In re J.F.
Filed 1/29/14 In re J.F.
CA2/5
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
In re J.F., a
Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
B251159
(Los
Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. CK88219)
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
P.G.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL
from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Anthony Trendacosta, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Rich
Pfeiffer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
John
F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County
Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
>
INTRODUCTION
P.G.
(mother) filed a Welfare and Institutions
Code section 388
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] petition seeking to have
J.F., her four-year-old, placed with her or to grant her further family
terminated mother’s parental rights to J.F. pursuant to section 366.26.
affirm.
BACKGROUND
In
April 2010, J.F. came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family
Services (Department) when it received a report that mother would sit in a car
with the windows rolled up smoking marijuana while J.F. sat in the back seat. Shortly thereafter, mother tested positive
for cannabinoids. In August 2010, mother
signed a voluntary family maintenance case plan pursuant to which she agreed to
participate in parenting education and individual counseling to address case
issues and domestic violence, and to submit to random drug and alcohol
testing. If mother missed a drug test or
tested positive for drugs, she was to enroll in a drug treatment program.
In
late September and early November 2010, mother was observed to have bruises on
her legs and arms. The bruises appeared
as though mother had been struck. Mother
denied that the bruises resulted from domestic violence, and stated that she
had fallen from a bicycle. Later, mother
admitted that she and her boyfriend, Eli M., had engaged in some “rough play.†Mother said that the bruises were “not a big
problem.â€
In
March 2011, the Department received a second referral concerning J.F. The report alleged that Eli M. struck mother’s
face, bruising her eye. Mother told the
Department that Eli M. struck her during an argument at Universal Studios. The Department’s concern about domestic
violence was “mitigated†because mother and Eli M. terminated their relation
and had no contact with each other. Mother
stated that she and J.F. moved in with the maternal grandparents.
In
May 2011, the Department received a third referral concerning J.F. The report alleged that mother was in her
bedroom smoking marijuana with her friends with J.F. present. Maternal grandmother reported that mother became
very upset with her and hit and pushed her while she held J.F. According to maternal grandmother, two weeks
prior, mother hit and pushed maternal grandfather in J.F.’s presence.
A
social worker interviewed mother in connection with the May 2011 referral. Mother denied using marijuana. She admitted that she punched maternal
grandmother and maternal grandfather. Mother
stated that during the incident, maternal grandfather slapped her face in J.F.’s
presence. Although she no longer lived
with Eli M., mother continued to have a relationship with him. Mother said that she, and not Eli M., was the
abuser and aggressor in the relationship.
A
team decision making meeting was held to address the Department’s safety
concerns. Because maternal grandmother
did not want mother to live with her, mother had no place to stay. Mother agreed to allow J.F. to stay with
maternal grandmother until she found a place she and J.F. could live.
In
June 2011, the Department received a fourth referral concerning J.F. Maternal grandfather was alleged to have
engaged in a physical altercation with Eli M. in J.F.’s presence after maternal
grandfather found out mother was pregnant.
Maternal grandmother reported that mother continued to be aggressive
towards her and maternal grandfather.
She said that even though mother stayed with J.F. all day, J.F. “jumped a
lot†and was scared at night. Mother
admitted Eli M. had hit maternal grandfather in J.F.’s presence, that she was
pregnant, and that Eli M. was her unborn child’s father. When mother became verbally aggressive toward
the social worker, the interview ended.
In
its Detention Report, the Department stated that J.F.’s father, Orlando F., was
in prison for a 2009 physical attack on mother, which took place in J.F.’s
presence. During the period between
mother’s positive drug test for cannabinoids in April 2010 and April 2011,
mother was scheduled to take 22 drug tests.
Mother “failed to test†for 16 of the tests and tested negative six
times. Mother admitted to previous
marijuana use but claimed to have stopped.
In
June 2011, the Department filed a section 300 petition on behalf of J.F. The petition provided, as ultimately
sustained, that mother and Eli M. had a history of engaging in violent
altercations in J.F.’s presence, that Eli M. struck mother’s face in March
2011, and that mother allowed Eli M. to frequent J.F.’s home and have unlimited
access to J.F.; mother and J.F.’s maternal grandparents engaged in a physical
altercation in J.F.’s presence in May 2011; mother and father had a history of
engaging in violent altercations, and in December 2009, father struck mother’s
head with his fists, grabbed the inside of mother’s mouth, grabbed and pull
mother’s hair, brandished and ran a knife down mother’s leg, and threatened to
kill mother and J.F.; mother had a history of substance abuse and was a current
abuser of marijuana and alcohol which periodically rendered her incapable of
caring for J.F.; and father, who was incarcerated, was unable to provide J.F.
with the necessities of life including food, clothing, shelter, and medical
care.
