Filed 11/9/26 In re A.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 A.C., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E087307
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J299487)
v. OPINION
K.C.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G.
Pace, Judge. Affirmed.
Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Laura Feingold, County Counsel, and Joseph R. Barrell, Deputy County Counsel,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
This is appellant K.C.’s (Mother) fifth appeal.1 Mother is the mother of seven
children, but only the youngest, two-year-old A.C., is the subject of this appeal.2 A.C.,
along with his six half siblings, were removed from Mother in December 2023, when
Mother abandoned then three-month-old A.C. with his alleged father, D.A., who denied
paternity to the child and believed the child was not his. San Bernardino County
Children and Family Services (CFS) filed a Welfare and Institutions3 Code section 300
petition on behalf of all seven children. The juvenile court found true the allegations in
the petition, removed the children from Mother’s custody, and terminated jurisdiction
awarding the father of A.C.’s half siblings (R.M.) sole legal and physical custody of
A.C.’s half siblings and A.C. was placed with the maternal aunt, Ms. C.
1 In the first appeal, Mother challenged the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and
dispositional findings and orders, which were affirmed by this court in case No. E083345.
In her second appeal, Mother challenged the juvenile court’s order terminating her
reunification services, which was affirmed by this court in case No. E084787. In her
third appeal, Mother challenged the juvenile court’s summary denial of her Welfare and
Institutions Code section 388 petition requesting family maintenance services. The
summary denial of her petition was affirmed by this court in case No. E085751. In her
fourth appeal, Mother again challenged the juvenile court’s summary denial of Welfare
and Institutions Code section 388 petition requesting an evidentiary hearing on her third
section 388 petition for reinstatement of services. The summary denial of her third
section 388 petition was affirmed by this court in case No. E086934.
2 A.C.’s father, D.A., is not a party to this appeal. Mother’s six older children and
A.C.’s half siblings, M.M, K.M., N.M., T.M., L.M., A.M., are not subjects of this appeal.
R.M. (Father) is the father of the older six children.
3 All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
otherwise stated.
2
Six days after that court order, Mother advised CFS that she had regained custody
of the six older children and inquired when A.C. would be returned to her as well. CFS
once again filed a petition for the older children to resume jurisdiction while the children
remained in Father’s custody under the court’s supervision due to concerns regarding his
ability to protect them from Mother. After the assumption of jurisdiction, the juvenile
court granted Mother reunification services. Six months later in October 2024, the
juvenile court terminated Mother’s services but continued family maintenance services
for Father.4
Since October 2024, A.C. was removed from maternal aunt Ms. C.’s care and
placed in a foster home. Mother filed a section 388 petition in November 2024 asking for
reunification services to be reinstated and that CFS be ordered to pay for her
psychological evaluation, which was summarily denied by the juvenile court. In
March 2025, Mother filed another section 388 petition requesting family maintenance
services and attached the psychological evaluation that she finally agreed to undergo.
The juvenile court again summarily denied the second section 388 petition, which Mother
appealed from. We affirmed the summary denial of her second section 388 petition in
case No. E085751.
4 Mother appealed the juvenile court’s order terminating her services to A.C.’s
half siblings (case No. E085040). While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court
subsequently dismissed the matter and granted R.M. sole legal and physical custody of
his children. On March 18, 2025, this court granted CFS’s motion to dismiss Mother’s
appeal and ordered her appeal be dismissed as moot. Mother also filed a separate notice
of intent to file a writ petition as to A.C. (case No. E084747). However, after failing to
file a timely writ petition, Mother’s appeal was dismissed.
3
Mother subsequently filed a third section 388 petition, which the juvenile court
summarily denied. Mother again appealed, and we affirmed the order in case
No. E086934.
Subsequently, Mother filed a notice of appeal challenging the juvenile court’s
summary denial of her October 30, 2025, section 388 petition (case No. E087307), the
current case.5 Of the three requests Mother made in her October 30, 2025, section 388
petition, she only contends that the court erred in denying her request for a bonding study
and seeks an opportunity to litigate the issue at a hearing. Mother insists that her bonding
study request be treated as a motion under Evidence Code section 730 instead of part of
her section 388 petition. We find that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Mother’s current section 388 petition.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND6
A. Initial Dependency Matter
The family came to the attention of CFS in December 2023 after Mother left then-
three-month-old A.C. in a car seat near his alleged father, D.A., while he was at a police
station seeking assistance with a possible restraining order protecting him from Mother.
5 Mother also filed a separate notice of intent to file a writ petition as to A.C.
(case No. E088111). However, pursuant to a letter filed by her counsel, the petition was
dismissed. On our own motion, we incorporated the records from case No. E088111 with
case No. E087307; the appellate records in case Nos. E083345, E084787, and E085751
were incorporated with the record in case No. E086934.
6 The factual and procedural background up until Mother filed her fourth
section 388 petition is taken from this court’s unpublished opinion in case No. E086934.
4
Mother had followed D.A. over the past four days, including to court, a gas station, an
event for one of D.A.’s other children, and the police station. After D.A. stated A.C. was
not his, law enforcement took A.C. into custody. A.C. was transported to Loma Linda
University Medical Center (LLUMC). Mother was arrested at LLUMC when she went to
claim A.C., and charged with willful/intentional abandonment of a child under 14 years
old and child endangerment. Based on exigent circumstances, CFS took A.C. into
protective custody and placed him in a foster home while CFS assessed maternal aunt,
Ms. C., for placement. A.C. eventually was placed with maternal aunt Ms. C.
Mother’s six older children—M.M., K.M., N.M., T.M., L.M., and A.M.—resided
with their father. Father reported that he had primary physical custody of the children
and that Mother had an undiagnosed bipolar disorder. She had been seen pulling her hair
out, having bouts of rage, and vomiting at will. In addition, Mother had attacked Father
with a boxcutter in the presence of the children, and Mother had attacked and robbed a
woman of her cell phone. Father denied any substance abuse and reported Mother used
marijuana on occasion. Father noted that he had been in a relationship with Mother for
over 16 years off and on with Mother leaving and returning months later.
M.M. reported that he resided on and off with Father since March 2023 but mostly
with Father. He visited with Mother from time to time but not overnight. He denied any
abuse by either parent and denied witnessing any domestic violence between the parents
or any illegal activity by Mother or Father. K.M. reported that he lived with Father and
wanted to stay with him. He also denied any abuse and reported there was no mental
5
health, substance abuse, or domestic violence in the home. The social worker observed
that K.M. had a speech impediment and had to ask him questions several times and in
different ways for him to understand. Father confirmed that K.M. had a speech
impediment. T.M. reported living mostly with Father. He also had a speech impediment
and was hard to understand. T.M. reported seeing Mother attack Father with a boxcutter
and cutting him several times on the chest. He noted that he had seen Mother attack
Father multiple times and had not observed Father ever hit Mother. He denied any type
of abuse in the home. All three older children reported feeling safe in Father’s home.
