Filed 10/8/26 In re A.P. CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
In re A.P. et al., Persons Coming B352598
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. Nos.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 23CCJP02828A,
AND FAMILY SERVICES, 23CCJP02828B
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Zane P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Sumako McCallum, Judge. Affirmed.
William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie,
Assistant County Counsel, Bryan Mercke, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Father appeals from the juvenile court’s orders summarily
denying his Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388 petitions
seeking further family reunification services. He contends
the court erred in failing to grant him an evidentiary hearing.
We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Background and section 300 petition
The family consists of father and his children A.P. (born
February 2014) and Z.P. (born December 2015). The children’s
mother’s whereabouts were unknown. Child protective services
(CPS) in Spokane, Washington had been involved with the family
in October 2020 due to mother’s neglect and had released the
children to father.2 A February 2021 order from the Spokane
County Superior Court gave father custody of the children and
ordered no contact between mother and the children due to
mother’s substance abuse, neglect, child abuse, domestic violence,
and lack of emotional ties with the children.
On August 23, 2023, the Los Angeles County Department
of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition on behalf
of A.P. and Z.P. under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d),
alleging father drugged and sexually abused a non-related minor
in the children’s home while they were present and left an
unsecured, loaded firearm in an area accessible to the children.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare
and Institutions Code.
2 In January 2021, Sacramento County’s CPS received a
referral that mother may be using “meth.” The referral was
“evaluated out” because Spokane County already had released
the children to father.
2
Father was arrested on August 21, 2023, and charged
with lewd or lascivious acts with a minor 14 or 15 years old and
child endangerment. The allegations in support of the charges
included that Father met a 15-year-old girl online and arranged
to meet her at a motel. He drugged and sexually assaulted her
in the bathroom of the motel room. The children were in the
motel room during the assault.3 They told the arresting detective
they did not see the assault. Father had been having an ongoing
relationship with the victim for a few months and intended to
marry her. A loaded handgun also was found on the motel
nightstand next to the bed.
The children were placed in a foster home in Los Angeles.
Paternal uncle and aunt—who lived in Spokane, Washington—
wanted to take the children and were assessed for placement.
A.P. and Z.P. denied physical or sexual abuse or
inappropriate touching by anyone, including father. They said
father told them the victim was going to be their new mother.
A.P. said she “ ‘look[ed] like she’s an adult.’ ” At the foster home,
the dependency investigator was told Z.P.’s belongings included
a pair of father’s boxers, and her things had been sprayed with
his cologne. Z.P. said father let her wear his boxers to sleep in
and sprayed his cologne on her things because she and her sister
missed him. Father said he had sprayed the cologne so the girls
“ ‘could smell my scent whenever they missed me, because they
said they would like that.’ ”
3 The family had been living in Idaho and Northern
California. They had been helping paternal grandmother, who
lived in Yuba City, move and were visiting Southern California
at the time of the incident.
3
The girls had forensic interviews in September. A.P. said
they met the victim in the motel where the family was staying.
A.P. described father and the victim as “ ‘liking each other’ ” and
said they told her they were going to get married so the victim
“could be the children’s mother.” Z.P. said she knew father was
arrested due to his “ ‘girlfriend’ ” being “ ‘too young.’ ” Z.P said
she saw father and the victim “ ‘kissing . . . they were just
smooching, they didn’t put their legs up . . . [victim] didn’t do
anything [sic] inappropriate stuff . . . Like you know having the
S word.’ ” Both children also mentioned previously living with
father’s ex-girlfriend Ms. H. in Idaho. They said she hit them
with a spoon, and was mean to N.P. because she spanked her
and pulled her hair.
The dependency investigator also spoke to paternal
grandfather. He was “ ‘very concerned about the girls.’ ” He
said father had “ ‘a fetish’ ” when the girls were young with
“ ‘making sure . . . their vaginas . . . were clean.’ ” Father had
been with many women and instructed the children to call
them “ ‘mommy.’ ” Paternal grandfather was told that father’s
ex-girlfriend’s son molested one of the girls, but father “kept
it quiet.” He said father was very violent toward the boy.
He also mentioned father had past drug and alcohol issues.
DCFS retrieved referral history from Idaho CPS. On
October 3, 2023, a report was made alleging that, in June 2023,
Z.P. and an unnamed minor4 were found naked together,
engaging in inappropriate sexual conduct. The boy’s mother
said she and father had broken up in May, and father had moved
to California. She speculated that father may have sexually
4 The minor was the son of father’s ex-girlfriend, Ms. H.
4
abused her son in the past as an explanation for the boy’s
inappropriate conduct with Z.P.
On November 8, 2023, the court sustained the petition.
During the hearing, the court found the children were at risk
of sexual abuse by father. Having viewed the videos of the girls’
forensic interviews, the court had “no doubt” father had “coached”
the children about the incident with the 15-year-old based on
their spontaneous disclosures during their forensic interview
that father “did nothing inappropriate”—that he and the victim
“didn’t put their legs up.” The court was concerned by father’s
obsession “with the cleanliness” of the girls’ vaginas and found
father’s spraying of his cologne on the children’s belongings
and allowing them to wear his boxers constituted “grooming.”
At the January 10, 2024 disposition hearing, the court
removed the children, granted family reunification services
to father and bypassed them for mother, whose whereabouts
remained unknown. The court ordered DCFS to begin interstate
placement of the children with paternal uncle and aunt—the P.s
—in Washington. Father’s court-ordered case plan required him
to participate in fatherhood classes, sexual abuse counseling
for perpetrators, individual counseling to address case issues,
including “appropriate boundaries and age appropriate
relations,” and a gun safety course. The court ordered
monitored visitation for father for three hours, three times
a week. DCFS was given discretion to liberalize the visits.
2. Reunification period
a. Six-month-review period
On April 29, 2024, the girls were placed with the P.s
in Washington. The P.s were willing to adopt the girls. The
children appeared bonded with the P.s and happy and
5
comfortable to be living with them. The P.s provided a stable
environment for the children. They attended to the children’s
needs.
While the children were in foster care in Los Angeles,
father—who lived in Northern California—had regular phone
and video calls with them during the week and drove to
Los Angeles on the weekends for in-person visits. The children’s
foster parents reported the quality of father’s visits with the
girls was “very good,” and he “clearly ha[d] a bond” with them.
