
children would be detained, she became angry and telephoned
MGM, yelling that MGM had to come to California to get the
kids.
The social worker spoke with MGM, who informed her that
mother had been planning to relocate to California, and there
was trouble with father, who had visitation. MGM confirmed
mother had a history of mental health issues and was previously
addicted to oxycodone, due to the fault of mother’s doctors. MGM
was uncertain if there was a CPS history in New York.
4
Petition and detention
On January 25, 2022, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on
behalf of the children, containing allegations of mother’s neglect,
failure to supervise the children and mental health issues. A
first amended section 300 petition was later filed, which added
counts regarding father’s substance abuse and mother’s failure to
protect the children.
In a last minute information for the court filed on
January 28, 2022, DCFS reported a conversation between a local
social worker and a Sullivan County New York CPS social
worker, Jenesis Matos, on January 26, 2022. Matos reported the
family had an open referral in New York but no court filing.
There was a current family law proceeding pending, and father
had monitored visitation with the children. Mother had a history
of mental health issues, psychiatric hospitalizations, prescription
drug abuse, and leaving the children unsupervised. Mother once
told the authorities after leaving the children home alone that
the pit bull dogs would guard them. Mother had previously lost
custody of Isabella due to mental health issues and was not
medication compliant. Mother had taken Isabella out of school
without notice to the school, and when social worker Matos
reached mother, mother told her they were on vacation in Los
Angeles.
A second last minute information for the court filed on
January 28, 2022, indicated father had contacted DCFS on
January 25, 2022, and acknowledged having monitored visits
twice per week. Father stated mother took the children out of
New York without his permission. Mother had been leaving the
children with him for days at a time despite her request for a
restraining order. Father claimed mother’s allegations in the
5
restraining order were untrue. He denied being part of a gang or
dealing drugs. Father confirmed mother’s mental illness, recent
hospitalizations and prior loss of custody of Isabella.
Father reported mother had picked up the children from
his home on January 8, 2022, and was screaming in the streets
that father was a drug dealer. Afterwards, mother got in a
serious car accident with the children in the car. Mother’s
driver’s license was suspended because she did not have
insurance. Mother then went to a friend’s home and rented a U-
Haul. Father believed mother then left for California. Father
had been looking for the children for two weeks before calling
DCFS.
At the January 28, 2022 hearing, the juvenile court
acknowledged possible jurisdictional issues under the Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (Fam. Code,
§ 3400 et seq.) and indicated it would contact the court in New
York. The court found a prima facie showing had been made and
ordered the children detained in foster care. Mother’s visits were
to be monitored. The court ordered DCFS to assist mother with
transportation, housing, and to provide no- or low-cost referrals
for appropriate services.
Additional reports
An addendum report was submitted February 24, 2022.
Social worker Matos reported father said mother would drop the
children with him for days. Mother attended the same outpatient
drug treatment center as father, but was terminated due to
noncompliance. Matos said mother “is Bipolar and
Schizoaffective and fails to take her medication and self-
medicates.” Matos believed mother had a “severe long psychotic
breakdown” that caused mother to come to California. Matos
6
indicated mother “fails to address her issues and the [MGM]
minimizes mother’s issues.” Mother had informed Matos she was
not planning on returning to New York.
Father did not wish to have contact with mother. He
wanted to have Jason and Isabella with him and the case to be in
New York. Father described domestic violence on the part of
mother, saying she smashed his windshield with a hammer when
he was leaving and punched him in the mouth.
The March 15, 2022 jurisdiction/disposition report included
additional interviews with mother and extended family. On
February 1, 2022, the social worker met with mother; MGM, who
had come from New York; and maternal great aunt, Lisa M. at
the home of Lisa M. Mother stated she was living in a tent in
Venice and at times would stay with Lisa M., who had a foreign
exchange student living with her. Mother also claimed to have
an 18-year-old sister living in the area with whom she could stay,
as mother wanted to remain in California but needed a place to
live. Mother was given contact information for St. Joseph’s
Center in Venice, which could assist mother, who was willing to
attend therapy and gave the social worker permission to contact
her New York therapist. Mother said she would follow up with
St. Joseph’s Center.
Lisa M. said the family did not know mother had been in
Venice. They had paid for mother to stay at a hotel, but mother
left without notice. The family did not know where mother was
for days.
By February 10, 2022, mother had entered the Believe in
Big Change (BIBC) program. The social worker coordinated with
the BIBC program and the children’s foster mother to ensure
mother would have visits with the children.
