Filed 7/31/26 In re David T. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
In re David T., a Person Coming B349795
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
______________________________ Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 23CCJP02321A
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D.L.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the findings and order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles County, Kristen Byrdsong, Judge. Affirmed.
Ava Wallace, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Mother D.L. (Mother) appeals the termination of her
parental rights over her son David T. She argues that the trial
court erred when it did not appoint a guardian ad litem (GAL) for
her sua sponte. She contends the error was not harmless because
a GAL would have argued more effectively on her behalf than her
counsel did. We conclude that if the trial court erred, the error
was harmless. We affirm the termination of parental rights.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On July 12, 2023, the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (the Department) filed a petition
pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300,
subdivisions (a) and (b)(1) alleging that on July 10, 2023, Mother
brandished a knife at her son, 10-year-old David, and repeatedly
swung the knife at the child resulting in cuts and bleeding to his
hands, stomach and neck. On July 9, 2023, Mother attacked the
child by jumping toward the child and attempting to strike the
child with her hands positioned like a claw, causing David to run
away from Mother. Mother stated she will hurt the child again
by cutting him.
The petition also alleges Mother has mental and emotional
problems “including paranoia, delusions, homicidal, with
hallucination, manic, not medication compliant, danger to others,
and bizarre and erratic behaviors” which render her incapable of
providing regular care for David. On July 10, 2023, Mother was
found sitting on the bedroom floor unresponsive and blankly
staring at the wall. Mother was disorientated and was unable to
1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
2
make a meaningful statement. On July 10, 2023, and on a prior
occasion, Mother was involuntarily hospitalized for the
evaluation and treatment of her psychiatric condition. Mother
failed to consistently participate in mental health treatment
services.
Finally the petition alleges Mother was involuntarily
hospitalized with an unknown release date and was unable to
make a plan for the child’s ongoing care and supervision which
places the child at risk of serious physical and emotional harm,
damage and danger.
A. Detention Hearing
The detention report set out that on July 10, 2023, law
enforcement, responding to a 911 call, arrived at the home where
Mother was found in the bedroom on the floor conscious but
unresponsive. Her 10-year-old son David was with her. Mother
was taken to the hospital and put on a psychiatric hold. David
was taken to the sheriff’s station where he was interviewed by a
social worker. He showed the social worker the cuts on his
stomach, neck and left hand. He said Mother had attacked him
with a knife, calling him “useless” and he did not know why.
“She scared me.” He put his hands out to stop Mother from
swinging the knife at him and he was cut on his hands. David
and Mother lived together; his father committed suicide when
David was two months old.
David told the social worker he was scared of Mother and
was fearful that she would use the knife on him again. This was
the first time she had acted violently against him and she would
not stop using the knife when he cried and told her to stop. He
did not want the police to know Mother had attacked him as he
did not want Mother to go to jail. The night before she had tried
3
to claw him and he ran away from her. She later asked him to
take a walk with her outside to get some fresh air. David
thought this was not normal. He said Mother’s doctor gave her
some medication but he does not know if she is taking it. He
wanted to wait for Mother at the hospital but wanted someone to
make sure she would not attack him again.
At the hospital Mother was interviewed by a social worker.
Mother stated she was fine and needed to leave. She had mental
health concerns when her husband committed suicide but she
said she no longer has any mental health concerns. Mother
stated her doctor had given her sleeping medication which she
had not taken. Mother stated, “I made my son bleed but I tell
you, I meant to do that, to push him away. . . . I need to get him
away from me, so I can go up.” She did not clarify what she
meant by “go up.” Mother stated people in China would know
what that means. The social worker asked Mother if she would
like services to help her get her son back and Mother stated, “I’ll
think about it.”
The next day Mother told the psych evaluator at the
hospital that she felt “cutting the child was a good way to
discipline.” She said she would “do it again.” The psychiatric
progress notes from the 5150 hold state: “This is a 50 y/o
Cantonese speaking female, she is brought in the ER after she
attacked her son with a sharp object. She is paranoid and
delusional and danger to others.” Mental status exam indicated
Mother was “disheveled appearance, uncooperative behavior,
hyperverbal speech, anxious and manic in mood, person
orientation, inappropriate affect, loose association in thought
process, paranoid thought content, with hallucination, homicidal,
and not medication compliance.” The recommendation was to
4
transfer Mother to an inpatient psychiatric unit once she was
medically cleared as she was not safe to discharge.
On July 13, 2023, the juvenile court held a detention
hearing, detained David from Mother and ordered him into
Shelter Care under the supervision of the Department. Notably,
as is relevant later in the Discussion section of this opinion, the
court tried to coax David to take a piece of candy, a book and a
teddy bear. He declined twice, until the court told him the gifts
were free. The court permitted monitored visitation for Mother,
three times per week for three hours per visit. David was
eventually placed with foster parents.