The girls “were always excited to see” father and he acted
appropriately during in-person visits. Father also talked to
the girls on the phone “for hours at times and would help the
girls read or do their homework.” Father gave the children
“many presents” during visits, but some were inappropriate:
he gave Z.P. a pair of his underwear to sleep in and a bra to A.P.
that the caregivers believed was not age appropriate. During
one of his calls with the girls, he introduced them to a new
girlfriend whom the girls called their “new mother.”
After the girls moved to Washington, father consistently
contacted them for phone and video calls. The girls regularly
declined visits. The quality of the visits they had was “relatively
good,” but the calls were shorter. Father was concerned and
saddened but was “willing to work with the girls and be there
for them.” DCFS noted father “has a clear bond with [A.P. and
Z.P.] and continues to work on developing a stronger relationship
with them.”
Father partially complied with his case plan. He completed
a gun safety course and enrolled in a sex offender treatment
(SOT) program where he had attended some counseling
sessions and group classes. He had not enrolled in the child
6
endangerment program. Nor had he completed a parenting-
fatherhood course. A progress letter from the clinical coordinator
of father’s SOT program dated July 5, 2024, stated father
“appears to appropriately participate in treatment when he
attends.” The coordinator noted father “has taken responsibility
for his crime and demonstrates remorse; however, he shows low
levels of insight into victim impact.” Father needed “to work on
improving his attendance and participation and understanding
the impact of his choice on the minor children related to his need
for counseling.” On July 9, 2024, the court continued father’s
reunification services.
b. 12-month-review period
DCFS’s August 9, 2024 status review report noted father
had not begun in-person visits with the girls but was engaging
in phone and video visits with them. The girls did not want
to “stay long on the line with him.” A.P. said she did not want
to visit father “because of the chaos that he brings.” She wanted
“it to be her choice when she has visits,” and she would tell the
P.s when she was “ready.” Z.P. preferred to play with her cousins
than have phone or video calls with father. Father texted daily
“to initiate[ ] visitation.”
After Z.P. exhibited “sexualized behaviors” toward the P.s’
daughter, she disclosed previous sexual abuse when she lived
with father and his then-girlfriend (Ms. H.) in Washington.
Both girls were engaged in mental health services.
During this period, father completed an on-line parenting
program. He also had enrolled in a 52-week child abuse/
child endangerment program. By June 2024, father had been
convicted of sexual battery and molesting a child under 18 years
old. He was placed on probation.
7
At the August 26, 2024 review hearing, minors’ counsel
reported that A.P. had “chosen not to visit” with father, and Z.P.
had had “just very limited contact with him.” The court extended
father’s reunification services, noting he had made great
progress, but expressing concerns.
c. 18-month-review period
DCFS filed its 18-month-review report on February 7,
2025, and updated the court about the children’s progress and
visitation on February 21 and March 12. During the review
period, Mr. P. had been monitoring father’s video and telephone
calls and text messages with the children. Father also sent
them letters. Visits were at the girls’ discretion. They often
did not wish to talk to father over the phone but still wanted
him to know they loved him.
In September 2024, a “courtesy social worker” in
Washington began visiting the children and caretakers monthly.
Father regularly contacted the children. A.P. usually did not
want to talk to him and Z.P. “ ‘sometimes’ ” did. When they did
talk to father, their “talk[s]” were “good.” Both children said
they missed father. Z.P. “ ‘want[ed] daddy back.’ ” In September,
Mrs. P. confirmed Z.P. spoke to father more than A.P. did. She
said Z.P. had “lots of behaviors” after talking to father: she had
“a bad attitude,” was “mean to everyone,” and would forget about
“body boundaries.”
Z.P. had asked the social worker when “they were going to
see their father again.” Father could not travel to Washington
due to the terms of his probation. In February 2025, neither
child wanted to talk to father when he called. Father did not
call A.P. on her birthday.
8
The children continued to participate in therapy. Z.P.
was preliminarily diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) and reactive attachment disorder. She “struggl[ed] a
bit with the realization of what father ha[d] done and why they
[were] in this situation.” In February 2025, the P.s said Z.P. was
“doing much better with behaviors and ‘meanness.’ ” She was
working on “processing . . . her fear of having a new mommy.”
She feared “that issue” if she were to return to father’s care.
Z.P.’s therapist reported Z.P. made some progress in her
treatment goals but continued “to show some emotional and
behavioral symptoms which may require continued services.”
The therapist recommended that Z.P. continue to receive
trauma-focused therapy “with specific interventions like
gradual exposure, conjoint caregiver sessions, and ongoing
safety/supervision planning” if reunified with father.
A.P. was diagnosed with PTSD in July 2024. As of
February 2025, her symptoms had decreased and she had
“progressed significantly in her treatment goals.” Her therapist
noted that, if A.P. were returned to father’s care, additional
support would be beneficial.
DCFS assessed the risk to the children if returned to father
as “ ‘[m]oderate.’ ” Although father had not completed his case
plan yet, he had shown DCFS that he “actively” was “working his
case plan.” DCFS reported, “Father has shown understanding
in his past actions and plans to utilize skills he has learned
to parent his children in a safe and protective manner, as well
as not engage in relations with underage minors.” DCFS
recommended the court return the children to father’s care.
On March 12, 2025, DCFS informed the court of concerns
relatives had reported about father “allegedly using drugs and
9
hitting the children.” In February, the P.s told the courtesy
social worker father had called Mr. P., “slurring his words and
talking very slow.” The social worker questioned father on
March 10. He denied ever hitting the children or using drugs
or alcohol. He agreed to drug test, but was concerned about
the cost. Paternal grandmother denied having seen or heard that
father hit the children. She also denied having observed him
using or being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. She said
father drank alcohol when he lived with paternal grandfather
in the past. DCFS did not change its recommendation. At the
March 12 hearing, the court ordered father to complete random
drug testing. The court also ordered DCFS to provide an update
on CPS referrals or history in Idaho and Washington. The court
continued the matter for minors’ counsel’s contest.
d. Lead up to contested reunification services hearing
In a last minute information (LMI) report filed April 23,
2025, DCFS updated the court about past CPS referrals.
Regarding the 2023 Idaho referral, in March 2025 a DCFS
social worker contacted an Idaho CPS case worker who confirmed
there were no concerns in 2023 of abuse by father as to his
children.
Washington CPS had received a report in September 2017
that father squeezed an unrelated child’s neck, but the case was
closed in January 2018 due to no known safety threat. In March
2021, father’s then-girlfriend Ms. H. reported that she had
caught her nine-year-old son molesting five-year-old Z.P.