Because the interviews of Father and the three older children occurred around 2:00 a.m.,
the other three children refused to get up and were not interviewed.
After being bailed out of jail, Mother spoke with the social worker. She denied
the allegations in the referral and claimed that she and D.A. had set up to exchange A.C.
for visitation at the police station. She asserted that D.A. was denying paternity because
he had a new girlfriend. She believed the social worker was biased because the worker
did not collect all the information. Mother provided the contact information for D.A., but
the social worker was unable to reach him.
Child welfare history searches revealed histories for Mother, Father, and D.A.
Searches also revealed criminal histories for Mother and D.A. A family law court minute
order revealed that Father had requested a restraining order on August 18, 2023,
protecting him from Mother. Another minute order from family law court showed
Mother had requested a restraining order on July 25, 2023, protecting her from Father. A
6
third family law minute order addressed Father’s request for custody, visitation, and
domestic violence issues filed on October 18, 2023. The first two minute orders showed
that testimony was taken, and the matters were continued. The third showed testimony
was taken but the family law court was unable to make a record because Mother was
being argumentative with the court and the matter was continued to February 27, 2024.
On December 26, 2023, CFS filed petitions on behalf of all seven children
pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for
support). The petitions alleged that Mother created an unsafe and unstable lifestyle and
lacked knowledge and parenting skills; Mother participated in domestic violence; Mother
had untreated and undiagnosed mental health issues; Mother abandoned A.C.; D.A. failed
to supervise and protect A.C.; D.A. abandoned A.C.; A.C. was left without provisions for
support because Mother was incarcerated; and A.C. was left without provision for
support because D.A.’s whereabouts were unknown. No allegations were filed against
Father.
Mother and Father were present at the December 27, 2023, detention hearing.
D.A. was not present. A one-day continuance was granted for the six older children to be
present. A.C. was detained from Mother and D.A. The six older children were detained
from Mother and remained in Father’s custody. Mother was ordered to drug test.
At the further detention hearing, Mother’s counsel informed the court that she
attempted to drug test yesterday but her name was not on the list. The juvenile court
formally detained all seven children from Mother and A.C. from D.A. The court ordered
7
the six older children to remain with Father. Mother was provided with supervised
visitation once a week for two hours. The court intended to order Mother to drug test
again, but while it was making the findings, Mother left the courtroom.
On January 17, 2024, CFS filed amended section 300 petitions on behalf of the
children. The petitions modified the domestic violence allegation to read that Mother had
a pattern and history of engaging in domestic violence and added an allegation that
Mother had a substance abuse problem.
CFS recommended dismissing the allegations that Mother had untreated and
undiagnosed mental health issues and that A.C. was left without provisions for support
because Mother was incarcerated. CFS also recommended that all other allegations in the
amended section 300 petitions be found true, that Mother be provided with reunification
services, and that the six older children remain with Father and dependency dismissed in
their cases with family law orders. Mother acknowledged that in 2014 or 2015 she was
arrested and convicted for assaulting Father but did not want to discuss the matter further
as it occurred about 10 years ago. She completed her probation through the Substance
Abuse Treatment and Reentry Program (STAR) in Oklahoma where she and the children
resided from 2015 to 2020, but she was unable to obtain the certificate of completion.
When asked how she benefited from the program, Mother said it was helpful and she
learned to recognize unhealthy situations and leave before it got toxic. Mother noted her
relationship with Father was unhealthy. Mother and Father got back together again in
2020 and lived together with the children in Colorado. They remained together for about
8
two more years. She denied any subsequent domestic violence incidents with Father and
noted if there were any disagreements, Father would sleep on the couch. She added that
Father was arrested for driving under the influence in Oklahoma. Mother denied the
allegation that she maintained an unstable and unsafe lifestyle and that she lacked
knowledge and parenting skills because the children lived with her the entire time in
Oklahoma and most of the time in Colorado. She also stated that the children lived with
her the majority of the time in 2023.
Mother denied the allegation that she abandoned A.C. She explained that she left
A.C. at the police station with D.A. because it was a prearranged custody exchange. The
plan was for A.C. to stay with D.A. for a day or two and for her to pick him up sometime
before Christmas. She also said she met D.A. in public prior to the police station incident
so he could spend time with A.C. She denied she ever followed D.A. to his other child’s
event and denied stalking D.A. When she was contacted by the police and told that D.A.
denied A.C. was his child, she sent her friend to pick him up from the police station, but
the friend was told to go home. She asserted that if she knew D.A. was going to do
something like that, she would not have left A.C. with D.A.
Mother also denied being diagnosed or assessed for any mental health issues or
being prescribed any medications for mental health or having any problems with her
mental health. She claimed Father always stated she had “ ‘undiagnosed bipolar.’ ”
When Father was interviewed, he said he was “ ‘not surprised’ ” by Mother’s behavior of
abandoning A.C. and that Mother was “ ‘just crazy.’ ” He reiterated Mother attacked him
9
with a boxcutter in 2014. He also reported that Mother had “ ‘keyed’ ” his car multiple
times, that she “ ‘goes off,’ ” and that she does “ ‘scandalous stuff,’ ” such as stealing
from him, “ ‘coming home pregnant by men,’ ” and “ ‘tear[ing] up’ ” his property.
Father noted that while they were living in Colorado, Mother “ ‘got mad and jealous and
up and left’ ” for two months and did not contact him or their children. When she
returned, she “ ‘emptied the house’ ” and took the children to California while he was at
work. The children called Father and told him to come to California. After moving back
to California, Mother went to jail for felony robbery and possession of a firearm. He
bailed her out and the family resided together in a hotel from December 2022 to
March 2023. In March, Father found out Mother was pregnant, and they separated again.
A court ordered the parents to have joint custody. Soon thereafter Mother went to jail for
three months and the children resided with Father. In October 2023, Mother dropped the
children off with Father and did not return for a month because she could not afford the
children. Father claimed Mother then forged his signature and was awarded sole custody
of the children in November 2023. The children stayed with Mother for three weeks until
the events that led to this case in December 2023. Father said he was the only stable
parent in the children’s lives, explaining Mother would leave for a period of time, come
back, and try to buy the children things to make them forget what she did. Father denied
knowledge of substance abuse by Mother.