7
The foster mother reported that on mother’s February 20,
2022 visit with the children, they were happy to see mother and
spent time playing and swimming. Mother, however, repetitively
prayed over the children and asked the BIBC staff for scissors to
cut Isabella’s hair. Mother became upset when it was time to end
the visit, requiring BIBC staff intervention and causing the
children to cry. The foster mother is uncomfortable monitoring
mother’s future visits. The foster mother also conveyed Isabella’s
statements that mother got into a fight when they were residing
in the tent.
Maternal aunt, Ashley H., who lived in New York,
expressed concern about the children being placed with father
and described the paternal family as unsafe. She sought to have
the children placed with her. Ashley H. and mother had a close
relationship until two years ago when mother “got sick.” Mother
called Ashley H. when she was in crisis.
In an interview with Jason’s paternal aunt, Erin N., she
recounted that mother would leave the children with father for
stretches of time and other times would keep the children from
him over custody issues. Jason’s paternal grandmother
expressed an interest in having the children placed with her. She
confirmed father lived with her intermittently and claimed
mother made false allegations against her.
A March 15, 2022 addendum report explained that mother
attended the same treatment program as father in February
2021, which she had entered after she went to the hospital and
was evaluated as having depression. Father was “harassing” and
“abusive” towards her and made false allegations against her.
Mother ended their relationship in July or December 2021
because it was toxic. Mother stated father yelled and behaved
8
irrationally. Prior to completing the treatment program, mother
left for California.
Mother began receiving disability benefits in 2020 or 2021,
though she does not know the reason she was receiving benefits.
Mother was prescribed medications for her anxiety but was told
she no longer needed the medications. Mother was also
prescribed medication for her ADHD, medication to help her
sleep, and Prozac. She is not currently taking the medications.
Mother was told she did not qualify for mental health services,
although she still suffered from anxiety. Mother believed she
needed more time at BIBC and was willing to cooperate with
services.
A March 24, 2022 last minute information for the court
advised that on March 17, 2022, mother’s visit with the children
was canceled due to mother’s behavior. By the next day, BIBC
informed DCFS mother was terminated from the program.
Mother had been acting strangely, making multiple calls to
family members, not attending program classes, spending hours
on the floor putting on makeup, and making calls to Charlie M.
pretending to be a court officer and laughing. Mother had also
been calling the social worker continually to say she wanted
Ashley H. present at all her meetings. At a March 22, 2022
meeting with mother, father, and DCFS, mother said BIBC was
making efforts to get her moved to Pacifica House through St.
Joseph’s Center.
A May 11, 2022 last minute information for the court
indicated mother had left her third treatment program. Mother
had gone from a program at Patterns, to an unnamed program on
Van Ness, then to a motel in Orange County in just a few weeks.
Visits had been set up while mother was in the Van Ness
9
program, but mother left before the first visit could take place.
Lisa M. informed DCFS mother might be enrolled at the
Alcoholism Center for Women, Inc. Miracle House residential
program in Los Angeles. Given mother’s moves, it was difficult to
implement a visitation schedule with the children.
Adjudication and disposition
At the May 11, 2022 adjudication, the juvenile court
informed the parties the New York court was declining
jurisdiction. Father and mother appeared via Webex and were
represented by counsel. Mother pled no contest. After hearing
argument, the juvenile court sustained the amended petition.
In a May 25, 2022 last minute information for the court,
DCFS reported mother had gone to the emergency room on
April 29, 2022, saying she was unable to eat or sleep and was
homeless. She expressed feeling “very down” and asked for a
psychological evaluation. Mother was diagnosed with bipolar
disorder, placed on hold, and discharged on May 4, 2022. Mother
entered a program called Jump Street, but left the program and
enrolled at Pacifica House on May 13, 2022. Pacifica House was
a 60- to 90-day program, which did not allow visits.
The disposition was heard on May 25, 2022. The court
declared Isabella a dependent of the court, removed her from
mother, and ordered her suitably placed. The court ordered
reunification services for mother, including a substance abuse
rehabilitation program with weekly drug testing, a 12-step
program, mental health counseling including a psychological
assessment, and individual counseling to address domestic
violence, substance abuse, and parenting.
10
Progress reports
At the August 24, 2022 progress hearing, mother submitted
a letter from Fred Brown Recovery Services reflecting her
admission into their outpatient drug and alcohol treatment
program on July 22, 2022, and her consistent attendance in
individual counseling and group sessions. She was receiving
psychiatric care, was medication compliant, and she had a
sponsor while working on a 12-step program. The children had
been placed with Lisa M. in Orange County.