Z.P. reported the boy had touched her “on her private area”
on “multiple occasions.” In May 2021, father reported that
Ms. H’s other child was “dry humping” A.P. In July 2024,
Z.P. allegedly inappropriately touched an eight-year-old child.
10
In January 2025, the girls reported father and Ms. H. hit them
with a spoon when they were living in Washington and Idaho
between 2021 and 2023.
In March 2025, the Sacramento County CPS received
a referral that alleged a mother named Brittany had allowed
a registered sex offender—father—to live in her home with her
children. The Sacramento social worker planned to close the
referral as there were no concerns for Brittany’s children, father
apparently was not living with Brittany, and father’s probation
officer confirmed father had no conditions prohibiting him from
being around children.
On April 7, 2025, DCFS interviewed father’s ex-girlfriend
Ms. H. She said their relationship had lasted from 2021 to 2023.
Father and the girls had lived with her and her two children for
most of that time. Ms. H. alleged father had abused and raped
her, was verbally abusive to the children, and “ ‘spanked the girls
with a wooden spoon.’ ” She also said her son told her—after
she had separated from father—that father watched “porn” with
him and “would instruct [him] to inappropriately touch [Z.P.].”
She said she never witnessed any abuse by father toward his
children.
On April 21, 2025, a DCFS social worker interviewed father
about Ms. H.’s allegations. Father denied watching porn with
her son. He denied physically abusing the boy. He said he
“ ‘caught’ ” the 11-year-old boy “ ‘getting in bed with 7-year-old
[Z.P.].’ ” He took the boy “by his arm, took him to his mother,
. . . and told Ms. H[.] to ‘get him out of my face.’ ” He denied
ever hitting his children and said it was Ms. H. who had hit her
own daughter with a wooden spoon. He also denied raping or
abusing Ms. H.
11
Father tested negative at random drug and alcohol tests
in March and April 2025. DCFS concluded there was no
substantiated child abuse by father against his or Ms. H.’s
children. DCFS noted A.P. and Z.P. had denied sexual abuse
by father throughout the proceedings. Based on father’s
negative drug tests, the allegations of substance abuse by father
also were deemed unfounded.
On April 24, 2025, the court ordered DCFS to interview
the children and Mrs. P. and “to get their position on [DCFS]’s
recommendation.” The court also ordered DCFS to review letters
submitted by minors’ counsel and father and to use best efforts
to interview the authors.5
DCFS filed a status review report on May 14, 2025.
The social workers interviewed several collaterals, as directed,
between May 6 and 12, 2025. Paternal grandfather, Mrs. P.’s
mother Ms. W., maternal grandmother, her husband, mother’s
minor son Daniel—the girls’ half-brother, and the P.s never
witnessed father physically or sexually abuse the children or
use illicit drugs. Like paternal grandfather, Mr. P. had seen
father clean the girls’ vaginas with Q-tips after their bath until
they were around five or six years old, which he found to be
“ ‘weird’ and ‘disgusting.’ ” He also said that, in 2022, father
used “sexual language” around the children and would talk about
“porn” in front of them. Mrs. P. also had heard father talk about
5 At the contested 18-month review hearing, minors’ counsel
sought to admit several letters into evidence, including from
the P.s, Mrs. P.’s mother Ms. W., paternal grandfather, father’s
ex-girlfriend Ms. H., and the girls’ minor half-brother Daniel.
The letters alleged past physical abuse, inappropriate sexual
behavior, and drug use by father.
12
“porn” while the children—including Ms. H.’s son—were around.
Father also had told Mr. P. about finding Ms. H.’s son on top of
Z.P. and said he had “ ‘beat the shit’ out of” the boy. Mr. P. told
father to leave Ms. H., but father did not leave her right away.
Ms. W. believed “something may have happened” to Z.P. based
on her behaviors with body boundaries and wanting “to stay
‘daddies [sic] little princess.’ ”
Daniel said that when he was five or six years old, father
would “ ‘backhand, slap, and throw’ him.” Paternal grandfather
and Mr. P. saw father yank Daniel’s “ ‘arm out of [the] socket.’ ”
Mr. P. also saw father “ ‘throw around’ and pull” Ms. H.’s son.
Z.P. had told Mrs. P. a few months earlier that father and Ms. H.
hit the children with a wooden spoon when they lived with Ms. H.
When confronted, A.P. confirmed Z.P.’s statements. Daniel also
said Z.P. told him—and maternal grandfather’s husband heard
the comment—she and A.P. “would get hit with a wooden spoon,”
but it wasn’t clear if she meant Ms. H. or both Ms. H. and father.
As to substance use, paternal grandfather, who hadn’t
seen father since summer 2020, said father drank “a full 18-24
pack of beer at night” when the family, including mother, lived
with him. Maternal grandmother said that, when A.P. was a
baby, mother and father lived with her and she helped them
through “rehab.” Mrs. P. said that, when father was with
mother, he told the P.s paternal grandmother had given them
“ ‘Norco,’ ‘valium,’ and fentanyl patches.” Mr. P. said, around
2020, father had an unlabeled pill bottle that he told Mr. P. was
“filled with ‘Norcos.’ ” Father said he “would be on about his
20th pill of ‘Norcos’ by the end of the day.” Mr. P. said father also
told him in 2016 that he and paternal grandmother had “smoked
meth.” Ms. W. suspected father was using “meth” a few months
13
ago based on his appearance and having heard that his girlfriend
Brittany had been “looking to obtain meth in March.”
The report included the courtesy social worker’s summary
of her visits with the girls in March and April 2025. A.P. still
was not talking to father. Z.P. “barely” talked to father. In
March, she asked the worker, “ ‘When do I get my daddy back?’ ”
In April, Z.P. asked if she and A.P. would be separated because
she wanted to live with father, but A.P. wanted to stay with
the P.s. Z.P. said she liked living with the P.s, but she did
“not want to live there forever without seeing her dad.”
On May 12, the social worker interviewed the children
about their thoughts on returning to father. A.P. said she
“ ‘doesn’t really want to go back’ ”; “doesn’t want to deal with
any ‘new moms’ ”; and “ ‘doesn’t want to go from mom to mom
over and over again.’ ” She said she “hasn’t wanted to talk with
her father and doesn’t know why.” She mentioned that father
“would smack their hands with a wooden spoon if they broke
something in the home” and “would also spank them on the butt.”