B. Adjudication and Disposition Hearing
In preparation for the adjudication and disposition hearing,
the Department prepared a report. David was again interviewed
on July 30, 2023. Shortly after his birth, he and Mother lived in
China for six years. They returned to the United States when he
was about six years old. He said his usual routine was to get up,
make his own breakfast, and go to school. Mother walked him to
and from school daily. When he returned home, he did his
homework, played, studied, ate dinner and went to bed. On
occasion, he and Mother went to church on weekends. David said
he wanted to go home with Mother whom he missed “sooooo
much.” He refused to talk about the cutting incident.
Mother was also interviewed on August 2, 2023. She stated
she cut David because she had told him to stop and he did not
listen to her, so she “cut him a little bit on the hand.” She could
not articulate clearly what David was doing at the time she told
him to stop. Mother appeared “oblivious and non-understanding
as to her mental health condition.” She denied having a mental
health diagnosis and said the only reason she had a mental
5
breakdown 10 years ago was because of her husband’s death.
She acknowledged that she is seeing a doctor and taking
medication.
Mother was able to give accurate information on David’s
medical and dental providers and on his developmental
milestones. She had no concerns about his academics and
described him as a well-behaved, good child who listens well. The
Department contacted several paternal relatives who all declined
to provide shelter and care for David.
David’s caregivers were interviewed. He was adjusting to
living with them and their biological children who share a room
with him and say he cries at night. He appeared very sheltered
because when they took him to the beach and a museum, he told
them this was the first time he had been to these places.
Mother visited David on July 24, 2023, and brought food for
him. She had telephone contacts with him on August 2 and
August 26, 2023. No concerns were reported.
The Department social workers advised Mother of the
timeline for reunification services. Mother said she did not
understand the advisement. She wanted to reunify with her son
and the social workers advised her to comply with her
medications and treatment plan. Mother nodded her head and
said she would comply.
In its report, the Department concluded Mother’s mental
health disorders impact her ability to take care of her son. She
had a crisis on July 10, 2023 and a mental health crisis 10 years
previous when her husband died. The Department believed
Mother needs mental health treatment and medication support
for mental stability. “As of the writing of this report, there is no
evidence the mother complies with medication and treatment as
6
she does not have a plan for ongoing treatment. The Department
acknowledges the mother for taking proper care of David for the
past 10 years, and that is evident by David’s strong attachment
and bonding towards her. Currently, the mother’s mental health
remain unresolved, and therefore, child safety concern remains.”
The Department recommended family reunification services for
Mother and David and concludes that “it is imperative that the
mother participates and complies with all mental health
treatment and medications for her mental wellbeing and to
mitigate any safety concerns.”
On September 8, 2023, the court conducted an adjudication
and disposition hearing. Mother was not present and her counsel
advised the court that attempts to contact Mother had been
unsuccessful. Counsel requested a continuance which the court
denied. The court then entertained argument on the petition.
Mother’s counsel argued that the petition should be dismissed as
the cutting incident appeared to be a one-off, there was no
current risk because Mother was receiving psychiatric services,
and no evidence supported the notion that a similar incident
would occur in the future.
The court sustained the petition as pled on all counts. It
found that Mother was refusing to respond to the Department’s
efforts to contact her and had shown an “inability to address her
mental health and violent outburst at this time, as well as her
hallucinations.” It ordered David removed from Mother to
protect David’s physical health. It confirmed David’s current
placement, ordered family reunifications services for Mother and
David and ordered the Department to review the case plan with
Mother, and to provide Mother’s therapist with copies of the
sustained petition and all court reports.
7
C. Six-Month Review
The Department prepared a status review report for the
juvenile court. It advised the court that David remained with his
foster parents. He wanted to reunify with Mother, saying Mother
“is the best mother in the world.” Otherwise David had adjusted
and adapted well at his placement. He felt good and safe there,
had a good relationship with the foster parents and their
children, and enjoyed going to the beach with them. He
reiterated that he enjoyed visiting and spending time with
Mother. He loved her cooking and he was excited about playing
with Mother at the beach. He would comfort Mother when she
appeared to be sad or crying.
David was described by his school as cooperative, a
pleasure to work with, and liked by his peers. His emotions
appeared to have stabilized with the help of the foster parents
and his therapist. He built a rapport with his therapist who was
teaching him to use coping skills to deal with emotional stress
and his separation from Mother.
Mother stated she wanted David to come home to her and
asked often when he could return home. She was confused why
David had been removed from her care and she repeatedly asked
what she needed to do to reunify with David. The social worker
and Mother’s therapist and case manager repeatedly explained to
and reminded Mother what she needed to do. She had been
ordered to attend a parenting class, for which she was deemed
not capable due to her mental health condition. She had been
ordered to receive a psychiatric evaluation and take all
prescribed medications. She was evaluated, but declined to take
the prescribed medication, even though she continued to have
visual and auditory hallucinations. She had been ordered to
8
attend anger management and had not yet been deemed suitable
to attend the class. Finally, she was ordered to receive individual
counseling to address case issues. Mother attended counseling on
a weekly basis through the end of 2023, but was a no-show for
her sessions on January 22 and February 5, 2024. Her therapist
stated he might end services for Mother if she missed another
session.