N.M. did not disclose any issues at Mother’s home and felt safe with Mother. She
denied she was ever present when her parents did not get along and denied ever seeing
10
her parents use any drugs. She did not believe Mother would leave A.C. at the police
station in the manner described and denied the allegations against Mother. K.M. reported
that he heard his parents argue on the phone, but Father would step outside when it
happened. He denied any domestic violence between his parents or seeing Mother acting
strange in any way. K.M. felt safe at Mother’s home. M.M. said he saw his parents
argue three years ago but never observed anything physical. T.M. also denied ever
seeing his parents get angry around the children. Both T.M. and M.M. reported feeling
safe in Mother’s home.
The day after his interview in January 2024, Father showed a video recording to
CFS which he claimed depicted Mother breaking into his car and going through it. CFS
was unable to identify Mother, but the video showed it was Father’s residence and
Mother’s car parked behind Father’s vehicle. Father was not home during the incident,
but M.M. called him to let him know Mother was at the apartment. Father said Mother
broke into the apartment through a window looking for money she believed he stole from
her because he had reported to county welfare that the children primarily resided with
him. Father claimed Mother stole a printer from his home. He called the police to report
the incident and stated feeling “ ‘unsafe about the whole situation.’ ”
When asked about the incidents, Mother denied ever going to Father’s apartment.
Mother submitted to a random drug test which was positive for cocaine and marijuana.
Mother knew it would be positive for marijuana but denied knowing why it was positive
11
for cocaine. CFS submitted a referral for a confirmation test and for another on-demand
test.
A Department of Justice inquiry yielded several arrests and/or convictions for
Mother from 2005 to 2023 excluding the charges related to this case. There was one
arrest for use/under the influence of a controlled substance and several charges from 2010
to 2014 for corporal injury to a spouse. In 2015, Mother was sentenced to two years in
prison for assault with a deadly weapon. In 2022 and 2023, she was arrested for robbery
and possession of a firearm. Father’s criminal history revealed charges for corporal
injury to a spouse/cohabitant in 2007 and assault with a firearm in 2008, each of which
was dismissed. Father admitted to being on probation in Oklahoma in 2015 due to a
driving under the influence conviction.
A search of Mother and Father’s child welfare history revealed four prior referrals.
A referral from September 2023 alleged that Mother was selling “crack cocaine” in
downtown Victorville while the children were in the car. It was also reported that Mother
stole Father’s firearm from his home in Colorado and then used it to commit a robbery in
California. It was also reported that Mother tried to kill Father in front of the children
and that Mother cooked crack cocaine in the home using the microwave while the
children were present. It was further reported that Mother cooked crack cocaine in other
people’s homes while she was pregnant and that she had a history of abandoning the
children for months at a time. In one incident, Mother had dropped the children at a
paternal relatives’ homes and left them there for two months while she was still
12
breastfeeding A.M. There were also allegations that Mother smoked marijuana and used
cocaine. The referral was closed as inconclusive because CFS was unable to locate the
family.
A referral from February 2023 alleged that Mother cooked crack cocaine in front
of the children and sold drugs. It also alleged that Mother and Father used
methamphetamine, Mother left the children for long periods of time, and Mother was on
the run and had felonies. This referral was also closed as inconclusive because CFS was
unable to locate the family.
A referral from August 2014 alleged physical abuse of N.M. that was closed as
inconclusive because the child denied any abuse by the parents and Father was being
protective of the children and was working on not allowing the children to fight or hurt
themselves. A referral from July 2011 alleged that Mother attacked Father with a shovel
and that the parents were always fighting. The referral was closed as inconclusive
because CFS was unable to locate the family.
CFS attempted to locate D.A. but was unsuccessful in contacting him. D.A. had
an extensive criminal history related to theft and drug-related charges. D.A. also had a
prior child welfare history related to his other children, but they were not substantiated or
inconclusive.
CFS concluded it would be detrimental for the children to be in Mother’s care and
recommended they be removed from her custody. CFS listed several concerns, including
her failure to provide documentation of her completed domestic violence class, a lack of
13
benefiting from the program as evidenced by breaking into Father’s apartment while
M.M. was there and breaking into Father’s car, and denial of substance abuse issues
despite testing positive for cocaine and marijuana. CFS noted Mother had a pattern of
damaging Father’s property when she became upset and that her behavior continued to
show a pattern of coercive control that met the definition of domestic violence. Mother
also demonstrated a pattern of abruptly leaving for extended periods without contacting
the children. As a result, CFS recommended the children remain in Father’s care under
family law orders. In contrast to Mother, CFS explained that Father was protective of the
children, the children were bonded to him, and he was employed. Father attempted to get
a restraining order against Mother in August 2023 and he appeared to have appropriate
living arrangements and a support system.
At the initial jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on January 18, 2024, the juvenile
court set the matter for mediation. Mother’s counsel entered a general denial to the
allegations in the amended section 300 petitions and represented that her position was to
have the children returned to her under the prior family law order. During the hearing,
after setting the matter for mediation, Mother spoke directly to the court stating there
were no reasonable efforts to prevent removal. When told by the court to “stop talking”
and that she was “not helping herself,” she responded “No,” and told the court she was
“not talking to [her] attorney.” When told by the court that she was talking too loudly
and communications with her attorney are supposed to be confidential, she responded by
saying to the court, “sorry you’re offended.” Mother then walked out of the courtroom.
14
The January 30, 2024, mediation report indicated there was no agreement between
the parties. CFS continued to recommend the dismissal of the allegations that Mother
had untreated and undiagnosed mental health issues and that A.C. was left without
provisions for support because Mother was incarcerated. Mother wanted family
maintenance with all of her children and contested the dismissal of the cases of the six
oldest children with custody to Father.
On February 2, 2024, CFS informed the court that a 10-day referral was called into
the hotline in which it was reported that on January 22, 2024, N.M. called her mother to
pick her up from Father because “ ‘my dad just put hands on me.’ ” Mother called law
enforcement who responded to the home and reported that N.M. would remain with
Father. It was also reported that Father was not taking the children to school. The
children, Father, and maternal aunt K.C. were interviewed. N.M. reported that her father
kept pushing her, that father’s niece choked her, and her neck was red, and she had a cut
on her finger. N.M. had been staying at the maternal aunt’s home with Father’s
permission since the incident. M.M., K.M., and T.M. denied the reports that Father
pushed N.M. and said that N.M. was being “disrespectful” to Father. They also denied
that Father’s niece choked N.M., explaining Father’s niece had to pull N.M. off T.M.
because she was trying to take his cellphone. The law enforcement calls for service to
the home regarding the incident indicated, in contrast to N.M.’s statements, that she had
no injuries. The referral remained open but would likely be closed as inconclusive.