She also said father “ ‘beat up’ ” Ms. H.’s son. A.P. explained
that, when she was in Los Angeles in foster care, she always
wanted to call and see father and return to him because she was
with strangers and “was ‘super scared.’ ” She said now, “she is
‘safer’ so she ‘doesn’t need to talk to her dad that much.’ ” A.P.
“would feel ‘sad’ if she were to go back because she ‘doesn’t
want bad things to happen again and go back into foster care.’ ”
She thought father was “a ‘good person’ but ‘not a good dad.’ ”
Z.P. said “she would feel ‘good and happy living with dad.’ ”
She “ ‘would be happy because he was with her for her whole life’
and her dad makes her laugh and has ‘good memories’ and ‘funny
times together.’ ” She was “ ‘scared of getting new moms’ because
14
. . . ‘some of the new moms are nice some are rude.’ ” Z.P.
said she “really doesn’t want a ‘new mommy’ because she is
‘uncomfortable and doesn’t like [it].’ ” Z.P. also said she had
“good friends” and “ ‘good family with her aunt, uncle, and
cousins’ ” in Washington. She wanted to go with father but stay
in Washington. She didn’t “ ‘like getting “spoiled” by father.’ ”
A.P. had graduated from counseling as of March 2025.
As of April, Z.P. remained in therapy to work “on deeper issues
of her past.” She also was urinating on herself. A May 12,
2025 letter from Z.P.’s therapist stated Z.P. was having fewer
emotional outbursts. The therapist noted Z.P. occasionally
“show[s] brief periods of deterioration”—such as, “increased
displays of anger, isolated incidents of breaking safety rules,
and potty accidents”—but “these are managed by therapy and
caregiver/guardian support with success.” The therapist still
recommended that, if Z.P. were reunified with father, she should
continue “to receive trauma-informed mental health counseling
services.”
Father had yet to complete his court-ordered case plan but
remained enrolled in services and was making progress. Father
was “participating appropriately” in his SOT program and was
“motivated.” He also had been actively participating in his child
abuse/child endangerment program. Father was a no-show for
three random drug tests in April because he had been working.
He tested negative in May 2025.
Based on “the information gathered during the interviews
with paternal relatives and collaterals,” DCFS changed their
previous recommendation and recommended the court terminate
father’s reunification services and that the children “remain in
15
the care of the caregivers where they will continue to thrive
and succeed.”
By letter dated June 6, 2025, Z.P.’s therapist asked
that Z.P. not be required to testify at the contested hearing
“to protect her from potential negative emotional consequences.”
The therapist stated Z.P. reported “conflicting and mixed
emotions and thoughts related to her separation from her father
and possible reunification.” The therapist opined that, “[g]iven
these feelings change across time, it is not clear that [Z.P.] could
provide a single statement that would reflect a long-standing
permanent belief.”
In an LMI filed June 25, 2025, DCFS reported that father
denied the allegations made by his family members and others.
He said most of them had not “seen or spoken to him in years.”
He “highlighted that he was not a drug user of any kind or an
alcoholic.” Father said paternal grandfather was an alcoholic,
and father drank alcohol with him because that was “the only
thing they would bond over.” Father said the girls’ doctor had
prescribed a cream for father to put on the girls’ vulvas—they
were in diapers at the time and would come back from mother’s
unbathed and irritated “ ‘down there.’ ” Father denied that he
and Brittany were together or that he did meth and noted Ms. W.
had reached out to Brittany under another name about father’s
criminal history and probation. He “believe[d] his family is
intentionally trying to ruin his life in every way possible.” Father
said he never hurt mother and used to play a game with the kids,
including Daniel, where he would toss them in the air and on
the bed. Daniel hit the wall once when father tossed him.
Father also said it was Ms. H. who hit the girls, not him.
He again denied Ms. H’s statements. He said he never hit her
16
children and never watched porn with a child nor instructed
a child to perform sexual acts on his daughter. Father had video
footage—provided to DCFS by paternal grandmother—of Ms. H.
grabbing Z.P. (who was then five or six years old), threatening
her, and manhandling her to remove her clothes and yelling
at her to put on different clothes.
DCFS noted that, in their September 2023 forensic
interviews, the girls had identified Ms. H. as the one who hit
them with a wooden spoon. DCFS concluded that, “[a]lthough
it appears that the family and father’s ex-partner have the best
interest of the children in mind, [DCFS] is worried about the
authenticity of the family and ex-partner given the new evidence
of the video.” DCFS noted the video “vividly highlights [Ms. H.’s]
character as the perpetrator and not the victim. As such, [DCFS]
is questioning the validity and credibility of [Ms. H.’s] statements
previously provided to [DCFS]. [¶] Additionally, father provided
evidence of a false Facebook account in which it is believed
[Ms. W.] created under a false name with intent to sabotage
father by disclosing information about the case and father’s
criminal history to Brittany.”
On July 15 and August 19, 2025, DCFS updated the
court on visitation and on father’s progress in his programs.
As of June 30, 2025, the social worker—instead of Mr. P.—
was monitoring video calls between the children and father.
On July 2, 7, 14, and 30, and August 4 and 11, the girls did not
want to have a call, as they were having too much fun doing
other activities. It was “ ‘annoying’ ” for them “to have to stop
what they are doing just to call.” They didn’t “want father to
get upset with them telling him no.” A.P. was upset about being
asked to speak with father. On August 11, both girls told the
17
social worker they wanted to see father in person and asked her
to tell him they loved him.
On June 30 and August 6, Z.P. alone participated in calls
with father. She was smiling, happy, and excited to share what
she was doing with him. They shared funny stories, expressed
their love for each other. Z.P. asked father when they would get
to see him and said she wanted to go back to him. Both children
had a brief call with father on July 28. He said he would never
be mad if they wanted to end a call early. On August 13, only
A.P. wanted to speak to father, but Z.P. remained on the screen.
Father and paternal grandmother participated in the call. The
social worker observed father to be “appropriate in conversation
and both children were engaged and appeared happy speaking
with father.” The children told father they loved and missed him.
After Z.P. got off the call, father helped A.P. with spelling and
they shared memories. The call lasted about 80 minutes.
July 11, 2025 progress reports from father’s programs
stated that, as of July 7, 2025, father attended 28 sessions, and
was progressing well, in his child abuse/child endangerment
program and learning and applying new skills from the program.
In his SOT program, father was reportedly “receptive to
interventions.” He demonstrated “marginally satisfactory
progress in treatment.” Father missed several sessions due
to illness and had some unexcused absences. He completed
37.5 percent of the program, “suggesting approximately 14-16
more months to complete the program.”6 An August 18, 2025
6 There was a delay when father’s enrollment in the
“[v]oluntary” treatment program was closed, and he was
transitioned to the “[p]robation” treatment program.