During their time together, Mother would kiss and hug
David. She could engage in a conversation and interact with
David; however, she sometimes would disengage, walk away from
David, and appear disoriented. She would remain quiet. At
other times she would laugh to herself suddenly for no reason.
She also had episodes of mood swing. She would raise her voice
and yell or blame David sternly. David appeared shut down by
Mother’s yelling and he cried on a couple of occasions. The two
appeared to have a close relationship with each other and Mother
told David she loves him and wanted to reunite with him.
Mother would tell David to tell his attorney and the judge that he
wanted to go home with her.
The status report concluded in boldface: “During this period
of supervision, the mother repeatedly asked what is needed for
her child David to be back with her. At times, she appeared to
be confused as to the reason that led to the removal of
David. At times, she would apologize to David, as it was
her ‘fault that led to the current situation.’ She stated
that she was a bad mother, and she would not be able to
get David back with her. At times, she stated that she was
being targeted, and thus, she could not get David back
with her no matter what she did. The mother’s therapist,
case manager, and CSW have repeatedly gone over the court-
9
ordered case plan and explained to the mother what she needed
to do to reunite with David. From time to time, the mother would
ask what she needed to do again. At the initial stage of the
case, CSW needed to actively connect the mother with her
counseling agency because she did not answer nor return
calls. With the help of the mother’s friends, the mother
started to receive counseling services on 10/17/2023 and
psychiatric services on 12/19/2023. The mother’s friends
accompanied the mother to her counseling sessions. They
also reminded the mother repeatedly for her appointment
with the psychiatrist. Per therapist Mr. Yau, the mother
has had two no-show[s] to her counseling sessions since
her friends had stopped accompanying her at the end of
2023. Although the mother has told her psychiatrist that
she has been taking the prescribed psychotropic
medication, she also told her therapist Mr. Yau and case
manager Mr. Chan that she did not take the psychotropic
medication because she did not have any mental problem
and she did not feel good with the side effect of the
medication, respectively. The mother’s mental state
appeared to be unstable, as evidenced by her report of
ongoing visual and auditory hallucinations, her mood
swing during the Family Time with child David, her
withdrawal during the Family Time with child David, and
her inappropriate affect during the Family Time with
child David. The mother has yet to enroll for parenting class or
anger management class, as she was deemed not suitable to
participate under her current mental state. Based on the
mother’s little progress on her mental stability and Court-ordered
programs, the Department believe[s] that there is a substantial
10
risk of neglect and/or physical or emotional harm over child
David if he is to return to the care of the mother at this stage.
Due to the mother’s current mental state and a lack of social
support, there is not a substantial probability of child David
returning home to the mother by 09/06/2024.”
The report continued: “Throughout this case period, the
mother did repeatedly state her wishes to reunite with
David, but she also had episodes when she stated she
could not get David back with her because she was being
targeted. She has failed to acknowledge her mistake, and
more so, she appeared incapable of gaining insight over
her mental health issues. She has provided contradicting
statements over her use of psychotropic medications. It is
difficult to prove whether the mother has taken her
medications, but based on her symptoms like visual and
auditory hallucinations, laughing to self, and withdrawal
while she was with David, it did appear that her mental
state has been unstable. Due to her lack of insight of her
own mental health needs, the mother possesses a
significant level of risk when she is with David. It would
be a similar situation like that [which] led to the
involvement of the Department. David would be at risk of
negligent act from the mother, and his emotional and
physical well-being would be in jeopardy if he is to return
to the mother at this stage.”
The Department recommended an extension of
reunification services for Mother because of its concern over
Mother’s capability to care, provide and protect David properly
and safely.
11
On March 7, 2024, the court was prepared to conduct a
six-month review hearing. Mother was not present. Mother’s
counsel wanted to contest the Department’s report. The hearing
was continued to March 25, 2024.
On March 25, 2024, Mother’s counsel argued that she was
“asking for a home-of-parent order today. Mother believes she is
able to appropriately parent David. It is my understanding that
David would really like to return home as well. Mother and
David have very good visits and there have been no noted safety
concerns. [¶] Mother would like the court to know that she really
misses David, and they have an incredibly strong bond.” The
Department and minor’s counsel argued that a change of
placement was not warranted given that Mother’s mental state
continued to be unstable and she had not yet addressed case
issues. She was not taking her prescribed medications as she did
not think she has any problems, despite reporting visual and
auditory hallucinations.
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that
David’s return to mother would create a substantial risk of
detriment to him, creating a continued necessity for and
appropriateness of the current placement. The court also found
Mother’s progress “unsubstantial” but continued reunification
services for her. It found that “Mother needs more time to
address her mental health and address case issues and
demonstrate an understanding and an ability to address these
issues.”