At
the detention hearing, the juvenile court found there was a prima facie case
for detaining J.F. and that he was a minor describe by section 300, subdivisions
(a) and (b). The juvenile court ordered
J.F. temporarily placed with the Department.
Ultimately, J.F. was placed in the home of the paternal
grandparents.
In
an October 2011 Last Minute Information for the Court, the Department stated
that mother’s failure to submit to drug testing continued. Mother had, however, enrolled in individual
counseling and had started outpatient drug treatment. Mother did not visit J.F. consistently. When mother visited J.F., she brought her
boyfriend (presumably Eli M.) with her, despite a request that she not do so. J.F. “acted out†after visits with mother and
the maternal grandparents.
In
a December 2011 Last Minute Information for the Court, the Department reported
that mother’s failure to submit to drug testing continued. On two occasions when mother took a drug
test, the results were negative. Mother
visited J.F. on Thursdays and Sundays, and mother’s interactions with J.F. were
appropriate.
In
January 2012, the juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition and
declared J.F. a dependent of the juvenile court. The court ordered family reunification
services for the parents. Mother was
ordered to participate in individual counseling, parenting classes, drug counseling,
and random drug testing.
In
its July 2012 Status Review Report, the Department reported that J.F. remained
placed in his paternal grandparents’ home.
A social worker stated that during a visit with J.F., the child was
appropriately dressed in clean clothes, was well-groomed, and was free of marks
or bruises that would indicate abuse or neglect. The paternal grandparents provided J.F. with
a safe, nurturing home environment and were attentive to J.F. and to his
needs. According to the report, J.F. had
been re-placed four times during the reporting period, and had “major
difficulty adjusting.†J.F.’s behavior
consisted of extreme tantrums, screaming, crying, biting, hitting, and pulling
his caregiver’s hair. J.F. had fewer tantrums
after being placed with the paternal grandparents, but still screamed and cried
excessively when he wanted something or did not get his way. A parenting instructor was provided to help
paternal grandmother with J.F.’s behavior.
The
report stated that J.F. had difficulty eating and sleeping. The paternal grandparents had worked very
hard with J.F. to stabilize his sleeping routine and eating habits, and J.F.
was sleeping and eating well. According
to paternal grandmother, J.F. had more tantrums and difficulty eating and
sleeping after visits with mother. At
the end of visits, J.F. would scream and cry because he wanted to go with
mother. After a period of adjustment,
J.F. did not have any “problems†after visits with mother.
Near
the end of September 2011, mother enrolled in the South Bay Family Recovery Center. In February 2012, mother was “discharged
unsuccessfully†from the program after she tested positive for THC in one test
and positive for THC and PCP combined in another test. In March 2012, mother enrolled in Little
House Inc. Residential Treatment Program.
In June 2012, mother was “discharged unsuccessfully†from the program
for making “false statements to the staff and deviationâ€â€”the deviation being
mother’s continued relationship with Eli M.
Mother tested positive for marijuana in March and April 2012. According to the Department, mother had
received numerous referrals and assistance, but had failed to complete any of
the court-ordered programs.
J.F.’s
counselor reported that J.F. had made progress in the previous five months due
to his stability and home environment.
According to the counselor, J.F. had “securely attached to his caregiver
and is a generally happy toddler.
Developmentally, he has also been exposed to a more stimulating
environment as evidenced by his increase in vocabulary and emotional expression
as well as gaining appropriate motor, problem-solving, and social skills for
his age. I have observed [J.F.]’s strong
emotional attachment to his paternal grandmother. He clearly seeks her out for affection and
security and she reciprocates warmly.â€
Paternal grandmother continued to meet J.F.’s needs with regular
attendance at speech therapy, counseling, and other medical appointments as
needed.
Paternal
grandmother monitored mother’s visits with J.F.
The visits were moved from a church to the Department’s office because
mother acted inappropriately at the visits by, among other things, failing to
follow the monitor’s directions, taking J.F. to her car without the monitor,
failing to leave on time, and bringing her abusive boyfriend (presumably Eli
M.) with her. Mother behaved
appropriately when a social worker served as a monitor with paternal
grandmother.