By the November 21, 2022 section 366.21, subdivision (e)
progress hearing, mother was compliant with the case plan. She
was residing in Recovery Bridge Housing Sober Living Program
and looking for permanent housing. She was on a waitlist at
Miriam’s House, which provided housing for one year to women
with children. She was also on a waitlist for “Section 8” housing.
Mother had obtained a job and a car. She was enrolled in mental
health services at Behavioral Health Services. Mother was
visiting the children three times a week, and her visits had been
liberalized to unmonitored. Mother wanted to live with Lisa M.
and the children if the children were returned to her. Lisa M.
said mother could live with her while she looked for her own
residence.
On November 29, 2022, mother submitted a letter from
Long Beach Rescue Mission saying mother had enrolled in their
New Life Recovery Program on November 10, 2022. DCFS
expressed concern that mother “does not consistently manage
mental health symptoms,” which places the children in danger.
DCFS wanted mother to continue reunification services so she
could show “consistency over time in her management of her
mental health.” Because this was a new program, mother would
11
need to show progress and consistency, because mother had
started new programs before “and then left when she did not
want to abide by the rules.”
At the November 29, 2022 section 366.21, subdivision (e)
hearing, the juvenile court found mother’s progress to be partial
and continued reunification services. The court ordered mother
to drug test every other week and permitted overnight visits with
the children.
In the January 24, 2023 interim review report, DCFS
reported mother was compliant with the case plan and was living
at the Long Beach Rescue Mission. She visited the children three
times a week, with one overnight visit per week. There was
concern, however, that mother was minimizing her mental health
issues. Mother told the social worker she did not think she had
mental health problems and instead had made a poor decision to
stay at the Venice encampment with the children. Mother’s
counselor at Long Beach Rescue Mission also expressed concern
mother was minimizing her mental health and substance abuse
needs.
Mother’s section 388 petition
Mother filed a section 388 petition on February 15, 2023,
asking that Isabella be released to her and attaching numerous
letters from her recent providers. Mother’s address was listed as
Miriam’s House.
On February 23, 2023, DCFS provided last minute
information for the court including mother’s statement she was
not minimizing her mental health needs. Mother stated she
never had any mental health concerns prior to dating father and
believes her mental health symptoms were drug induced. Mother
missed a child and family team meeting scheduled for
12
February 9, 2023, because she had to go to urgent care. She was
also unreachable by the child guidance center intake coordinator,
who had been trying to contact mother regarding enrollment
papers. On February 28, 2023, the juvenile court denied mother’s
section 388 petition after a hearing, finding she was in partial
compliance with her case plan, and it was then not in Isabella’s
best interest to grant mother’s petition.
Status review report
DCFS submitted a status review report for the May 30,
2023 section 366.21, subdivision (f) hearing. Mother had been
residing at Lidia House, but left without informing DCFS. The
social worker telephoned Lidia House to find out why mother left
and was informed mother had been asked to do a few things by
the program that she did not do. Lidia House could not provide
any further information without mother’s consent. Maternal
great aunt and uncle said mother was terminated from the
program because they required mother to detox from Suboxone
and mother had not completely done so.
Mother was residing at Miriam House, a residential
program for women with mental illnesses and/or drug addiction.
Mother enrolled in the program on February 24, 2023. However,
on May 4, 2023, the program director informed DCFS mother had
been terminated from the program for noncompliance. Mother
left the house on May 3, 2023, at night and did not return. The
director called mother on May 4, 2023, and mother said she got
gas to go to the doctor. Mother had not responded to the social
worker’s requests for her current residence at the time of the
preparation of the report.
On March 2, 2023, mother attended a dental appointment
with Isabella and one of Isabella’s caregivers to sign consent
13
forms. Isabella needed anesthesia to complete the procedure.
Prior to the procedure, when mother was alone with Isabella,
mother gave Isabella a candy bar to eat so the procedure could
not proceed. Mother refused to schedule another appointment
and stated she would not sign consent forms until the children
were in her car and she could drive them. On the way home from
the dentist, Isabella informed maternal great aunt that mother
had told her to say father uses drugs.
The caregiver also reported mother often canceled visits
and the children were very dirty and hungry when they returned
from seeing mother. They often ate only candy. Mother did not
visit during the 10 days between when she left Lidia House and
went back to Miriam House. When she visited at the caregivers’
home, mother refused to help put Jason to bed. During overnight
visits, if Jason cried, mother would call the caregivers to come
and get him. Often she would end overnight visits early.