D. 12-Month Review
In preparation for the 12-month review, the Department
advised the court that Mother had “numerous no-shows” to her
counseling sessions. She had her last counseling session over the
12
phone on August 19, 2024. She has not seen her psychiatrist
since May 7, 2024. Her therapist and case manager had a
difficult time contacting her. She did not take any of her
psychotropic medication because she felt she did not need it. She
did not complete the screening for the parenting class. During
her family time with David, she could engage in a conversation
with him. However, she would disengage, walk away from David
and appear disoriented. It happened more often than not in the
most recent month of August. On August 25, 2024, Mother was
by herself for almost half of their time together. She did not
communicate or interact with David. She cooked food for him,
and they ate separately. David ate in the room watching videos
on his laptop while Mother ate by the kitchen countertop.
Mother continued to say she wanted to reunite with David.
The Department advised the court in boldface: “It is to
note that the mother has stayed at home with David more
often than not in the past two months. It was observed
that the mother has been to herself more than in the past.
She would stare at a point and she would not move nor
engage with David. The mother appeared to have such
‘episode’ for a longer time and more often in the past
month. On 08/11/2024, the mother spent more than half of
the Family Time sitting in bed by herself or star[ing] out a
window in the kitchen or living room. On 08/17/2024,
David observed the mother putting up the mattress to the
side of the bed when he arrived at the mother’s residence.
He asked the mother about it, but she did not respond to
David, and she star[ed] at the laptop. David asked the
mother what had happened, and he asked the mother to
talk to him. The mother looked on and remained silent.
13
After David had asked repeatedly, the mother told David
not to speak. David reached out and asked the mother to
move and talk instead of staying still and looking on. The
mother told David not to touch the items on the small
table while she was looking at it. David prompted the
mother to talk to him repeatedly, as he appeared to be
concerned of the mother. After a couple minutes, the
mother told David to keep quiet. David reached out again
and held onto her hands. David told the mother that it
was not good for her to stay still and look on. He
continued to explain to the mother while she told him to
walk away. They went back and forth until the mother
slapped on David’s left thigh. CSW Lee told the mother
not to hit David. David walked away and played his
LEGO by the small table. He started to cry. The mother
looked on and sat at the edge of the bed. After a few
minutes, the mother remained sitting still while David
continued sobbing. David then reached out to the mother
and stated his concerns to her. He asked, ‘Why you have
become such a mother, MaMa? You were a very kind
mother before, but you have got a bad temper now? You
blamed me. You just looked on and did not talk to me?
That’s not good for you. You cannot just stay still. You
need to move. You cannot keep thinking.’ The mother
smiled and said that David should mind his own business.
He should play [with] his toys and she would do her
thinking. She said that David should not interrupt her.
David said he cared about her, so he needed to
communicate with her. He said if he did not care, he
would not come visiting. He visited her because he loves
14
her. David sat on the mother’s lap[] and hugged her. The
mother said she needed to do her thinking, and David
should leave her alone. She then told David to stand up,
as she needed to use the bathroom. The mother walked
out to the living room and stood still looking on. David
went out and saw the mother standing by the front door.
He then returned to the room and watched videos. On
08/25/2024, the mother spent more than half of the Family
Time sitting still in bed and star[ed] at the floor. She did
not talk nor interact with David until the last hour of a
six-hour visit. . . . David has cried a few times during his
Family Time with the mother on 09/03/2024. It was due to
the mother’s unstable mental health state. [¶] It appeared
that the quality of the Family Time has deteriorated
sharply in the past month. It appeared that the mother’s
mental health challenges have gotten worse during this
past case period, due to a lack of treatment. The ‘frozen’
moments of her not engaging David have happened more
frequently and for an extended period of time. It has
negatively impacted the mother’s interaction and
relationship with David. It has also led to David’s
emotional instabilities, as evidenced by his crying
episodes during or at the end of the Family Time.”
The Department recommended that due to Mother’s lack of
progress on her mental stability and court-ordered programs,
there was a substantial risk of neglect or physical or emotional
harm to David if he returned to the care of his mother. Because
it felt the quality of their time together had deteriorated, the
Department recommended that they see each other only one time
per week for two hours. The Department also recommended
15
terminating reunification services for Mother and it would assess
permanency planning for David.
At the 12-month review on September 23, 2024, Mother
and David requested a contested hearing on the issue of
terminating reunification services. Before the hearing date, the
Department filed a “Last Minute Information” report to advise
the court of another incident on October 5, 2024, when Mother
spent most of the time with David sitting on the edge of the bed,
staring. David pulled Mother up from the bed and pulled her to
the door of the room. She returned to sit in bed. She ignored
David’s requests for something to eat and appeared to be
occupied. The monitoring social worker watched David make
himself a meal. He asked Mother if she wanted something to eat.