The
Department stated that mother had not complied with the disposition orders—she
had not completed a drug and alcohol program and had been discharged from two
drug and alcohol programs without a successful completion, she had not drug
tested consistently, and she had not enrolled in individual domestic violence
counseling. Mother’s previous drug abuse
and domestic violence issues continued to pose a substantial risk to J.F. Mother continued her relationship with her
abusive partner, Eli M., stating that she maintained contact with him because
he praised her for her accomplishments. Because
J.F. was under the age of three at the time of detention, mother was entitled
only to six months of family reunification services. The Department recommended that the juvenile
court terminate mother’s family reunification services.
The
Department’s September 2012 Interim Review Report stated that mother had enrolled
in an outpatient substance abuse program in July 2012. As part of the program, mother received life
skills, cognitive behavioral therapy, relapse prevention, and individual
substance abuse counseling. Mother
missed two tests after enrolling in her new program. The Department recommended that mother enroll
in an inpatient drug treatment program, due to her drug and alcohol history.
The
Department reported that mother had not enrolled in individual counseling. Mother offered a variety of excuses for
failing to enroll, essentially telling the social worker that she was too busy.
In
its assessment, the Department wrote, “throughout the life of this case mother
has not complied with individual therapy.
Mother has a long history of being involved in domestic violence
relationships and has a history of being physically aggressive. The issues have not been resolved as mother
has not dealt with those issues in a therapeutic setting.†Mother had tested positive for drugs,
continued to minimize “the domestic violence,†and continued to have physical
contact with her abusive partner.
In
October 2012, the juvenile court found the return of J.F. to the physical
custody of his parents or parent would create a substantial risk of detriment
to J.F.’s physical and emotional well-being.
It further found that mother and father were in partial compliance with the
case plan. The juvenile court terminated
family reunification services for mother and father, and set the matter for a section
366.26 permanent plan hearing.
The
Department’s February
14, 2013, section 366.26 report stated that
J.F. remained placed in the paternal grandparents’ home, where he had lived since
August 17,
2011.
Since J.F.’s placement in their home, the paternal grandparents had
maintained a healthy, nurturing, and safe environment for J.F. The paternal grandparents expressed their
commitment to J.F. through the permanent plan of adoption. Mother was reported to have maintained a
consistent visitation schedule. Mother
visited J.F. for three hours on Saturdays, usually at a McDonald’s or a
park. Mother was appropriate during her
visits and interacted well with J.F.
J.F. was always happy to see mother, whom he referred to as
“Patty.†Mother prepared a small meal
for J.F. or bought him lunch at McDonald’s.
Due to the length and location of the visits, mother did not participate
in J.F.’s daily activities. The visits
were monitored. The Department
recommended that mother’s and father’s parental rights be terminated, and that
adoption be identified as the permanent plan for J.F.
The
Department’s February 2013 Last Minute Information for the Court stated that
J.F. was very adoptable. J.F. appeared
to be doing very well in his paternal grandparents’ home. J.F. was very well taken care of by his
paternal grandparents.
In
June 2013, mother filed a section 388 petition, seeking to have changed the
juvenile court’s order terminating mother’s family reunification services and
scheduling a permanent plan hearing. Mother
stated that she had enrolled in and “successfully participated†in a
residential program at Shields for Families.
She said that through individual counseling she had gained insight into
and learned new skills to control her anger, disappointments, and substance
abuse. She had taken parenting courses
and learned how to be a better parent. Mother
requested an order placing J.F. with her at Shields for Families or,
alternatively, an order for further family reunification services and
unmonitored visitation. The changed
orders would be better for J.F., mother claimed, because he was closely
attached to her and needed her in his life.
A letter from Shields for Families stated that mother had enrolled in
the Tamar Village Treatment Program at the end of October 2012. Mother participated in parenting classes, was
doing well in her individual therapy, and had worked on her “core issues.†Mother’s participation was “very good,†she
had tested negative for all random drug tests, and she demonstrated a positive
attitude towards peers and staff. The
juvenile court granted mother a hearing on her section 388 petition and ordered
the Department to prepare a supplemental report.
In
August 2013, the Department filed an interim review report in which it responded
to mother’s section 388 petition. The
social worker spoke with mother’s substance abuse counselor at Shields for
Families, Sally Tapia, who said that mother had “come a long way.†Tapia said that mother was participating in a
one to two year program, was in the middle stages of her recovery, and was still
working on her behaviors. According to
Tapia, mother could benefit from additional treatment as she was in the “middle
stages.†Tapia reported that mother sometimes
engaged in “child like behavior†by throwing tantrums, and believed that mother
needed “to do some work†and “to identify her triggers†that led to such behavior. Mother reportedly had “not really been
aggressive toward staff or others but still has outbursts she needs to work
on.†According to Tapia, mother claimed
that she was no longer dating Eli M., but she still maintained contact with him.