15
CFS informed the court of other calls for service to the home. On May 5, 2023, it
was reported that Father was receiving death threats via email from Mother for testifying
against her. A police report from the same day noted that Father’s home was burglarized,
and Father believed it was Mother. A police report filed on August 1, 2023, reported that
Father’s home was burglarized again and Father again suspected it was Mother. On
October 2, 2023, it was reported that Mother attempted to get into the home through a
broken window. On October 21, 2023, it was reported that there were no child safety
concerns noted but Father discussed on-going issues with Mother breaking into the home,
vandalizing his vehicle, and that he suspected her of damaging the mirror of his rental
vehicle. On October 29, 2023, Father reported that Mother violated the custody
agreement and intended to take one of the children and not return her. On November 4,
2023, Father reported that Mother took the phones he bought for the children and
threatened to sell them. On January 4, 2024, Father reported that he had a restraining
order against Mother and his son reported she was trying to get into the apartment. CFS
also reported that Mother’s drug test from January 11, 2024, was positive for marijuana.
The contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on February 6, 2024.
Mother was not present in court, even though she set the matter contested. The matter
proceeded by argument. Mother’s counsel argued as follows: “I’m going to object for
the record. I have no affirmative evidence. My client was interviewed by the social
worker, so her statements are included in the reports. [¶] As far as the family law order,
I would ask for joint legal custody if it’s not there already.” The children’s counsel
16
submitted on CFS’s recommendations and argued that Father should be awarded sole
legal custody. Counsel did not believe Mother could coparent based on her behavior in
court and added that ordering joint legal custody would create unnecessary friction if
Father had to cooperate with Mother. CFS’s counsel joined in the children’s counsel’s
arguments.
The juvenile court dismissed Mother’s mental health allegation and the allegation
that A.C. was left without provisions for support because Mother was incarcerated and
found true the remaining allegations. As for the disposition of the six older children, the
court removed the children from Mother’s custody, maintained them with Father as their
primary residence, granted sole legal and physical custody of the children to Father, and
terminated their dependency cases. The court awarded full custody to Father based on
the arguments made by the children’s counsel. Mother was provided with supervised
visits with the children once a week for two hours with additional days and times by
mutual agreement monitored by Father’s delegate or a professional monitor. The basis
for supervised visits was Mother’s failure to complete a drug treatment program with
random testing, a domestic violence treatment program, anger management training,
parenting classes, and individual counseling. Regarding A.C., the juvenile court declared
A.C. a dependent of the court, found D.A. to be an alleged father not entitled to services,
and ordered reunification services and supervised visitation once a week for two hours
for Mother. Mother’s case plan consisted of anger management classes, domestic
17
violence classes, parenting classes, individual counseling, a drug treatment program, and
random drug testing.
After Mother appealed from the jurisdictional and dispositional findings, we
affirmed the juvenile court’s judgment. (In re A.C., et al. (Oct. 23, 2024, E083345)
[nonpub. opn.].)
B. Second Dependency
On February 15, 2024, six days after the court terminated jurisdiction, Mother
reported to CFS that she obtained custody of the children in family law court, and she
inquired when then one-year-old A.C. would come home. Mother reported that she and
Father went to family law court, and they were issued new custody orders. Mother
believed she could get custody of her children after the case was closed. When the social
worker asked Mother how she had mitigated the concerns which led to the initial removal
of her children, Mother did not know what concerns CFS referred to. When the social
worker advised her of the issues related to domestic violence and substance abuse,
Mother denied being involved in domestic violence and “she did not know what
happened for her to have a dirty test.” CFS was unable to contact Father. CFS obtained a
detention warrant to temporarily remove the children from Mother and Father.
On February 22, 2024, CFS found Mother and Father at Mother’s home. A social
worker saw three of the children walking around the neighborhood upon arrival, but later
the children were determined to be missing from the area once police detained Mother for
questioning and started investigating the scene. Five children were found at a neighbor’s
18
home and then 15-year-old M.M. was found walking around the neighborhood. CFS
tried to interview Mother at her home, but she refused to talk to CFS. When asked if she
had any Native American ancestry, Mother replied “ ‘[n]o one wants to work for the
devil’ ” and “ ‘[g]et out of my face.’ ” Father said that he had been supervising Mother’s
visits.
The parents later informed CFS that they went to family law court on February 13,
2024, intending to file for joint 50/50 custody and the family law court advised them to
work out an agreement. The parents noted that they went to family law court to get a
court date for their case. The parents reported being confused about what steps they
needed to take regarding changing the custody orders. The parents denied that Father had
left the children alone with Mother. The parents also denied domestic violence between
them aside “one isolated incident” 10 years ago.
Then 14-year-old K.M. reported that he would see Mother “pretty often with my
dad.” He did not know why Mother would report that Father had left the children alone
with her. Then 12-year-old N.M. said she lived with both parents. She stated that
Mother “breaks” her “stuff,” that the parents were “always upset with each other,” that
she wanted Mother to stop “breaking her stuff,” and that she did not want to go with
Mother as she thought it was best for her that she not go with her. N.M. believed Mother
reported that Father left the children with her because “she wanted to take us from him,”
that Father did not leave the children with Mother and that Mother “needs to see a
therapist.” Then 10-year-old T.M. said his visits with Mother lasted “20 minutes and
19
then we leave after that.” He did not know why Mother would say Father had dropped
the children off at her home and denied sleeping at Mother’s house. M.M. reported that
Father had brought him to Mother’s home that day but was not left alone with Mother.
He noted that Mother would say Father dropped off the children with her because “she
was just mad.” He denied being left alone with Mother and said Mother was “mad” at
Father and “they got into it and she lied.” M.M. said Mother lies when the parents are
“mad at each other.”
On February 26, 2024, CFS filed petitions on behalf of the children pursuant to
section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect). The petitions alleged that Mother created
an unsafe and unstable lifestyle and lacked knowledge and parenting skills; Mother
participated in domestic violence; Mother had untreated and undiagnosed mental health
issues; Mother abandoned A.C.; and that Mother had a substance abuse problem.
CFS recommended that the children return to Father because the children denied
that they were not alone with Mother. CFS also requested that the court order the parents
not to discuss the case with the children, as on at least two occasions, Mother was
observed to tell the children in front of CFS staff that they do not have to speak to CFS
because CFS would “twist” their words. In addition, during an attempted meeting with
the family on February 22, 2024, both parents pressured the children to disclose what
they told CFS and told them social workers would “twist” what they say. The parents
also encouraged the children to refuse to speak to CFS.