She continued to sit in bed. She began to wave her hands in the
air. She did not engage with him, even when they drove to In-N-
Out Burger to get something to eat. Mother appeared
“significantly occupied” and unable to focus on David. (Boldface
omitted.) It was noted that on October 12, 2024, Mother had
dragged David up from where he was sitting on the floor, hurting
his hand. Mother only stopped when the social worker
intervened. The Department concluded that not only was her
ability to interact with David deteriorating but also her capability
to manage her own care was in question.
On October 22, 2024, the court held a contested 12-month
review hearing. Mother was not present. Her counsel requested
a continuance because he had not been able to get in touch with
Mother. The request was denied. Mother’s counsel asked for
services to continue for his client. “Mother has clearly engaged in
services. The report documents that she’s participating in
individual counseling. While it does note that she has missed
16
some sessions, she is engaged in counseling. Mother has also
been screened for parenting. Although she’s expressed some
reluctance to proceed, she has enrolled in parenting. [¶] . . . This
is a mental health case and Mother’s conduct is consistent with
the sustained allegations, which she is mitigating through her
individual counseling and parenting and the case plan services
that she will be able to take in the future when ready.” Finding
Mother’s progress “satisfactory,” the court continued
reunification services and set another status review for January
22, 2025. The court found: “Mother is addressing some case
issues. She definitely needs time to address her untreated
mental health, her current hallucinations, her current inability to
care for David. [¶] The court will allow her to have three more
months. It’s possible if she avails herself of all of the
recommended services, she can be in a position to reunify with
David.” The court ordered Mother’s visitation to remain the
same if the next two visits went well.
E. 18-Month Review
The Department noted in its status review report to the
court that “Mother did not continue mental health treatment and
continues exhibiting psychotic symptoms during the family time.
Mother continues hallucination and [delusion] behavior by
talking to self without proving of the person whom she interacts
with. Mother also lacks interaction with David and not very
responsive to David’s requests observed by the monitor during
the visits.” “David tries to interact with mother but her response
was limited which triggered David’s emotions negatively. David
has excessive worries about his mother who does not want to
receive mental health treatment. David expressed guilt that he
can’t take care of his mother when she is not feeling well. Even
17
though mother and David ha[ve] a close bond but mother’s
abnormal reaction and behavior have caused negative impact on
David emotionally. David would cry and did not want to leave
the home after the visit. The emotional burden to David is
beyond his emotional capability of age to absorb; therefore,
reduced . . . family time appeared to be in the best interest of
David.” The Department noted that “David previously stated he
wanted to go home to his mother and that his mother treated him
well, and he wanted to live with her. On 12/14/2024, child David
shared that he feels safe to stay with his current resource parents
if his mother is not able to get well to take care of him at this
time.”
Mother continued to state that she did not know what she
needed to do to get her child back with her. She had numerous
no-shows to her counseling sessions. She still had not seen her
psychiatrist since May 7, 2024. She was not taking her
medication because she felt she did not need it and had yet to
enroll in parenting or anger management classes because she
was deemed not suitable to participate under her current mental
state. She also declined a third parenting class screening.
The Department concluded: “Throughout this case period,
the mother did repeatedly state her wishes to reunite with David,
but she also repeatedly asked about services the court has
ordered upon her. Due to her lack of insight of her own mental
health needs, the mother possesses a significant level of risk
when she is with David. The risk level has not be[en] decreased
since the case came to the attention of the Department. David
would be at risk of negligent act from the mother, and his
emotional and physical well-being would be in jeopardy if he is to
return to the mother’s care. It appeared that the mother’s mental
18
state is a significant factor that prevents the progress of the
family’s reunification. The Department could not envision the
mother to improve on her condition due to lack of treatment. In
the past year of case period, the mother’s mental state appeared
to have deteriorated to the extent that the mother could not
engage David with quality time.” (Boldface omitted.) The
Department recommended terminating reunification services for
Mother and assessing a permanency plan for David.
The Department updated its report on visitation on
February 20, 2025. It advised the court that Mother continued
exhibiting hallucination and delusion symptoms during the
visits. She is not responsive to interact with David and sits at a
place quietly and seems to engage in a mental activity with some
voices. Mother would utter some statements that do not match
the scenario. David would ask Mother whom she was talking to
but she did not respond. David was upset about Mother’s
response. “The quality of the visitation was poor.” David advised
the social worker he knows that Mother cannot take care of him
at this time and he hopes she will receive treatment and get
better so he can return to live with her. None of his family
members showed interest in providing permanency to David. His
current caregivers were willing to adopt him.