The
social worker also spoke to mother’s therapist at Shields for Families, Murray
Kaufman, who had weekly therapy sessions with mother and discussed with mother
her domestic violence history. According
to Kaufman, mother did not have complete knowledge and understanding of
domestic violence and its impact on her and J.F.’s lives. However, mother was putting in effort, was “much
better than before,†and “was making progress.â€
The
social worker also spoke with paternal grandmother who said that mother
continued to have difficulty setting limits and boundaries for herself and J.F.,
continued to have outbursts, and continued to have contact with Eli M. Eli M. took mother to monitored visits and
waited outside for her. Mother also
maintained close contact with her brother, J.F.’s uncle, who had sexually
abused mother. Such contact posed a high
risk for J.F. as mother did not see any danger in having contact with someone
who sexually abused her. According to paternal
grandmother, mother wanted to set her own rules. Mother told paternal grandmother that the juvenile
court granted mother permission to take J.F. to visit relatives or to have visits
in inappropriate locations. Paternal
grandmother was willing to have visits in different locations, but observed
that J.F. was “not well when he is around various people and has many changes
in his daily routine.†Mother failed to
appreciate how the presence of unfamiliar people and changes in J.F.’s daily
routine affected J.F. and was “only looking out for her own benefit and not the
child’s emotional well being.â€
Apparently
recounting an earlier conversation with paternal grandmother—on or sometime
prior to April 18, 2013—the social worker reported that mother had violated
visitation rules by taking J.F. to the bathroom and outside at McDonald’s to
play on a slide without paternal grandmother being present. When paternal grandmother informed the social
worker of mother’s visitation violations, the social worker called mother to
explain the monitored visitation rules.
Mother “lost control†and screamed at the social worker.
Paternal
grandmother told the social worker that mother “loses control when there are
limits and restrictions.†In June 2013,
mother called paternal grandmother and confronted and screamed at her because
she would not allow a visit at a party at which mother stated that “all family
members†would be present. Paternal grandmother
attempted to explain her objection to such a visit, but mother would not
listen. Mother later apologized.
Paternal
grandmother stated that she did not agree with mother having unmonitored visits
with J.F. unless authorized by the juvenile court. Mother played and sang to J.F. during visits,
but did not bring him healthy food.
Paternal grandmother opined that being a full-time mother entailed more
than playing and singing and that mother was not able to be a full-time
mother.
The
social worker spoke with mother who said that she had learned new anger
management skills. Mother denied having
any “incidents†with paternal grandmother, the social worker, or the staff at
Shields for Families. Mother said that she
had stopped using drugs. She claimed
that she had always been an “excellent†parent and was getting better.
The
Department recommended that the juvenile court deny mother’s section 388
petition. Because mother was in the
middle stages of her drug treatment program, it appeared that she needed
additional support to continue her efforts at lifelong sobriety. Although mother had completed a parenting
class, she did not fully understand how her behavior and drug abuse impacted
J.F.’s life and wellbeing. She continued
to have angry outbursts—having screamed at the social worker and J.F.’s
caretaker, despite her claim that she had learned new skills to control her
anger. Although mother claimed to have
learned how to better parent J.F., she continued to expose herself to high risk
situations such as having contact with Eli M. who had abused her, and with her
brother who had sexually abused her.
In
an August 2013 letter to the Department, Kaufman, mother’s therapist at Shields
for Families, stated that mother was working on the following treatment plan
issues: “1) Continue expression of
feelings. 2) Maintain sobriety. 3)
Discuss issues where negative choices were made in the past in order to
learn to make better choices now and in the future. 4) To learn to view choices, responsibilities
and goals as a mature adult.†The
therapist stated that mother had “clearly made progress in her individual
therapy, however, more is needed in order to meet her current treatment plan
goals.â€
At
the hearing on mother’s section 388 petition, Tapia, mother’s substance abuse
counselor at Shields for Families, testified that she had worked with mother for
10 months. They met every day. Mother was in the second, and longest, of the
three phases of her treatment program. Tapia
believed that mother had made significant change—she had made progress in
identifying core issues and in identifying triggers. Mother was able to identify and take
responsibility for her actions that led to negative consequences.