20
At the detention hearing, the children remained detained from Mother and were
released to Father’s custody. During the hearing, Mother interrupted the court three
times and asked the court why she could not be around her children.
By the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, CFS recommended that the children
remain with Father with family maintenance services. Father reported recent problems
with Mother, as he believed Mother broke the windows of his vehicle on February 27,
2024. Father believed Mother did this so he could not transport himself to court. Father
noted Mother had damaged his car “several times before.”
On February 27, 2024, Mother advised CFS that she had a domestic violence
warrant against Father. Father denied having a warrant and reported that he verified
Mother’s claim with the sheriff’s department. On February 29, 2024, Mother informed
CFS that Father was selling drugs. Father reported that Mother was “crazy” and that she
was saying things that were untrue. Father said he understood CFS’s concerns with
Mother that she continued to pose a risk to the children, since although she had
participated in some services she appeared not to have benefitted. Father believed
Mother had a mental health disorder and that she was angry about the situation with D.A.,
the father of A.C. N.M. reported that she thought Mother needed to see a therapist
because of the “stuff” Mother was doing. N.M. said the “stuff” was the “stuff that got us
here.”
CFS attempted to interview Mother, but Mother refused to communicate with the
social worker. CFS determined that the Structured Decision-Making Risk Assessment
21
for the family was “very high.” CFS noted that in the prior case, Mother was open to
participating in services, but now Mother was uncooperative and stated she did not
believe she needed to take the domestic violence classes. CFS opined that Mother did not
benefit from her classes as she continued “to engage in domestic violence behaviors
including breaking into the father’s apartment while the child M.M. was home and
breaking into the father’s car.” CFS also pointed out that Mother had a “pattern of
abruptly leaving for extended periods of time with no contact with her children” and that
Mother denied any substance use other than marijuana despite testing positive for cocaine
on December 29, 2023. CFS recommended that Mother’s case plan include a domestic
violence program, counseling, anger management, parenting education program,
substance abuse testing, and an outpatient drug program.
At the March 19, 2024, jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, Mother failed to
appear. Mother’s counsel objected to the allegations. The children’s counsel argued that
there was a “significant amount of information that shows Mother’s erraticism” and
requested that the court order a psychological evaluation. CFS’s counsel agreed that
Mother’s case plan should include a psychological evaluation as it would be in the
children’s best interest since “we had another case involving erratic behavior from Mom
and that Mother’s erratic behavior also helped bring the case back before the court again”
and “we need to get to the bottom” of Mother’s mental health issues. The juvenile court
found true all the allegations in the petitions and ordered that Mother’s case plan include
a psychological evaluation, a domestic violence program, individual counseling, an anger
22
management program, a parenting education program, substance abuse testing, and an
outpatient drug program. The court maintained custody of the children with Father.
By the six-month review hearing CFS recommended that Mother continue with
her services while continuing family maintenance services to Father. Father reported
trying to schedule supervised visits with Mother, but he was unsuccessful because
Mother’s lack of follow through. Father also stated that Mother made threats towards
him “demanding to give her money and pay her monthly rent in order for her to make her
court appointed visits with the children.” Father noted he had provided gas money to
Mother. Father also said that Mother was more concerned about money from SSI
received for K.M. and T.M. Mother also asked CFS for money to take the children out
on visits. CFS offered to provide her with gas cards, but Mother said that was “not good
enough for her.” Father advised CFS on multiple occasions that Mother had demanded
Father pay her “if he wanted to babysit her kids.” By this time, Father had moved from
his home to keep his address confidential in fear Mother would break into his home again
and damage his vehicle, as she had in the past. Father reported that Mother had “cut him
with kni[v]es and assaulted him on m[a]ny different occasions.” Father further stated that
Mother had also threatened his life and the lives of his immediate family. Father was
reported to be very cooperative with CFS.
The social worker spoke to Mother by phone and text messages and reported
Mother to be “very difficult” to communicate with and that Mother appeared to have
“anger issues and cannot communicate without cursing and yelling during
23
conversations.” Mother had completed nine out of 12 anger management classes, but
CFS opined that Mother did not appear to have benefitted from the program, since she
still displayed “agitated/angry reaction[s] to basic conversations.” Mother’s scheduled
psychological evaluation was cancelled because Mother had not submitted the required
documents. It was reported Mother did not communicate with the office in charge of
setting up the evaluation. Mother had completed eight out of 12 domestic violence
classes. She finished a parenting program and individual counseling. Mother’s
individual counseling progress statement indicated that she struggled with sharing
specific information related to past domestic violence and past relationships and did not
trust the therapeutic process. She “would not elaborate on CFS case.” Mother reported
that she developed healthy forms of managing her stress and reported to implement
strategies outside of therapy. She reported recognizing the importance of managing her
own feelings. Her attendance in the anger management and domestic violence programs
was “inconsistent, or she would attend and not follow policies outlined.” Mother
reported having “learned the benefits of conflict resolution” and having “increased
healthy communication skills.” She also completed a “life skills” class, a “self-care”
class, and a perinatal class, which were not ordered by the court as part of her case plan
for reunification. Mother failed to complete her drug testing and her substance abuse
outpatient program. Mother reported having benefited from the services, but she did not
acknowledge the abuse and neglect her children experienced. Mother had made many
accusations against Father during the review period, including falsely accusing Father of
24
being homeless, the children not going to school, that Father was neglecting the
children’s medical needs, and that Father had threatened her life.
At the six-month review hearing, Mother appeared by telephone. The court set a
pretrial settlement conference for October 1 and a contested hearing for October 8, 2024.
In August 2024, CFS reported that Mother had participated in services, but CFS
opined she had not demonstrated she had benefitted from those services. Mother failed to
complete the psychological evaluation and was not drug testing. CFS thus recommended
her services be terminated and a section 366.26 hearing be set in A.C.’s case.
On October 1, 2024, CFS advised the court of its changed recommendation, which
called for terminating Mother’s services and continuing maintenance services to Father in
regard to his children, due to Mother’s failure to cooperate as to the psychological
evaluation and drug testing. Mother had missed two drug tests in September 2024 and
did not provide an explanation. “Instead, she brought up complaints about the case
including the children being homeless and not enrolled in school, which [were] not
accurate.” She had also been inconsistent with visiting the children. At the hearing,
Mother advised the court that there were allegations of abuse that were not being
addressed and that the night prior, she had to pick up her son at midnight. Mother
interrupted the court five times and was advised to be present if she wanted to testify.