After continuing the hearing for four weeks at Mother’s
request, the court conducted the 18-month review on February
25, 2025. Mother was not present and did not pick up her phone
when called by the clerk. Mother’s counsel asked for another
continuance because he had not been in touch with Mother. He
pointed out Mother “had a limited ability to complete her case
plan.” The court denied the request. It found Mother’s progress
“unsubstantial.” The court noted Mother “repeatedly
19
demonstrated an inability to address case issues, an inability to
address her untreated mental health issues. She’s continuing to
exhibit very concerning behavior during the visits, including
hallucinations, talking to the air and not really interacting with
David.” It terminated reunification services for Mother and set a
permanency planning hearing for June 24, 2025.
F. Section 366.26 Permanency Planning Hearing
On May 20, 2025 and June 6, 2025, the Department filed
Declarations of Due Diligence setting out its unsuccessful efforts
to locate Mother who had disappeared around late February
2025. Mother had moved out of her home and did not notify the
Department of her current address or whereabouts. As of March
13, 2025, her cell phone was no longer in service.
On August 29, 2025, the Department provided another
status review report. Mother’s last visit with David was on
February 18, 2025. After that her whereabouts were unknown
until July 30, 2025, when Mother contacted the Department to
request a visit with David. David agreed to visit with Mother but
admitted feeling anxious about seeing her. The visit occurred on
August 13, 2025. Mother “appeared to be impatient and
redirected the conversation with David when David tried to
express and share his religious beliefs with the mother. David
reported that he enjoys his visit with mother and would like to
continue with the visit.” On August 13, 2025, David stated he
would like to continue to live in his current home and only visit
with Mother. He stated that he loves his current family and feels
he is part of the family. He does not want to tell Mother that he
would like to remain in the foster home because he does not want
to see her sad. He agreed to be adopted by his foster parents.
20
On September 16, 2025, Mother filed a petition to reinstate
reunification services under section 388 because “David deserves
a meaningful opportunity to reunify with a stable parent, and
mother is engaged in services that will allow for reunification.”
Mother told the court that she had completed a mental health
evaluation and is participating in treatment including three
sessions of individual therapy. She also began attending
parenting classes on August 22, 2025 with no absences. The
court set the petition for a hearing and ordered the Department
to “provide counsel and the court with an update as to whether
these services are helping Mother to appropriately interact with
David as she used to in 2023.” When the Department objected
and argued no change in circumstances, the court responded: “I
disagree. What if she’s getting the help she needs to be able to
interact with David? I don’t know that and I’d like to know that.”
The Department opposed the section 388 petition. Mother
had told the Department that she went to China because the
maternal grandparents had a medical crisis and needed support.
Mother stated upon her return she rented a room in a house for
$600 per month. She shared the house with the landlord and the
landlord’s elderly mother. They all attended the same church in
Torrance. She currently participated in weekly virtual parenting
education, individual counseling and recently enrolled in an
anger management program. She stated she is learning to
manage her emotions and self-care. She denied taking her
prescribed medication. She stated she has been feeling fine and
still does not understand why David has been in placement for
over 27 months. She stated her mental health was stable and
she denied hallucinations, paranoia, or self-harm ideas. When
21
told David was happy with the current caregivers, Mother stated
that David is her son and he needed to be with her.
On October 3, 2025, David was interviewed. He reported
he had been having weekly family time with Mother. He
“described the visits as fine but strange. He said Mother [was]
repeatedly telling him about the way he was sitting.
Furthermore, he felt awkward and uncomfortable about the
mother telling and pressuring him to tell the Department that he
wants to reunite with her.” David stated he does not feel safe
with Mother, does not want to reunite with her and stated “No, I
want to stay here.” (Boldface omitted.) He continued to say that
he wants the caregivers to be his adoptive parents so he can live
with them until he grows up.
During his visit with Mother on September 25, 2025, she
told David more than 10 times to tell his attorney he wants to
come back. She tried to give David a piece of paper with her
address on it, but David did not take it and told the monitor
about it afterwards. After the visit David said he was fine and
was not bothered by Mother’s behavior.
On October 14, 2025, the court heard argument on Mother’s
section 388 petition. Mother was present. Her counsel argued
“Mother demonstrated a change in circumstances. In the
Department’s 388 report, they note that Mother has been
engaged in five sessions of parenting. She’s been engaged in
individual counseling since August. She’s been engaged in anger
management, completing three sessions, since Mother had first
enrolled when this 388 was filed. This level of participation in
the last two months is a stark change from the conduct that
occurred when Mother’s family reunification services were. [¶] . . .