18
progress report stated father’s participation in the SOT program
was “satisfactory.” Father had exhausted all unexcused absences
and would be terminated from the program if he had another.
Father maintained perfect attendance during this reporting
period in his child abuse/child endangerment program.
e. Contested reunification services review hearing
The court held the contested review hearing on August 20,
2025. The court took judicial notice of the case file, including
DCFS’s reports and the sustained petition. The court admitted
into evidence minors’ exhibits which contained two June 2025
text messages from father: 1) a June 25 message to Mr. P.
stating “what family court [meaning dependency court] said
I did is 100% false”; and, 2) a June 17 message to paternal
grandfather stating “[t]he things I got accused of aren’t even
true.” The court also admitted into evidence father’s exhibits:
the Title XXs from August 26, 2024 through April 24, 2025,
the July 11, 2025 progress letter from his SOT program, and
the August 18, 2025 progress letter from his probation officer.
On examination by father’s counsel, DCFS’s social worker
testified DCFS had changed its recommendation to terminate
reunification services “due to the historical concerns that were
brought up to [DCFS’s] attention through those interviews of
family members and collaterals.” She confirmed DCFS did not
investigate the allegations aside from the interviews, and that
there had been no new investigated and substantiated allegations
as to father since February when DCFS recommended the
children be returned to father.
Father testified he learned from his SOT program to accept
his actions and to recognize if he had sexual feelings and how to
avoid acting on them. He testified he never hit his children with
19
a wooden spoon, denied using drugs currently or during the
pendency of the case, and denied Ms. H.’s allegations about her
son. When his attorney asked him what he would have done
differently with respect to the situation that led to the removal
of his daughters, father answered, “I would definitely check to
make sure she was the age that she told me she was.” Father
said he had learned from his mistakes and knew “right from
wrong.” The court asked father if it was his testimony that
he did not know the victim was underage when he engaged in
sexual acts with her. Father answered, “Yes.” He said the victim
told him she was 15 after they had sex the second time.
Referring to father’s recent text messages, DCFS’s attorney
asked father if he believed the allegations the dependency court
sustained with regard to his criminal charges were accurate—
father said, “No.” Minors’ counsel asked father about his ability
to get a travel permit from his probation officer to visit the
children in Washington. Father said he had applied recently
and hadn’t applied earlier because he was trying to transfer
his probation to Yuba City.
Minor’s counsel called Ms. H. as a witness. She and father
lived at her apartment in Washington from March 2021 until
September 2022 and then in Idaho in a home owned by her
family until July 2023. Ms. H. testified consistently with her
earlier statements. She said that father would have sex with her
after she had drunk wine and taken sleeping pills for insomnia,
rendering her unable to consent. She said she filed a police
report two or three months prior as her memory came back.
She testified about her son having molested Z.P., and his later
statements to her about father watching porn with him and
teaching him “what girls like and what it means to be a man.”
20
Ms. H. admitted to “los[ing] it” once with Z.P. and was aware of
the video of the incident. She felt “horrible” afterward and said
father had “held that video over [her] head” for two years and
threatened to send it to the police if she “did anything that
went against him.”
On August 27, 2025, the court terminated father’s
reunification services. The court found the SOT program’s
report that father had low levels of insight on victim impact
was consistent with father’s testimony “about what he would
do differently regarding his sexual assault of a 15-year-old child.”
The court noted father testified he did not know the age of
the victim despite evidence to the contrary, and his recent text
messages showed he “continues not to take responsibility for
his actions.” The court found “[t]his shows a clear lack of insight
and a shifting of blame that demonstrates ongoing risk to his
daughters.”
The court summarized: “[Father] is less than halfway
through his sexual offenders treatment program and currently
at risk of termination due to excessive absences, has not met his
goals with respect to reduction of risk, has reportedly showed
low levels of insight, which the court also found in his testimony,
and with the lack of meaningful visits, the court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that there is a substantial risk
of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well-being of the children.” The court also found that, “[g]iven
the nature of the sustained allegations, [father]’s ongoing lack
of insight and acceptance of responsibility, as well as a lack
of meaningful visits lead the court to be unable to find that it
would be in the best interest of the children to extend services.”
21
The court found “more than enough evidence of ongoing
risk to the children without Ms. H[.]’s testimony.” The court
expressed concern about father’s “protectiveness of the girls
as well as his priorities” when he had a video of Ms. H. being
abusive of Z.P. early in their relationship, but he had stayed with
her and “continued to allow her unlimited access to his children.”
The court set a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent
placement plan for the children.7
3. Permanency planning
On November 24, 2025, DCFS filed its section 366.26
report. Father continued to make himself available for virtual
and phone calls with the girls “and the only visits not completed
were due to the children not wanting to participate in the visits.”
The social worker monitored a video call between father and A.P.
after the hearing on August 27. Z.P. didn’t want to talk because
she was crying—the girls had just been told they would not
return to father. A.P. said it wasn’t “a big deal” to her because
it wasn’t forever, and father could “always visit.” Father engaged
with A.P. appropriately. They said they loved each other before
hanging up. One or both children engaged in brief video calls
with father on September 4 and 11. They did not want to visit
on September 3, 9, or 16.
On October 25 and 26, 2025, father had his first in-person
visits with the girls in Spokane, Washington. They hugged
and told each other they loved and missed each other. Paternal
grandmother also was present. The social worker reported father
7 Father filed a petition for extraordinary relief challenging
that order under case number B348591. This court summarily
denied father’s petition.
22
appropriately interacted with the children, made them laugh,
redirected them when appropriate, was patient with the children,
and gave them equal attention. When the social worker asked
the children how they felt about seeing father, Z.P. said she
wanted to go back to father. A.P. said she didn’t “really care . . .
if she goes or stays, but if she stays, she still wants to be able
to see and talk to father.” Both girls felt good talking to father
and wanted to see him again. Z.P. said she wanted to be with
father forever.
Although the children’s in-person visits with father went
well, the P.s reported that the children “experienced behavioral
setbacks.” Z.P. struggled after the visit, was “ ‘moodier’ and
‘mean,’ ” and not “behaving like herself.” A.P. “experienced a
‘full blow up’ ” and “struggled for weeks after the visit.” Z.P. had
stopped attending therapy in September 2025. The P.s were
concerned about Z.P.’s “history of sexualized behaviors” related
to prior sexual abuse by Ms. H.’s son. The P.s also were “highly
concerned over father’s intentions with the children while
visiting.” He had given them an “abundance of gifts” and stuffed
animals “that smelled heavily of [his] cologne.” The children
also told the P.s that father “secretly informed them that he was
‘getting them back.’ ” The P.s believed these were “grooming
tactics.”