On March 21, 2023, when the caregivers came to pick up
the children from their overnight visit with mother, they found
Isabella alone in the lobby crying because she did not know
where to find mother, who was outside in the rain with Jason,
who was wearing only a diaper and a shirt. The caregivers
reported Jason did not sleep through the night after overnight
visits with mother. Isabella suggested it was probably because
mother took Jason outside in the middle of the night to play, as
mother told Isabella when Jason would not wake up in the
mornings.
The social worker met with mother at Miriam House on
March 13, 2023. Mother said she stopped taking Suboxone. She
continued to attend 12-step meetings and see her psychiatrist
14
and therapist. Mother said she gave Isabella the candy bar
because she did not want the dental procedure.
At the time of the writing of the status report, mother’s
whereabouts were unknown. Mother left her housing program.
The caregivers reported mother had come to their home in the
middle of the night asking for money and said she was
contemplating driving to New York to check into a hospital. By
May 14, 2023, the maternal great aunt and uncle notified DCFS
the children had to be relocated by June 1, 2023, due to mother’s
behavior. The previous night, mother had come to their home
with police, who said they found mother at a gas station, without
a driver’s license, and asked the maternal great aunt and uncle if
they could move the car so it did not get towed. Maternal great
uncle drove the car to a motel and then told mother, with the
police present, not to sleep in the car in front of their home, as
she had previously done. Mother accused maternal great uncle of
sexually abusing his adult daughter, although the adult daughter
denied any such behavior. Mother told police she wanted
maternal great uncle arrested for threatening her. Mother said
she was permitted to visit the children whenever she wished.
Maternal great aunt and uncle told the social worker they loved
the children, but mother’s behavior threatened them, and they
were considering a restraining order.
Section 366.21, subdivision (f) reports and hearings
Ashley H.’s New York home was approved, and DCFS
sought court authorization to move Isabella there. Mother was
also considering moving to New York. DCFS recommended that
reunification services for mother be terminated.
On May 30, 2023, the juvenile court heard argument from
counsel at the section 366.21, subdivision (f) hearing. Counsel for
15
Isabella submitted on DCFS’s recommendation that reunification
services for mother be terminated. Mother objected. The court
ordered Isabella transported to Ashley H.’s home in New York
and changed mother’s visits back to monitored, over mother’s
objection.
At the continued hearing on June 29, 2023, DCFS reported
that on June 4, 2023, Isabella was placed with Ashley H. in New
York. Mother told the social worker she was hospitalized and
considering moving to New York to be closer to Isabella and
Jason.
Mother’s counsel again objected to the recommendation
mother’s reunification services be terminated, arguing mother
had made substantial progress in her case plan and had been
consistently visiting. Counsel for Isabella submitted to DCFS’s
recommendation. The juvenile court found mother’s progress
towards alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating
placement of the child had been minimal. Mother’s reunification
services were terminated because the court found by clear and
convincing evidence DCFS offered or provided reasonable services
and there was no substantial probability the child would be
returned to the custody of mother by the 18-month date.3 A
section 366.22 hearing was set for August 2023.
On July 3, 2023, mother filed a notice of appeal from the
court’s June 29, 2023 order terminating her family reunification
services.
3 Mother, who appeared remotely and had been interrupting
throughout the proceedings, was muted by the court and told to
speak with her attorney.
16
DISCUSSION
Mother argues the juvenile court erred in denying her
additional reunification services because there was a substantial
probability Isabella could be returned to her within the 18-month
review period.
I. Applicable law and standard of review
At the 12-month review hearing pursuant to section 366.21,
subdivision (f)(1), the juvenile court “shall order the return of the
child to the physical custody of [his or her] parent . . . unless the
court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of
the child to [his or her] parent . . . would create a substantial risk
of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well-being of the child.”
The juvenile court may extend reunification services “up to
a maximum time period not to exceed 18 months after the date
the child was originally removed from the physical custody of [the
child’s] parent” if it finds that there is a substantial probability
the child can be returned to parental custody within the extended
time period or that reasonable services have not been provided to
the parent. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3)(A); see § 366.21, subd. (g).)
We review the juvenile court’s order terminating
reunification services for substantial evidence. (James B. v.