On October 8, 2024, Mother appeared by phone for the contested six-month
review hearing. CFS reported to court that it received allegations that Father had “choke
slammed” M.M., but M.M. was interviewed and denied that had occurred. There were no
25
marks on M.M.’s neck or arms. Although the court reminded Mother that she could not
make a statement since she was not present in person, as previously advised by the court,
Mother repeatedly interrupted the court proceedings. At one point, she interrupted the
court with an interjection that she “wanted to appeal the allegations from day one and my
attorney has never filed that appeal.” Mother was advised that her attorney had filed an
appeal on her behalf.
The court thereafter heard testimony from the social worker, who in relevant part
testified that Mother refused to take any more classes or finish the remainder of her case
plan, such as the psychological evaluation, drug testing and her programs or courses. The
social worker noted that Mother even advised him that he “should not be concerned” with
her “mother-fucking” drug tests until he realized that her “mother-fucking” kids were
safe. The social worker explained to Mother several times that her children were safe so
that was not a concern, and Mother responded that the drug testing was not her concern.
Mother’s counsel argued for the court to return the children to Mother and that the court
case had been “handled wrong and that the kids have been placed in dangerous or risky
situations.” While acknowledging that Mother’s services were merely discretionary,
counsel argued that there seemed to be “some issues” related to Father and that Mother
had “done a lot of services already.” The children’s counsel agreed with CFS’s
recommendation for further maintenance services to Father as he was then enrolled in his
counseling and a social worker from their office verified the children were “doing very
well” there. Counsel noted all the children indicated they felt safe with Father and denied
26
any violence by Father towards them or from him to others. Counsel also agreed with the
termination of services for Mother as it had been six months since she engaged in her
services, and she had failed to drug test, complete an outpatient drug program, an anger
management program, or a psychological evaluation. CFS’s counsel argued that had
Mother refused to drug test, refused to cooperate with the social worker and was hostile
and uncooperative with the social worker, that even if the court continued to grant her
services, it would be “extremely unlikely that they would be effective, and she would not
benefit.”
The juvenile court acknowledged that Mother’s services were discretionary since
the children remained with Father and “due to the lack of benefit and completion of
services, it is not feasible to place the children back in the care of the mother. It is
evident that she’s refusing to complete services, and some very important ones, including
anger management and psychological evaluation and her behavior.” The court
terminated services for Mother as to the M. children and set a review hearing. The court
also terminated Mother’s reunification services for A.C. and set a permanent plan hearing
for the establishment of legal guardianship with a relative. The court terminated the
telephone call with Mother after Mother refused numerous orders to stop interrupting the
court proceedings. Mother interrupted the court more than 10 times during the hearing.
Mother timely filed an appeal as to the court’s order terminating her services as to
the M. minors. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile dependency court
subsequently dismissed the matter and granted Father sole legal and physical custody.
27
CFS then filed a motion to dismiss Mother’s case as to the M. children, arguing that the
appeal was rendered moot since there was no effective relief available to Mother. On
March 18, 2025, we granted CFS’s motion to dismiss Mother’s appeal and ordered
Mother’s appeal be dismissed as moot.7 (See case No. E085040.)
C. Third Appeal from Summary Denial of Second Section 388 Petition
On November 5, 2024, A.C.’s attorney filed a section 388 petition requesting that
A.C. be removed from the home of maternal aunt, Ms. C. She had called and harassed
the staff at the attorney’s office on October 25, 2024, approximately 30-40 times over
several hours and would yell and curse at staff, and her behavior never deescalated during
several hours. Her behavior prompted calls to the police to check on A.C.’s welfare.
On November 22, 2024, Mother filed a section 388 petition asking that
reunification services be reinstated and that CFS be ordered to pay for her psychological
evaluation in addition to granting an increase in her visitation. In support, Mother
submitted certificates of completions for parenting classes and anger management dated
April 2024. She also had a progress report for an outpatient drug test dated
November 13, 2024, for THC, as well as another positive drug test for THC in January
2024 and some negative drug test results for March and April 2024. On that same date,
the juvenile court summarily denied her petition.
7 Mother also filed a separate notice of intent to file a writ petition in regard to
A.C. (case No. E084747). However, after failing to file a timely writ petition, this court
dismissed the appeal.
28
On November 26, 2024, CFS recommended that A.C. remain in the maternal
aunt’s care with a continued concurrent plan of legal guardianship. A few days prior, the
social worker visited Ms. C and A.C. to assess the home and view A.C.’s interactions
with her. The home was found to be clean, safe and appropriate. A.C. was observed to
be attached to Ms. C and looked to her for comfort. Ms. C acknowledged that her
behavior speaking with staff at the attorney’s office was inappropriate, and she expressed
her actions were out of frustration in not being able to reach the attorney and having her
questions and concerns answered. Ms. C. was apologetic and voiced that she wished she
had handled the situation better. Social workers attempted to also contact Mother to get
her opinion of Ms. C. getting legal guardianship of A.C., but Mother hung up on them.
At the November 26, 2024, hearing on the section 388 petition filed by A.C.’s
counsel, the juvenile court found it was in A.C.’s best interest to remove him from
Ms. C’s home.
On February 5, 2025, CFS recommended that the permanent plan for A.C. be
Another Permanent Planned Living Arrangement (APPLA). CFS also asked that an
ICPC be granted for the maternal grandfather who resided in Oklahoma.
On February 5, 2025, the juvenile court ordered an expedited ICPC for the
maternal grandfather.
On February 25, 2025, CFS informed the juvenile court that the maternal
grandfather’s ICPC was denied due to a pending criminal misdemeanor charge and active
warrant for his arrest.
29
On March 10, 2025, Mother filed another section 388 petition, requesting family
maintenance services and assistance in seeking and paying for therapy sessions. She
alleged she completed and paid for a psychological evaluation and was willing to comply
with further court orders.
On March 11, 2025, the juvenile court summarily denied Mother’s section 388
petition. After Mother timely appealed from the summary denial of her second
section 388 petition, we affirmed the juvenile court’s order. (In re A.C. (Oct. 8, 2025,
E085751) [nonpub. opn.].)
D. Denial of Third Section 388 Petition
Following the denial of Mother’s second section 388 petition, county counsel filed
a section 388 petition seeking to have R.M. be declared an alleged father to A.C. At a
hearing on the request, the court granted the petition and declared R.M. to be A.C.’s
alleged father.
On May 9, 2025, CFS sought an order from the juvenile court to reduce Mother’s
visitation from once a week for two hours to twice monthly for two hours due to
Mother’s ongoing erratic and inappropriate behavior and belligerence toward CFS staff.