According
to Tapia, Shields for Families “accommodated†children. Mother had progressed to a point that she
could have J.F. live with her at the facility.
Mother then had roommates, but would be able to have her own apartment
on the facility’s grounds if J.F. were to come live with her. Once mother graduated from the program, she
could remain at Shields for Families for six months to a year. Thereafter, she would be eligible for
lifelong support services.
Tapia
testified that mother tested clean while in the program. Mother was also working on her relationships
and setting healthy boundaries. Mother
was very forthcoming and truthful about her relationships. To Tapia’s knowledge, mother did not have a
relationship with Eli M. Tapia appears
to have testified that mother likely would not graduate from the program earlier
than June 2014.
Tapia
recounted a conversation with the social worker in which the social worker
spoke of incidents of anger and aggression mother had with others. Tapia told the social worker that she had not
witnessed such behavior in mother, but that she had seen mother throw childlike
temper tantrums. She explained, however,
that the tantrums were not aggressive in tone and mother was very easily
“redirected.†Mother and Tapia had discussed
a recent incident with the social worker.
Mother admitted raising her voice because she was frustrated. Mother also told Tapia that she had screamed
at the caretaker, explaining that she was upset about a visit.
Mother
testified that she was drug free. Mother
was able to remain sober by thinking about how much she lost while using drugs. She had a different mindset, did not think as
she used to, and did not want to take drugs anymore. Mother admitted that her drug of choice had
been marijuana, which she used when she could not sleep or when she thought
about her problems. When mother
presently had the urge to use marijuana, she distracted herself by singing or
cleaning her room.
Mother
did not believe that she had a temper.
She denied that she yelled at the social worker—she was just trying to
get across her point and it seemed as though the social worker was “resistantâ€
to anything she had to say. She also
denied yelling at the paternal grandparents—she raised her voice “slightly†to
get her point across about a visitation issue.
Mother
testified that she was not presently in a relationship. She last had contact with Eli M. three months
earlier. Mother did not have
transportation to a visit and had asked Eli M. to take her.
Mother
said she was ready to be a mom and to have J.F. live with her. She was ready to take care of him—to do such
things as getting him ready and taking him to school. Mother visited J.F. once a week for three
hours. She rarely spoke with him on the
phone.
The
juvenile court denied mother’s section 388 petition. It ruled that there were changing, but not
changed circumstances and the requested orders—custody or further family reunification
services with unmonitored visitation—were not in J.F.’s best interest. The juvenile court then terminated mother’s
and father’s parental rights over J.F.
DISCUSSION
I. Mother’s Notice of Appeal Was
Sufficient
The
Department argues that mother’s notice of appeal was insufficient because it
referred only to the juvenile court’s order terminating mother’s parental
rights under section 366.26, and did not refer to the juvenile court’s order
denying her section 388 petition.
Mother’s notice of appeal was sufficient.
Mother’s
notice of
specifies that mother appealed from the juvenile court’s order under section
366.26 terminating her parental rights, entered the same day as the juvenile
court’s order denying her section 388 petition. We liberally construe mother’s notice of appeal to encompass the order denying
her section 388 petition, and therefore have jurisdiction to review that order.
(In re Madison W. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1450.)
II. The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its
Discretion in Denying Mother’s
Section 388 Petition
Section
388, subdivision (a) permits anyone having an interest in a dependent child to
petition the juvenile court for a hearing to change, modify or set aside a
previous order on the ground of changed circumstances or new evidence.
new evidence indicating that the proposed modification “may be†in the child’s
best interests, the juvenile court must hold a hearing on the petition within
30 days. (§ 388, subd. (c); Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 5.570(e), (f).)
hearing, “the burden of proof is on the moving party to show by a preponderance
of the evidence that there is new evidence or that there are changed
circumstances that make a change of placement in the best interests of the
child.†(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) “After the termination of reunification
services, 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. [Citation.]†(Ibid.) That “presumption obviously applies with even
greater strength when the permanent plan is adoption rather than foster care.†(In re
Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 464.)
The parents’ burden is particularly weighty when the section
388 petition is made “‘on the eve of the section 366.26
in stability [i]s the court’s foremost concern and outweigh[s] any interest in
reunification. [Citation.]’ [Citation.]†(In re
Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 464; In re Edward H. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 584, 594.)
denial of a section 388 petition for abuse of discretion—i.e., whether the
juvenile court’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd. (In re
Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318.)
“‘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.’ [Citations.]â€
(Id. at pp. 318-319.)