[¶] This is a stark change from Mother’s conduct. When her
22
family reunification services were terminated, Mother was
largely unresponsive and disengaged from her case plan and
during visits. [¶] With regard to the second prong of the minor’s
best interest, it’s very clear that David has been firmly attached
to Mother and his suffering early in this case was evident at
Mother’s lack of responsiveness. In the most recent visits,
Mother is engaged with David. They have mentioned in a 388
report, Mother asking repeatedly about David’s intention to
return to Mother. And I certainly have counseled her on
discussing case issues. [¶] What is very clear with regard to the
visit is that Mother is actively concerned with David, that she’s
very much aware of his preference, that he was a priority in her
life and that commitment, the level that she’s demonstrating, I do
believe David is a little reluctant to understand just as he didn’t
understand when his Mother was disengaged. He’s young and
doesn’t necessarily understand the mental health picture. [¶]
What I’m asking today is for Mother to be given a period of family
reunification where she can complete these services that she is
obviously actively engaged in at this time, that Mother can
continue to visit with David and not to discuss case issues but
discuss David’s life and interest and support him, which she has
a strong desire to do. Through services, she should be able to
develop the skills that she needs to maintain a proper focus in
her son’s life. [¶] Frankly, her level of action in the last two
months implies she will continue to do that and I believe that’s a
benefit to David and it’s in his best interest to give him an
opportunity to reunify with a loving and stable Mother.”
Counsel for David and for the Department acknowledged
Mother’s new engagement in services, but both opposed
reinstating reunification services. David had expressed a desire
23
to remain with his current caregivers and to be adopted by them.
The Department noted her unexplained and sudden absence from
the country and her recent requests to David to tell the court
about his desire to return home, without asking him if he indeed
wanted that outcome.
The juvenile court denied the section 388 petition finding
no change in circumstances. The court stated: “[I]t does not seem
she’s learned or benefited from [services], given her most recent
behavior . . . describing Mother as making David very
uncomfortable during the visit, focusing on how he’s sitting and
David, himself describes her behavior as strange, and the fact
that 10 times she’s trying to encourage David to break the rules
of visitation, take down her number, which she wrote on a piece
of paper and trying to give him her number, trying to repeatedly
coach him to tell his attorney that he wants to return home. [¶]
All of this badgering . . . , not even asking David what he wants
or how he feels and the fact that she was gone from February to
August, she clearly has not benefited from the services. If
anything, she’s in the process of hopefully benefiting from those
services. Given that David does not want to return to her care,
given that he doesn’t feel safe with her or stable because of her
very concerning behavior, given he wants to remain with the
caregivers where he’s thriving where he feels stable. He’s
honestly like a different person. [¶] The court remembers vividly
when he appeared in this court, he was so timid and scared. He
didn’t even realize he could take a piece of candy and a book. For
all of these reasons, the court does not find either prong of the
388 has been met. And for those reasons, it is denied.”
The court then proceeded to the issue of terminating
Mother’s parental rights. Mother’s counsel argued: “She has
24
been impaired in visiting by her mental health condition, which
she returned to China to address. Her return from China clearly
shows, as the court indicated, changing circumstances. I would
put forward that the impact of her being absent was to address a
medical need. Mother has visited as able, again, as confined by
the medical need associated with her mental health.”
The juvenile court found no applicable exception to
adoption, determined by clear and convincing evidence that it
would be detrimental to the child to be returned to Mother, and
terminated Mother’s parental rights. The court found
appropriate the permanent plan of adoption.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review
In any proceeding where an incompetent person is a party,
the person must appear through a GAL appointed by the court.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 372.) GALs stand in the place of the
incompetent parent and assist counsel in making tactical
decisions. The foremost consideration of a GAL is the interest of
the incompetent parent. (In re M.P. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th
441, 460.)
The test for incompetency in a dependency case is whether
the parent has the capacity to understand the nature or
consequences of the proceedings and to assist counsel in
preparing the case. (In re James F. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 901, 910.)
Alternatively, if the parent is unable to provide properly for his or
her personal needs for physical health, food, clothing or shelter,
appointment of a GAL is warranted. (Id. at p. 916.) The
25
incompetent parent then cedes management and control of the
litigation to the GAL. (Id. at p. 904.)
The circumstances under which appointment of a GAL for a
parent in a dependency proceeding may occur may vary widely
from case to case. (In re Sara D. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 661, 671.)
Once the juvenile court has knowledge of a parent’s
incompetency, the court has an obligation to appoint a GAL sua
sponte. (In re Lisa M. (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 915, 919.) A parent
may challenge on appeal the juvenile court’s decision not to
appoint a GAL even if the parent did not raise the issue in the
juvenile court. (In re A.C. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 146, 155–156.)
We review a juvenile court’s decision not to appoint a GAL
sua sponte under the abuse of discretion standard of review. (In
re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1368.) Discretion is
abused when a decision is arbitrary, capricious or patently
absurd and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice. (In re
Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 166, 180.) Appellant has the
burden of proving abuse of discretion; error is not presumed. (See
People v. Picazo (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 778, 802.)
