In re Delilah G.

















Filed 7/24/12 In re Delilah G. CA2/7

>

>

>

>

>

>

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SEVEN




>

In re DELILAH G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	B237743 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK76203)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JENNIFER G., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from
an order of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County, Marilyn H. Mackel, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Lee
Gulliver, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

John F.
Krattli, Acting County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and
Jeanette Cauble, Senior Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

>INTRODUCTION



Jennifer G. (Mother) appeals from an order denying her
second and third petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388,href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^[1] by which she sought to have her three-year-old
twin daughters, Delilah and Denise, returned to her custody and to receive href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">family maintenance services. We affirm.



FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND



A detailed
discussion of the factual and procedural background of this case is set forth
in our decision in In re Delilah G. (Dec. 7, 2011, B231675) [nonpub.
opn.], which followed the denial of her first section 388 petition. Briefly summarized, the facts leading up to
our previous opinion are as follows:

The twins
were detained in February 2009, when they were a few months old. Mother, who was then 16 years old, had mental
health problems and was unable to care properly for the twins. The twins were declared dependents of the
court under section 300, subdivision (b), and they were placed with
paternal relatives.href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"
title="">^[2]

Mother
received 18 months of reunification services.
During that time, she visited with the twins, participated in therapy
and parenting classes, and obtained a full-time job. Ultimately, however, she stopped therapy, her
participation in parenting classes was sporadic, and her work interfered with
visitation. The juvenile court found
Mother was not in compliance with her case plan. It terminated her reunification services and
set a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing.

Mother
filed her first section 388 petition on February
17, 2011, seeking to have the twins returned to her custody. She explained that since the href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">juvenile court terminated reunification
services and set a permanency planning hearing, “Mother has been in individual
counseling . . . since November
22, 2010. Mother continues
to attend Young Moms Program . . . . Mother continues to enjoy regular unmonitored
visits with the [twins]. Mother
continues to have steady employment.”
She believed it would be in the twins’ best interests to be returned to
her because they were “strongly bonded with the Mother and . . .
continue to have a strong relationship with the maternal grandmother. Mother is a young parent but has made efforts
to comply with the case plan to ensure a safe home for the [twins].”

On March 8,
2011, the juvenile court denied Mother’s petition without a hearing. It explained that the petition did not state
new evidence or a change of circumstances, and the proposed change would not
promote the twins’ best interests.
Mother filed her notice of appeal from the court’s order.href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">^[3]

Mother
filed a second section 388 petition on July 26, 2011. The juvenile court granted a hearing on that
petition. Before the hearing could be
completed, Mother filed her third section 388 petition on September 16,
2011. Again, the court granted a hearing
on the petition.

As changed
circumstances, Mother stated that she “continues to regularly attend the Young
Moms Program (2 year program) and consistently attends weekly therapy at San
Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center.
Further, Mother is compliant with prescribed medication and had a recent
[Evidence Code section] 730 Evaluation done by Dr. Nadim Karim who indicates
the Mother’s history of depression appears to be stabilized. Mother continues [with] visits unmonitored
weekly.” Mother felt the proposed change
would be in the twins’ best interests because they “are strongly bonded to the
Mother with whom they have maintained a loving parent-child relationship.”

Evidence showed
Mother had been attending the Young Moms Program two to four times a month
since January 2011. She had been
receiving mental health services since May 2011.

According
to Dr. Karim, Mother’s “history of depression appears to be stabilized.” However, he was concerned about her “on-going
issues with anger” and recommended an anger management program. He also believed conjoint therapy with the
maternal grandmother, who helped with childcare, would be beneficial due to the
potential for a strained relationship.

Dr. Karim
did not believe Mother posed a danger to the twins. However, he noted that “[h]er clinical
presentation suggests that she is continuing to improve, although she seems a
bit overwhelmed with the demands of work and therapy. Therefore, [he suggested] a gradual
transition in relation to reunification with her children. More specifically, a transition plan should
be put into place whereby the demands of work, therapy, and caregiving can be
made smoothly . . . .”

According
to the Children’s Social Worker (CSW), Mother had completed over half of her
parenting classes. She had been in
therapy consistently since May 2011 and on medication since August 2011.

The CSW
noted that there had been some problems with visitation. Mother had allowed both her boyfriend and the
twins’ father to visit the children in her home during visitation with the
twins in violation of court orders. The
CSW also noted questionable parenting techniques during unannounced visits,
which mother categorized as “not a big deal.”