DCFS noted father and the children shared affection
during virtual and in-person visits, and the children appeared
to enjoy the visits. They declined virtual visits, and the visits
they had were short due to the children wanting to engage in
other activities or not wanting to be on the phone very long.
DCFS noted the children would take a few minutes to greet
father and tell him about their “accomplishments.” The children
23
also responded well to father’s parenting and redirection, and
appeared comfortable with father overall. DCFS noted that,
“[a]lthough there appears to be a strong bond between the
children and the father, the appropriateness of such bond
remains in question as well as the father’s behavior and
intentions. Ultimately, the children’s well-being and safety
remains a concern given father’s history of sexual abuse, a lack
of full accountability, and father’s actions while visiting. It is
possible that with time, the children may begin to disclose more
as to the case issues, any abuse by father and/or any abuse
suffered in the hands of father.” DCFS opined that, “[a]though
there is a strong bond observed, the interaction between the
father and the children has not been fully appropriate nor
sufficient enough in person to preserve appropriate long-lasting
parental bond and attachment with the children.” DCFS further
noted, “It is unknown whether father has fully addressed the
case issues, making it detrimental to the children.”
On December 15, 2025, DCFS informed the court that
the P.s’ home was “adoption ready.” During an interview with
the adoption social worker a few days earlier, A.P. “seemed to
have a clear understanding of what it means to be adopted.” She
“fe[lt] good” that her aunt and uncle were adopting her. Z.P. also
expressed an understanding of adoption. She “fe[lt] sad” to be
adopted because she wanted to live with father and missed him,
but she “fe[lt] really happy living with her aunt and uncle.” The
court set a contested section 366.26 hearing for February 23,
2026.
In a January 16, 2026 LMI, DCFS informed the court that,
on December 18, 2025, Z.P. told the courtesy social worker that
she wanted to stay with father, but if she could not, she wanted
24
to remain with the P.s. Z.P. cried and said she wanted to
be accepted for who she was and didn’t want to be changed.
She stated father was “ ‘the only one that does not want her to
change.’ ” Z.P. understood that father “ ‘did something wrong’ ”
with the victim, but “ ‘that he is different now.’ ” The worker
stated Z.P. “ ‘does not think that it is fair that she got ripped
away from her dad. . . . She was very distraught that her
feelings about placement will not be heard by anyone and that
she does not have a say in court because she is too young.’ ”
The LMI also reported on father’s in-person visits with
the children on January 10 and 11, 2026. The social worker took
the children to meet father and paternal grandmother. The
children appeared happy to see them and hugged both of them.
Father was attentive to both children during the visit, and the
children appeared to be comfortable around him. After the visit
A.P. and Z.P. told the social worker that father had told each of
them that they needed to tell the judge they wanted to live with
father. Paternal grandmother said something similar to Z.P.
The next day, during the drive to meet father, the social
worker heard Z.P. say, “ ‘I want to see daddy so he can spank me
because I like it.’ ” When A.P. told her not to say things like that,
Z.P. said she was “just joking.” The family enjoyed their day
together. At the end of the visit, father gave the children hugs
goodbye. A.P. appeared fine but Z.P. cried. During the visit,
father had appeared to whisper something to A.P., causing A.P.
to give the social worker a look. After the visit, the social worker
asked her about it. A.P. said father “told her to remember what
he had said the day before and to remember to tell the truth
at court.” Father whispered the same thing about telling the
truth at court to both girls when he hugged them goodbye.
25
When the girls returned home to the P.s, both girls were
very upset about father having whispered to them about court.
Both girls were crying and “ ‘mad’ ” at father. A.P. cried, “ ‘I just
want all of this to be over. I want to stay here and I want to live
a normal life. I hate this!’ ” Z.P. ran upstairs and “was punching
her bed,” repeatedly yelling “she hates him.” Z.P. said that all
father cared about “ ‘is making us love him and make [sic] him
feel good inside. [A.P.] and I have to act like we are always
happy and nothing bad happened. He doesn’t care about us,
he doesn’t love us.’ ”
During November, December, and January, the children
had continued their scheduled, twice-weekly monitored video
calls with father. As in the past, they often didn’t want to have
a call with father and sometimes only one child spoke to father.
During a scheduled call on January 15, 2026—after father’s
in-person visit—A.P. told the social worker she “did not feel
comfortable seeing or speaking to father because she was mad
at what father told her. It made her feel he was putting pressure
on her and her sister.” She felt like father was “trying to buy
her love.” Z.P. also did not want to talk to father.
DCFS filed a status review report on February 5, 2026
for the February 23 permanency hearing. DCFS stated father’s
October 2025 and January 2026 in-person visits had gone well,
except for the comments father had made to the children about
court. DCFS noted that when the children did not want to
participate in their calls with father, he would “pass a message
on to them that he loves them very much.”
On January 6, 2026, between father’s in-person visits,
the caregiver informed DCFS that Z.P. had “been displaying
sexualized behaviors with their daughter.” The caregiver had
26
scheduled Z.P. for an intake appointment to reinstate therapy.
On January 22, 2026, A.P. told the social worker she wanted
to stay with the P.s. She wanted to continue monitored visits
with father—with “a ‘safe person’ making sure they are watching
father and their interactions.” Z.P. said she wanted to stay with
the P.s, with whom she “fe[lt] safer.” She also still wanted a
relationship with father but with a monitor present. She said she
“feels bad to let her father know that she doesn’t want to go back
because she doesn’t want father to get mad.” DCFS noted Z.P.
had changed her mind about wanting to live with father after
the most recent in-person visit.
DCFS noted the P.s had “continued to provide a stable
and loving environment that has allowed [A.P.] and [Z.P.] to
thrive, develop a sense of security, and develop loving healthy
relationships.” They also were “very attentive to the children’s
emotional wellbeing.” The social worker had “observed many
areas in the children’s lives, which have improved since being
in the care of paternal uncle and wife.” The children had “a
strong and positive bond” with the P.s who loved them and
could “provide them with the stability that they need.”