If a parent is able to affirmatively demonstrate that the
juvenile court abused its discretion in not appointing a GAL, we
next consider whether the error was prejudicial to the parent,
that is, whether a different result would have been probable had
the error not occurred. (In re A.C., supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at
p. 159; In re N.J. (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 96, 127 [in assessing
whether an error is prejudicial, we ask whether there is a
reasonable probability of a different result absent the error].) A
finding of prejudice must be based on a claim of prejudice rather
than speculation of possible prejudice—because it is simply
inefficient to reverse a dependency judgment based upon
26
speculation that an offending parent may have handled the case
differently than his or her GAL. (In re Esmeralda S. (2008)
165 Cal.App.4th 84, 96.) Similarly, speculation of possible
prejudice because a GAL may have influenced counsel to handle
the case differently is no basis to reverse a dependency judgment.
B. Analysis
Mother contends that after the court was put on notice of
her mental illness, three important hearings occurred: a section
366.22 hearing on whether reunification services should be
terminated; a section 388 hearing on Mother’s petition for
resumption of reunification services based on changed
circumstances and the best interests of the child; and the final
section 366.26 permanency planning hearing. Mother argues
that had a GAL been present at each of these hearings, Mother’s
position would have been better explained to the court. She
argues that at the section 366.22 hearing, “a GAL would have
aided Mother’s counsel in arguing more vigorously on her behalf
and explaining that her ‘limited ability to complete her case plan’
was really her debilitating mental illness that left her detached
from reality and those she loved.” At the section 388 hearing, a
GAL “would have emphasized that after months of worsening
hallucinations and disturbing mental health symptoms, the
positive visits with David with no evidence of hallucinations as
well as participation in treatment were certainly changed
circumstances.” Finally at the section 366.26 hearing, a GAL
would have “ensured that counsel and the juvenile court
understood that Mother’s apparent noncompliance,
disengagement, and absence were not a matter of indifference to
the proceedings, but symptoms of her mental illness that
prevented her from grasping what was required of her.”
27
Assuming without deciding that the juvenile court should
have appointed a GAL, we conclude any error was harmless.
First, all the argument and conclusions Mother contends a GAL
would have proffered to the court were in the Department’s
reports in bold lettering and were argued to the court by Mother’s
counsel, as our summary of the proceedings shows. The record
reflects that the court, the Department, and counsel were all well
aware of the impact Mother’s mental health issues were having
on her and on her son. The transcripts of the hearings show that
every participant in David’s case acted with empathy for Mother’s
illness and her recovery efforts. Mother has not suggested any
argument or contention that her counsel omitted or failed to
bring to the court’s attention. Nor does Mother argue that
counsel in some way waived or compromised her rights or did not
ensure that the juvenile court had all the facts straight. Nor
could Mother make such an argument as the record reflects that
at every inflection point, Mother’s counsel continued to advocate
on her behalf to persuade the court to give her more time to
recover from her illness. Indeed, Mother suggests only that
counsel’s argument would have been better if he had been guided
by a GAL. We do not agree.
As to the juvenile court, Mother points to no particular
judicial statement, action, or conduct that would lead anyone to
believe the juvenile court did not have a command of all relevant
facts. Neither does Mother argue that the facts before the
juvenile court were in error. In short, Mother participated in the
proceedings through her counsel who advocated for her on exactly
the same issues she contends a GAL would have raised on her
behalf. And the court, recognizing her illness, gave her numerous
opportunities to start her recovery. It finally terminated her
28
parental rights when it became apparent that David’s need for
stability outweighed any benefit he received from his
deteriorating relationship with Mother.
Second, under these circumstances there is no reasonable
probability that the juvenile court, or any juvenile court, would
not have terminated Mother’s parental rights when it did. After
18 months of reunification services and several months where
Mother disappeared without a trace and without advising
anyone, including her son, the court, the Department, counsel,
her service providers, and her son’s foster parents of her
whereabouts, Mother’s mental health improved or worsened on a
month-to-month basis. She appeared at times to be adhering to
her treatment protocols and at other times, to be in denial about
the necessity to treat her illness. She continued to insist, after 18
months into the proceedings, that she did not understand what
she had to do to get her son back and why she had to do it.
Similar to the parent in In re Daniel S. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th
903, 913, she appeared unable to process anything.
There was no alternative but to remove David from her
care. Mother had a mental illness that disabled her from
participating in reunification services, she was not taking her
medication, and she had been involuntarily hospitalized because
she was a danger to herself and others. She continued to assert
that she would cut David again as she thought it was appropriate
discipline. Maybe she would not have stabilized on her
medication, but we do not know because she would not take it.
She posed a physical and emotional danger to her son, who was
well aware of that danger and was afraid of being returned to
her. Under these circumstances, there is no universe in which a
court would have returned David to Mother and would not have
29
terminated her parental rights. Mother was not prejudiced by
the trial court’s failure to appoint a GAL on her behalf.
Inasmuch as Mother was never ready to assume custody of
David due to her mental condition, we cannot think of any
conceivable additional testimony, facts, or argument Mother
could have presented that would have altered the juvenile court’s
decision to terminate her parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The findings and order of the juvenile court are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, P. J.
We concur:
VIRAMONTES, J.
SCHERB, J.
30