In addition, Mother repeatedly discussed the ongoing case with A.C. during several
supervised visits, despite being redirected multiple times not to do so. She had also
exhibited verbally aggressive and disruptive behaviors before, during and after her
supervised visits. Her erratic and unpredictable responses had created a hostile
30
environment for A.C. and CFS believed the modification in Mother’s supervised
visitation was in A.C.’s best interest.
At a hearing on the request, on May 23, 2025, the juvenile court reduced Mother’s
visitation to once a month for two hours due to her erratic behaviors. Mother was not
present and her counsel objected on her behalf.
In July 2025, CFS recommended that A.C. remain in foster care with a goal of
adoption. CFS reported having made multiple efforts to place A.C. with relatives,
however this was no longer possible and CFS was in the process of matching the child to
an adoptive home. CFS noted that Mother was being assessed given her completion of
some services on her own, as well as referral to drug testing. Mother had self-enrolled
into services, such as anger management, domestic violence, and parenting classes. CFS
explained that on February 24, 2025, Mother paid for and completed a psychological
evaluation with Dr. Shelton. According to the report, Dr. Shelton concluded “given
[Mother]’s defensiveness with her responses and her lack of disclosure, no valid
interpretation can be made with regard to psychopathology, clinical syndromes or true
personality dynamics.” Dr. Shelton stated, “no recommendations can be made given
there is not enough information provide[d] to make an informed decision.”
During a meeting with Mother to conduct a thorough assessment on her efforts,
Mother appeared emotionally unstable and engaged in a number of angry outbursts
toward the social workers. Given Mother’s engagement with CFS staff, the social worker
opined that Mother did not appear to be able to utilize any lessons from the courses she
31
had completed and believed Mother had not mitigated CFS’s concerns of child safety and
protective capacity. CFS also noted that Mother failed to appear for random drug testing
on four occasions from February 20, 2025 to May 13, 2025, that she had tested positive
for marijuana on March 25, 2025, and that she had tested negative five times between
May 14, 2025 to July 8, 2025. CFS further reported that A.C.’s caregiver was fearful of
Mother and requested Mother not be present during a Child and Family Team Meeting.
A.C.’s caregiver noted that Mother had placed a tracking device in the child’s diaper bag
when he was initially placed in her home and believed Mother would stalk her if she
determined her identity.
On August 5, 2025, the juvenile court held a permanent plan review hearing at
which Mother was present. At the hearing, the court adopted findings and orders and set
the matter for a further permanent plan review hearing.
On August 22, 2025, Mother filed a new third section 388 petition seeking return
of A.C. to her care under family maintenance services, increased visitation to include
unsupervised visitation, an order to “stop any recommendation for WIC 366.26,” and
relative assessment specifically with Father R.M. Mother argued that the proposed orders
would benefit the child by allowing A.C. “to grow up in the care of his mother, to whom
he is bonded” and that “increased contact will support his emotional stability and
attachment.” In support of her petition, Mother provided a completion certificate from a
parenting education program, a completion certificate from a domestic violence program,
a completion certification from an anger management program, a copy of her previously
32
submitted psychological evaluation conducted on February 24, 2025, and reference letters
in support of her request. The certificates of completion were dated July 18, 2025.
Mother also provided a declaration outlining the ways in which she had benefitted from
the services she had completed, as well as allegations of mistreatment of her by various
social workers.
On August 25, 2025, the court summarily denied Mother’s petition noting that it
did not state a change of circumstances nor did the requested orders promote the best
interest of A.C.
On August 27, 2025, Father filed a section 388 petition seeking placement of A.C.
in his care. In response, the court ordered CFS to assess Father with authority to place
A.C. in his care, if a change in placement was necessary.
On September 18, 2025, Mother filed an appeal, challenging the denial of her
section 388 petition. On March 9, 2026, we affirmed the juvenile court’s denial of
Mother’s section 388 petition in case No. E086934. (In re A.C. (March 9, 2026,
E086934) [nonpub. opn.].)
F. Denial of Fourth Section 388 Petition (Current Proceedings)
On September 22, 2025, Father filed another section 388 petition seeking
placement of A.C. On September 24, 2025, the juvenile court summarily denied the
petition. On October 2, 2025, the court ruled out Father as a possible placement for A.C.
On October 6, 2025, new counsel was appointed for Mother.
33
On October 10, 2025, Mother filed another section 388 petition. In the petition,
Mother claimed she now had joint legal and physical custody of her other children under
a family court order which demonstrated her ability to care for her children and maintain
stable housing. She requested that A.C. be returned to her care with family maintenance
or that reunification services for her be reinstated. As best interest, she asserted that the
social worker had stated his current placement was not suitable for permanent placement
and that it was in A.C.’s best interest to be in a family orientated environment with his
siblings. In support, Mother provided a statement addressed to the court in which she
said she complied with all court services and CFS recommendations. She denied
threatening or being aggressive towards CFS social workers. She also denied placing an
air tag in A.C.’s belongings. She stated that she had consistently visited A.C., was fully
engaged with A.C. during visits, and that she and A.C. shared a “strong emotional bond.”
Mother also provided a copy of a stipulated order from Family Court, signed by a hearing
officer on October 6, 2025, indicating that she and Father had agreed to share legal and
physical custody of A.C.’s siblings.
On October 15, 2025, the juvenile court summarily denied Mother’s section 388
petition for failure to state new evidence or changed circumstances and because the
proposed order was not in A.C.’s best interest.
Mother filed another section 388 petition on October 30, 2025. In response to the
query of what court date she sought to be changed, Mother identified August 5, 2025, and
stated: “social worker is moving the child. It was stated I did not have a relationship.”
34
She claimed that she had successfully completed the required case plan twice, was
currently enrolled for a third time in mandated courses, had scheduled a new mental
health evaluation, and would cover the cost of a bonding study, if approved. Mother
requested a bonding study, increased visitation, and that all “visitation monitoring forms”
be submitted to the court. She made these requests because A.C. did not have a
permanent plan and a reassessment and bonding study was in his best interest.
On November 3, 2025, the juvenile court denied Mother’s section 388 petition.
The court found that the petition did not state new evidence or changed circumstances
and the proposed orders did not promote A.C.’s best interest. The court explained that
“[t]he child was removed at three months old and is very young. A bonding study would
not be appropriate under these circumstances.” Mother timely appealed.