4. Father’s section 388 petitions
On February 11, 2026—less than two weeks before the
permanency hearing—father filed section 388 petitions—one for
each child—asking the court to resume his family reunification
services for six months. Father alleged circumstances had
changed because he had completed 62 classes in his SOT program
and, as of January 5, 2026, had completed 46 of 52 sessions for
child abuse counseling. He contended additional reunification
services would benefit the children because he was “in a position
to safely meet the needs of the child[ren].” Father attached
27
documents relating to his services, as well as his “declaration,”
signed February 9, 2026.8
A January 5, 2026 progress report from father’s child
endangerment program stated he had completed 46 of the
52 classes required and had had perfect attendance between
December 16, 2025 and January 5, 2026. The director of father’s
SOT program clarified for father that the SOT program was
a minimum of 22 months. Completion of the program was
contingent on completion of the curriculum—40 assignments—
not the number of sessions attended. As of January 5, 2026,
father had completed 20 of 40 assignments. A January 5, 2026
progress report for the SOT program estimated—based on
the number of assignments remaining—father would complete
the program in 11 to 12 months. Father’s progress toward
“Reduction in Risk” was “[p]artially [m]et.” He “need[ed] to
complete new risk assessments soon.”
In his declaration, father wrote that he had “sincere
remorse” for his actions that led to his arrest and the removal
of his children. He stated he understood his behavior was
“wrong, horrible, unlawful, and disappointing.” Father stated
the victim told him she was 24 years old when they first met,
but later told him she was 15 years old. Father continued to talk
to her even though he “knew it was wrong” because she still gave
him “the impression that she was older.” Father stated he was
“emotionally confused” at the time and was focused on finding
the girls “a good mom.” He acknowledged the 15-year-old victim
could not “have made adult choices,” and stated he “had no idea
what a terrible impact this would have on my family.” Father
8 Father stated the information in his declaration “is true
and correct to the best of my knowledge.”
28
stated his classes and individual sessions through his SOT
program had helped him change for the better, take
accountability for his actions, and learn from his mistakes.
On February 13 and 23, 2026, the court filed its summary
denials of father’s petitions as to Z.P. and to A.P., respectively,
finding the proposed change of order did not promote the
best interests of the children.
5. Termination of parental rights
On February 23, 2026, the court held the section 366.26
hearing. A.P.—who was 12-years-old—testified. She wanted
to be adopted. She understood that if she were adopted she
might not get to see father again. A.P. testified she did not want
to visit father. Father’s counsel argued the beneficial-parent
exception to adoption applied. Counsel argued the children had
a substantial positive bond with father. He had obtained custody
of the children, they had lived with him their entire lives, and
the reports described “thoughtful and heart warming exchanges
between [father] and his daughters.” Counsel noted Z.P. had
been “steadfast from the very beginning that she want[s] to
return to father.” And, while A.P. stated she wanted to be
adopted, counsel noted she stated “she didn’t know why.”
Minors’ and DCFS’s counsel argued there was not a
substantial beneficial relationship between father and the
children that would outweigh the benefits of adoption. DCFS’s
counsel acknowledged father had maintained regular contact
and visited to the extent that he could, and the evidence showed
a bond between father and the children. Counsel argued that
bond, however, was “not one that is positive from the perspective
of the girls.”
29
The court found father had made consistent efforts to visit
the children but did not have “substantial positive emotional
attachment” to the children. The court noted the girls’
inconsistent participation in calls and their distress following
the January 2026 visits when they felt pressured by father. The
court agreed father’s January visit with the girls was “a turning
point,” especially for Z.P. The court noted father’s “disregard
of the rules and the [girls’] well-being by pressuring them,
whispering to them, and taking these actions . . . at the expense
of the girls add to the court’s finding that the girls do not have a
substantial positive emotional attachment to [father].” Even if
they did, however, the court also did not find that terminating
parental rights would be detrimental to the girls. The court
noted the girls “have suffered from P.T.S.D. and there’s extensive
evidence about concerning behaviors by [father] toward them,
toward other children, and his female partners.” The court noted
the children had been removed from father two and a half years
earlier and had lived with the P.s for almost two years, where
they had “stability and consistency.” The court noted the
children struggled with behavior issues after their first in-person
visit with father in October, and after the January visit, they
had, “for the most part,” refused phone and virtual visits with
father, “both hurt and angry by his actions.”
The court found “[t]erminating rights and being adopted
by [the P.s] would likely alleviate the emotional instability
caused by the potential[ ] of returning to their father, given
the security that the caregivers provide.” The court found no
exception to adoption applied and terminated parental rights.
Father filed a notice of appeal.
30
DISCUSSION
Father’s notice of appeal was from the orders made at
the February 23, 2026 section 366.26 hearing and the denial of
father’s section 388 petitions. As father now challenges only the
denial of his section 388 petitions, we consider that issue alone.
1. Applicable law and standard of review
Section 388 allows a parent of a dependent child to petition
the juvenile court—at any time—to change, modify, or set aside
its prior orders “upon grounds of change of circumstance or
new evidence.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) Section 388 was designed
as an “ ‘ “escape mechanism” ’ . . . [to] allow[ ] the juvenile court
to consider a legitimate change in the parent’s circumstances
after reunification services have been terminated.” (In re
Alayah J. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 469, 478 (Alayah J.).) It affords
a parent a last opportunity for continued reunification services
before the final resolution of custody status. (In re Marilyn H.
(1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 (Marilyn H.).)
Section 388 petitions are “liberally construed in favor of
granting a hearing to consider the parent’s request. [Citations.]
The parent need only make a prima facie showing to trigger the
right to proceed by way of a full hearing.” (Marilyn H., supra,
5 Cal.4th at pp. 309–310.) The prima facie showing is twofold:
the parent must demonstrate “that circumstances have changed
since the prior court order, and that the proposed change
will be in the best interests of the child.” (Alayah J., supra,
9 Cal.App.5th at p. 478; In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th
246, 250.) “ ‘A prima facie case is made if the allegations
demonstrate that these two elements are supported by probable
cause. [Citations.] It is not made, however, if the allegations
would fail to sustain a favorable decision even if they were found
31
to be true at a hearing. [Citations.] While the petition must
be liberally construed in favor of its sufficiency [citations],
the allegations must nonetheless describe specifically how
the petition will advance the child’s best interests.’ ” (In re K.L.
(2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 52, 61–62 (K.L.); see also In re Samuel A.
(2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1, 7 [petition “may not consist of ‘general,
conclusory allegations’ ”].) “In determining whether the petition
makes the required showing, the court may consider the entire
factual and procedural history of the case.” (K.L., at p. 62.)