Superior Court (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1014, 1016.) Under this
standard, we determine “whether or not there is any substantial
evidence, whether or not contradicted, which will support the
conclusion of the trier of fact.” (In re Jason L. (1990) 222
Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) All conflicts must be resolved in favor of
the respondent and all legitimate inferences indulged in to
uphold the court’s decision, if possible. (Ibid.) Where there is
more than one inference that can be reasonably deduced from the
17
facts, we are without power to substitute our deductions for those
of the trier of fact. (Ibid.)
II. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s
order
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s
determination that there was no substantial probability the child
would be returned to mother’s custody within the 18-month time
frame. The child was initially detained in January 2022, and
mother was provided reunification services through June 2023.
Mother had a long history of drug and mental health problems
and had made little progress in addressing such problems during
the pendency of this proceeding.
Mother had been involved with child protective services in
New York prior to coming to California and had received
diagnoses of mental health issues but was not compliant with
medications. She had a history of leaving her children
unattended. While she started outpatient drug treatment in New
York, she was terminated due to noncompliance.
Mother enrolled in various programs during these
proceedings, but did not successfully complete any program nor
was she able to show progress and consistency. Between the
January 2022 detention and May 2022 disposition hearings,
mother had enrolled in and either left or was terminated from the
following programs: BIBC; Patterns; a program on Van Ness;
Alcoholism Center for Women, Inc. Miracle House residential
program; Jump Street; and Pacifica House. Between the time of
the May 2022 disposition and the June 2023 hearing at which
reunification services were terminated, mother had enrolled in
and either left or was terminated from the following programs:
Fred Brown Recovery Services, Recovery Bridge Housing Sober
18
Living Program, New Life Recovery Program at Long Beach
Rescue Mission, Lidia House, and Miriam House. In total,
mother was confirmed to have enrolled in at least nine programs
during the proceedings and had completed none.
Despite receiving mental health services, mother
minimized her mental health issues and told the social worker
she believed her mental health issues were drug-induced.
Mother’s counselor at Long Beach Rescue Mission also expressed
concern that mother minimized her mental health issues.
Mother behaved erratically towards the maternal great aunt and
uncle while they were providing care for the children. She slept
in front of their home, accused the maternal great uncle of
sexually abusing his adult daughter, and told police she wanted
him arrested. The children had to be removed from the maternal
great aunt and uncle’s home due to mother’s behavior.
Mother’s behavior was detrimental to the well-being of the
children. Mother gave candy to Isabella prior to a dental
appointment so that the dental procedure could not proceed. She
refused to schedule another appointment and stated she would
not sign consent forms until the children were in her car and she
could drive them. There was also evidence mother told Isabella
to say negative things about her father. When mother’s visits
with the children were liberalized to overnight, mother returned
the children dirty and hungry, called maternal great aunt to pick
up the children early, took Jason out to play in the middle of the
night, and left Isabella alone and unsupervised while outside
with Jason. Among other things, mother’s long history of leaving
the children unsupervised began in New York, continued while
she was residing with the children in a tent on a busy median,
and remained a concern at the time of the section 366.21,
19
subdivision (f) hearing. Thus, there was substantial evidence
that mother had not progressed in resolving the issues that
brought the children before the court.
The evidence summarized above supported the juvenile
court’s determination that it was unlikely Isabella would be
returned to mother within the 18-month time period described in
section 361.5, subdivision (a)(3)(A). Isabella was removed from
mother’s custody in January 2022. By the time of the section
366.21, subdivision (f) hearing in June 2023, mother had been
allowed approximately 16 months of services to show progress
towards Isabella’s safe return to her. The juvenile court did not
err in finding mother’s progress had not been sufficient and there
was not a probability that Isabella would be returned to mother’s
care within the allotted time frame.
Mother cites David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123
Cal.App.4th 768, 789, for the proposition that parents in the
dependency system should not be expected to be “ideal.” The
David B. court continued, “If we are lucky, they are parents who
can learn to overcome the problems which landed their children
in the system, and who can demonstrate the dedication and
ability to provide for their children’s needs in an appropriate
manner. They will not turn into superstars, and they will not
win the lottery and move into a beachfront condo two blocks from
a perfect school.” (Ibid.) The juvenile court in this matter did not
hold mother to an idealistic standard. Instead, the court was
focused on the “essential question” of Isabella’s “safety,
protection, physical or emotional well-being.” (Id. at p. 790.)
Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s
determination that mother had not demonstrated she would be
20
able to provide Isabella with these essentials within the statutory
time frame.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
___________________________
CHAVEZ, J.
We concur:
_______________________________
ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J.
_______________________________
HOFFSTADT, J.
21