Additionally,
Mother had only recently enrolled in anger management classes. The CSW believed that “[w]ith Mother’s
history of explosive behavior this class is instrumental in decreasing mother’s
symptoms in regards to communicating with her mother, [the twins’] caregivers,
and CSW.”

Overall,
the CSW acknowledged that Mother “has made some progress” but felt that Mother
“is not fully equipped to manage the care of her children when she has not
successfully completed her programs and does not present as fully understanding
the importance of following Court orders by allowing father to visit the
children in her home. Her mental
instability remains of concern and [M]other relies heavily on maternal grandmother
to care for her children thus giving grandmother more responsibility than she
should have.”

At the
hearing on the section 388 petitions, Mother’s therapist, Anthony Sykes,
testified as to Mother’s progress in therapy.
He believed she behaved appropriately with the twins. Sykes stated that Mother “is a very
determined person and very motivated and I think that when she really wants
something she goes after it and I think that her desire . . . is to
be the best mother that she can.” He
wanted to see her continue with parenting classes, therapy and anger
management, “but just judging from her behavior since she has been in our
program, it seems like she will do well if she continues what she is doing
now.”

The
maternal grandmother testified that Mother interacted well with the twins. She stated that the twins love Mother very
much; they follow her around and do not want to return to their
caregivers. The maternal grandmother had
no concerns regarding Mother’s ability to parent the twins.

Mother
testified as to her participation in parenting classes, therapy and anger
management and what she had learned in these programs. She testified as to her plans for the twins’
care while she was at work. Mother
believed she had the ability to parent the twins if they were returned to her
custody. She explained: “I have matured a lot since I first started
on this. I have learned the parenting
skills. I have practiced my parenting
skills with them and, by the way, I do it for three days. [¶] I
know it’s not a lot. I know I don’t have
them all day, but I know that I am capable of taking good care of them.”

The
juvenile court acknowledged the growth that had taken place since Mother was
first before it. It commended Mother
that “[y]ou came to this court on this petition extremely young and you are
still young, but you have grown significantly.”
It added, “I would submit at this time that your significant level of
growth was this year. You got a great
start towards what was really necessary to stabilize you this year, the spring
of this year.

“And more
significantly sometime during the summer when you began taking the medication
that really is necessary given your diagnosis.
[¶] Persons with depression as
you have been diagnosed do have issues with anger management. It’s a major issue for depressive syndrome,
depressive diagnosis. [¶] You are two months into the medication, I
would submit that you are really about four weeks because it takes about a
month for it to kick in.”

The court
recognized that Mother’s visitation with the twins “has been consistently good
. . . over this pretty significant amount of time Friday, Saturday
and Sunday with them.” However, the
court ordered her again not to allow her boyfriend to be present during the
visits.” The court also cautioned Mother
about the way she dealt with the twins’ caregivers and about returning the
twins on time after visitation.

Despite the
progress, the court found that Mother’s section 388 petitions were
premature. It explained: “We need you to continue to show the
stability that you have been showing fairly recently in this whole process
continuing with your counseling and continue to have good visits with your
children . . . .”
The court therefore denied the petitions.



DISCUSSION



Section 388
permits a party to petition the juvenile court to change its prior orders based
upon a change of circumstances. (>In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th
681, 685; In re Casey D. (1999) 70
Cal.App.4th 38, 47.) The party seeking a
change must demonstrate both that a change of circumstances exists and that the
proposed change of court order is in the child’s best interests. (Casey
D., supra, at p. 47.) We review the court’s ruling on a petition
for abuse of discretion. (>Amber M., supra, at p. 685; Casey D.,
supra, at p. 47.) Discretion is abused when the court’s ruling
is arbitrary or capricious or exceeds the bounds of reason. (In re
Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.)
Rarely does the denial of a section 388 petition require reversal. (Amber
M., supra, at pp. 685-686.)

As we
pointed out in our previous opinion, section 388 requires changed circumstances, not merely changing circumstances. (>In re Casey D., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 49.)
That Mother was participating in her programs and taking her medication
did not demonstrate that circumstances had changed to the extent that it was in
the twins’ best interests to be returned to Mother’s custody. (In re
Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 464-465.) Given Mother’s history of mental health
issues and the relatively short period of time she had been compliant with her
programs, the juvenile court acted well within its discretion in requiring
Mother to demonstrate compliance and stability for a more significant period of
time. (See, e.g., In re Clifton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 423-424.)



DISPOSITION



The order
is affirmed.





JACKSON,
J.





We concur:







PERLUSS,
P. J.







WOODS,
J.