III.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her request for
a bonding study to assess her relationship with A.C. where A.C. was to be moved from
his current placement. She claims while the petition was filed under section 388, the
requested relief was more akin to a motion under Evidence Code section 730. She insists
that her bonding study request be treated as a motion under Evidence Code section 730
rather than a section 388 petition. She makes no other claims of error relating to the
denial of her section 388 petition. Mother’s contention is without merit and we decline to
treat her section 388 petition as a motion under Evidence Code section 730.
35
Under section 388, a juvenile court order may be changed or set aside “if the
petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) new evidence or
changed circumstances exist and (2) the proposed change would promote the best
interests of the child.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 (Zachary G.).)
“[I]f the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make a prima facie showing
of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would promote the best interests
of the child, the court need not order a hearing on the petition.” (Ibid.; § 388, subd. (d)
[“If it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted by the proposed
change of order, . . . the court shall order that a hearing be held . . . .”]; see In re Shirley
K. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 65, 71.) The prima facie requirement is not met “unless the
facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a
favorable decision on the petition.” (Zachary G., at p. 806.)
The best interests of the child in a section 388 proceeding “are not to further delay
permanency and stability in favor of rewarding” the parent for his or her “hard work and
efforts to reunify.” (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527 (J.C.).) “ ‘A petition
which alleges merely changing circumstances and would mean delaying the selection of a
permanent home for a child to see if a parent . . . might be able to reunify at some future
point, does not promote stability for the child or the child’s best interests.’ ” (In re Mary
G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 206.) “ ‘It is not enough for a parent to show just a
genuine change of circumstances under [section 388]. The parent must show that the
36
undoing of the prior order would be in the best interests of the child. [Citation.]’
[Citation.] The fact that the parent ‘makes relatively last-minute (albeit genuine)
changes’ does not automatically tip the scale in the parent’s favor. [Citation.]’ ” (In re
D.R. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1512.) The dispositive question is whether “the best
interests of the child require[ ] that the previous order . . . be set aside.” (In re Jasmon O.
(1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 418.) The “strength of relative bonds between the dependent child
and both parent and caretakers,” is one of several factors the juvenile court should
consider in evaluating changed circumstances and the best interests of the child. (In re
Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 532 (Kimberly F.); In re D.R., at p. 1512.)
In reviewing the juvenile court’s order, however, we are mindful that once the
court terminates reunification services and sets the selection and implementation hearing
date, the focus of the proceeding changes from family reunification to the child’s interest
in permanence and stability. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 (Stephanie
M.); J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 527; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993)
5 Cal.4th 242, 254 [by time of the § 366.26 hearing, “the interests of the parent and child
have diverged, and the child’s interest must be given more weight”].) That is, once
reunification services have been terminated, the state’s “ ‘interest in providing stable,
permanent homes for children . . . requires the court to concentrate its efforts . . . on the
child’s placement and well-being, rather than on a parent’s challenge to a custody
order.’ ” (In re Richard C. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1196 (Richard C.), quoting In re
Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307.)
37
In ruling on a modification petition, the court may consider the entire factual and
procedural history of the case. (In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 189.) The
juvenile court’s decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of
discretion. (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318.) We may reverse a court’s denial
of a section 388 petition only if we find the court has made “ ‘ “an arbitrary, capricious or
patently absurd determination.” ’ ” (Ibid.) We do not inquire whether substantial
evidence would have supported a different ruling, nor do we reweigh the evidence, nor do
we substitute our judgment for that of the court. (Ibid.) “It is rare that the denial of a
section 388 motion merits reversal as an abuse of discretion . . . .” (Kimberly F., supra,
56 Cal.App.4th at p. 522.)
Here, the juvenile court summarily denied Mother’s section 388 petition, including
her request for a bonding study, finding “[t]he child was removed at three months old and
is very young. A bonding study would not be appropriate under these circumstances.”
The court also found that the petition did not state new evidence or changed
circumstances and the proposed orders would not promote A.C.’s best interest. The
court’s denial of Mother’s section 388 petition, including her request for a bonding study
in connection with her section 388 petition, was not an abuse of discretion.
Mother’s section 388 petition does not identify an order to be changed, modified,
or set aside. When prompted to identify the order she sought to be changed in her
section 388 petition, Mother identified the date August 5, 2025, and stated: “social
worker moving the child. It was stated I did not have a relationship.” These were not
38
court orders. On August 5, 2025, the court did not order A.C. to be moved. The court
ordered that the A.C. be maintained in the foster home of Ms. W. where he had resided
since December 2025. Ms. W. was a concurrent planning home and was willing to adopt
A.C. However, CFS was concerned with the amount of time he was spending in day-care
and began to look for another concurrent planning home. The court ordered the social
worker to submit a “packet within 45 days regarding A.C.’s placement.” No packet
appears in the record. In any event, Mother fails to argue there was new evidence or
changed circumstances.
Moreover, Mother cannot show the proposed change would promote A.C.’s best
interests. A.C. was two years old when Mother filed her current section 388 petition and
was removed from Mother’s care at three months old in December 2023. A.C. had spent
much of his young life living outside of Mother’s care while Mother continued to receive
supervised visitations. It is undisputed that Mother did not parent A.C. for most of his
life. Though the record shows Mother had been consistent in attending regular
supervised visits with A.C., there is no evidence to suggest he was bonded to Mother so
as to outweigh his need for stability and permanency. As noted above, once the court
terminates reunification services and sets the selection and implementation hearing date,
the focus of the proceeding changes from family reunification to the child’s interest in
permanence and stability. (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.) A.C. was
nonverbal, and non-ambulatory for much of the dependency case. There was no evidence
of distress upon his separation from Mother and/or emotional difficulties concerning the
39
separation that indicated a psychological importance to the parental bond. A.C., from the
time he was three months old, Mother was someone he regularly saw but for a limited
amount of time and primarily in a supervised setting for a few hours at a time. Mother
had not demonstrated that it was in A.C.’s best interest to grant an evidentiary hearing on
her section 388 petition.
A.C. was only two years old at the time Mother filed her current section 388
petition and had been out of Mother’s care since he was three months old. A.C. had
limited contact with Mother and had lived with his caregiver, who desired to adopt A.C.,
and had provided for his developmental, social, medical, and educational needs for about
eight months at the time of Mother filing her current section 388 petition. While Mother
claims CFS was in the process of changing A.C.’s current placement due to the amount
of time A.C. was spending in day-care, the record is unclear whether A.C. would be
moved from his caregiver’s home. By the time her current section 388 petition was filed,
A.C. remained in his caregiver’s home.
In sum, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Mother’s current section 388 petition.
40
IV.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s order denying Mother’s current section 388 petition is
affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
Acting P. J.
We concur:
FIELDS
J.
RAPHAEL
J.
41