We review the summary denial of a section 388 petition
for an abuse of discretion. (K.L., supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 62.)
“ ‘ “The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the
trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more
inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the
reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for
that of the trial court.” ’ ” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th
295, 318–319 (Stephanie M.) [reversal warranted only where
trial court’s determination is “ ‘ “arbitrary, capricious, or patently
absurd” ’ ”].) “ ‘The denial of a section 388 motion rarely merits
reversal as an abuse of discretion.’ ” (In re Daniel C. (2006)
141 Cal.App.4th 1438, 1445.)
2. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion
The juvenile court denied father’s petitions on the ground
the resumption of father’s reunification services was not in
the best interests of the children. Accordingly, we assume
the juvenile court found father presented a prima facie case
of changed circumstances or new evidence, and consider only
whether the court abused its discretion in finding father did not
establish a prima facie case that further reunification services
would benefit the children.
32
Where, as here, reunification services have been
terminated, “the parents’ interest in the care, custody and
companionship of the child are no longer paramount. Rather,
at this point ‘the focus shifts to the needs of the child for
permanency and stability’ [citation], and in fact, there is a
rebuttable presumption that continued foster care is in the
best interests of the child.” (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th
at p. 317.) Thus, “after reunification services have terminated,
a parent’s [section 388] petition for either an order returning
custody or reopening reunification efforts must establish how
such a change will advance the child’s need for permanency and
stability.” (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527 (J.C.).)
The record supports the juvenile court’s implicit finding that
father failed to make such a showing.
Father’s petitions focused on the progress he had made in
his SOT and child endangerment programs, his remorse for his
actions, and his new insight into how his “poor choices can cause
lasting harm to the victim and to my children.” Father’s sole
stated reason as to why an additional six months of reunification
services would benefit the children was that he “has participated
in programs and is in a position to safely meet the needs of
the child[ren].” Father did not explain how his alleged ability
to safely meet the needs of the children—whose physical and
emotional needs had been met for almost two years by the P.s—
would advance their need for permanency and stability.
By the time father filed his section 388 petitions—less than
two weeks before the section 366.26 hearing—the children had
been out of father’s care for two and a half years. A.P. repeatedly
had expressed her desire to stay with the P.s. Z.P. had struggled
with her feelings toward father—she had wanted to return to
33
father but was happy living with the P.s in Washington.
However, before father filed his petitions—after his January
visits—Z.P. made clear she wanted to stay with the P.s where
she “fel[t] safer.” Both she and A.P. wanted their relationship
with father to remain as it was—with a “ ‘safe person’ ” present
to monitor their interactions. Indeed, the children felt “bad”
saying no to father because they didn’t want him to get “mad.”
Father contends the record showed he “made substantial
progress in services directly tied to the protective issues that
led to dependency”—his having drugged and sexually assaulted
a minor while his children were present and having left a loaded
handgun within the children’s reach. He argues that, “[g]iven
those issues,” his “progress” in his SOT program and child abuse/
child endangerment counseling “was directly material to whether
renewed services could serve the children’s best interests.”
Yet even though he already had completed 46 of his
child endangerment classes by January 5, 2026—one of his
asserted “changed circumstances”—father nevertheless acted
inappropriately during his January 11 and 12 visits with the
children. As the court found, he disregarded the rules—and the
girls’ well-being—by pressuring them and whispering to them
about what to say in court, to their clear detriment.9
On appeal, father mentions this “problematic January 2026
visit,” but argues that evidence, and the girls’ statements that
they wanted to stay with the P.s—with whom they felt safe—
“did not justify summary denial.” Father contends an evidentiary
9 He also secretly had told the girls during his October
2025 visit that he would get them back. The court reasonably
could infer father’s conduct led to the dysregulation the girls
experienced after that visit.
34
hearing was necessary to determine whether his services had
produced meaningful changes, his remorse reflected genuine
insight, his January conduct showed a continued risk or a
remediable lapse, and the children’s statements reflected
settled views or a reaction to a difficult visit.
We disagree. Father’s declaration neither acknowledged
nor explained his behavior toward the girls. He certainly did
not provide concrete facts demonstrating further reunification
services would provide the children—who had been living in
a safe, stable, and loving home with the P.s.—with stability or
a sense of permanency. (K.L., supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 62
[allegations must “ ‘describe specifically’ ” how the change
“ ‘will advance the child’s best interests’ ”].) Despite his ongoing
participation in his programs, when it mattered most, father
still put his desires first, causing the girls’ emotional trauma.
The court thus did not act outside the bounds of reason in
finding father failed to present a prima facie case that further
reunification services—even accepting father’s declared insight
and understanding of his actions as true—would benefit the girls.
In any event, another six months of reunification services would
not have enabled father to complete his SOT program—the
provider estimated he would need almost twice that much time
to finish the required assignments. The facts here are thus in
stark contrast to those in In re Aljamie D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th
424, relied on by father, where the petitioning mother had fully
complied with her case plan and whose children wanted to live
with her. (Id. at pp. 428–429, 432–433 [mother made prima facie
showing of changed circumstances and best interests requiring
hearing before court proceeded with permanency planning].)
35
In sum, after crediting the petitions’ allegations and
evidence—and considering the history of the case—the court
reasonably could find father’s continued participation in
his programs (which he also had to complete as part of his
probation), and in monitored visits with the children, for another
six months would not further the girls’ need for stability and
permanency. If anything, the court reasonably could find that
leaving the children in limbo for another six months would
cause them further emotional instability.
We acknowledge the record reflects father participated
in his programs, consistently contacted the children, and
maintained a relationship with them. We have no doubt father
loves A.P. and Z.P. But granting father another opportunity to
reunify with the children would have served only to delay their
permanency and create more uncertainty for them. (J.C., supra,
226 Cal.App.4th at p. 527 [child’s best interests “are not to
further delay permanency and stability in favor of rewarding
Mother for her hard work and efforts to reunify”].) As father
presented no evidence to show the children’s best interests—
specifically, their need for stability and permanency—might be
served by reopening reunification services, no hearing on father’s
section 388 petitions was required. (Id. at pp. 526–527; see also
In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 465 [denial of section
388 petition without a hearing not an abuse of discretion where
parent failed to “make some factual showing that the best
interests of the child would be served by [the requested]
modification”].) We find no abuse of discretion.
36
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
DELGADO, J.*
We concur:
ADAMS, P. J.
HANASONO, J.
* Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
37