Circumstances
“A
petition which alleges merely changing
circumstances and would mean delaying the selection of a permanent home for a
child to see if a parent, who has repeatedly failed to reunify with the child,
might be able to reunify at some future point, does not promote stability for
the child or the child’s best interests. (In re Edward H., supra, 43 Cal.App.4th
584, 594.) ‘“[C]hildhood does not wait
for the parent to become adequate.â€â€™ (In
re Baby Boy L. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 596, 610 [29 Cal.Rptr.2d 654].)†(In re
Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47, italics added.)
Mother
contends, based on her performance in the Shields for Families program, that
the circumstances that caused the juvenile court to terminate her family reunification
services have changed. According to
Tapia, mother’s substance abuse counselor at Shields for Families, mother had
“come a long way†and had made “significant change.†Mother had gain insight into her behaviors
and had tested clean during the 10 months she was in the program. Tapia also stated, however, that mother was
in the middle stage of a one to two year program, mother was still working on
her behaviors, and mother could benefit from additional treatment. Tapia also reported that mother sometimes
engaged in childlike behavior by throwing temper tantrums, and believed that
mother needed “to do some work†and “to identify her triggers†that led to such
behavior.
According
to Kaufman, mother’s therapist at Shields for Families, mother was putting in
effort, was much better than before, and was making progress. Kaufman also stated, however, that mother did
not have complete knowledge and understanding of domestic violence and its
impact on her and J.F.’s lives. Kaufman
further stated that while mother “clearly made progress in her individual
therapy . . . more is needed in order to meet her current treatment plan
goals.â€
The
social worker and paternal grandmother said that mother had screamed at them
about visitation issues. Mother denied
that she had a temper, and attempted to minimize her conduct, stating that she
had only raised her voice to get across her point. According to paternal grandmother, mother
continued to have contact with Eli M., who had abused mother. Mother admitted that Eli M. had given her a
ride to a visit three months prior to the hearing on mother’s section 388
petition.
Mother
appears to be doing well in the Shields for Families program. At the time of the hearing on mother’s
section 388 petition, however, mother was in the middle of that program and her
counselor and therapist stated that she needed additional work. Moreover, mother continued to engage in behaviors
that led to J.F.’s detention. Thus,
while the circumstances that caused the juvenile court to terminate mother’s family
reunification services may have been changing, the juvenile court did not abuse
its discretion in finding that the circumstances had not changed. (In re
Casey D., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 47.)
Interests of J.F.
“It
is not enough for a parent to show just a genuine change of
circumstances under the statute. The
parent must show that the undoing of the prior order would be in the best
interests of the child.†(
519, 529.) “[T]he proper focus [is] on
the child’s interests, not the [parent’s].†(Id.
at p. 534, citing In re Stephanie M.,
supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 323.)
At
the time of the hearing on mother’s section 388 petition, J.F. had lived with
his paternal grandparents for two years.
The paternal grandparents provided J.F. with a safe, nurturing home
environment and were attentive to J.F. and to his needs. J.F.’s counselor stated that J.F. generally
was a happy toddler who had a strong emotional attachment to paternal
grandmother. J.F. sought out paternal
grandmother for affection and security and paternal grandmother warmly
reciprocated. J.F. developed mentally
and physically in the stimulating environment the paternal grandparents
provided. Mother, on the other hand, was
still working on the issues that led to J.F.’s detention. She was still given to angry outbursts, and she
maintained some level of contact with Eli M., one of the men who abused her. According to Kaufman, mother did not have
complete knowledge and understanding of domestic violence and its impact on her
life and J.F.’s life. Were mother
granted custody of J.F., the child would reside in a drug treatment facility
for some period of time. Thus, even if
mother had shown changed circumstances, the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion in finding that mother failed to show that granting her custody or further
family reunification services with unmonitored visitation was in J.F.’s best
interests. (In re Kimberly F., supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 529.)
>
DISPOSITION
The
order is affirmed.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
MOSK,
Acting P. J.
We concur:
KRIEGLER, J.
MINK, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code unless otherwise noted.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] In the introduction to mother’s opening brief, mother
states that she is appealing from the juvenile court’s order denying her
section 388 petition and its order terminating her parental rights pursuant to
section 366.26. The argument section of
mother’s opening brief is devoted exclusively to mother’s claim that the
juvenile court erred in denying her section 388 petition. Mother’s brief makes no specific argument
that the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights pursuant to
section 366.26.
