In re N.H.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 1/30/14  In re N.H. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

 

 

 

 

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  This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD
APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

 

 

 
>

In re N.H. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.	C074457
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,                           Plaintiff and Respondent,               v.   A.H. et al.,                           Defendants and Appellants.	(Super. Ct. Nos. JD231938 & JD232194)

 

 

 

            A.H., the mother of four-year-old
N.H. and one-year-old I.H., appeals from a juvenile court order denying her request
to change court order pursuant to Welfare
and Institutions Code section 388 (388 petition), and also appeals from an
order terminating her parental rights.  In
addition, D.J., the biological
father of I.H., appeals from an order terminating his parental rights.  (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 388,
395.)[1] 
E.G., the alleged father of N.H. and the uncle of D.J., is not a party
to this appeal. 

            As a threshold matter, respondent
Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) contends
A.H. (mother) and D.J. (father) failed to appeal the order denying their 388
petition, because they did not check the pertinent box on the notice of
appeal.  We conclude, however, that because
mother and father submitted a letter with their notices of appeal providing
additional information, and notices of appeal are entitled to liberal
construction in favor of sufficiency, the letter and notices of appeal are
sufficient.  

            Turning to the contentions of mother
and father, mother contends the juvenile
court abused its discretion in denying her 388 petition.  Father joins mother’s arguments, arguing that
if mother is successful, the order against father must be reversed too.  Finding no abuse of discretion, we will affirm
the juvenile court orders.[2]

BACKGROUND

            We do not set forth the background
related to father because his claim on appeal arises from the juvenile court ruling
on mother’s 388 petition.

A

            Mother’s first child, No.H., was
born in August 1998.  Six months later,
the Department received a referral alleging general and severe neglect of
No.H.  The reporting party described
mother as a “ ‘poor historian’ ”
who could not remember when No.H. had last eaten or last had an asthma
attack.  The next month, the Department
received another referral alleging that mother “does not appear to know how to
determine if [No.H.] is sick.” 

            In November 2001, the maternal
grandmother was appointed legal guardian of No.H. 

            In a November 2011 interview, mother
stated, “ ‘I can’t take care of [No.H.] now.  He’s set in his ways and has been with my mom
since he was really little.’ ”  At
the time, mother was visiting No.H. approximately once per month. 

B

            While pregnant with her second
child, N.H., mother tested positive for amphetamines during prenatal care appointments
in September 2009 and December 2009. 
Before N.H. was born, mother had a felony burglary conviction and
misdemeanor convictions for grand theft, theft of personal property, driving
and theft of a vehicle, possession of a hypodermic needle and syringe, and
possession of narcotics paraphernalia. 
Mother claimed she had not had any arrests or convictions since 2006. 

            N.H. was born in January 2010 at 34
weeks gestation.  She weighed five pounds
nine ounces at birth, and was transferred to neonatal intensive care due to
respiratory distress.  Mother exhibited
manic symptoms at the hospital.  That
same month, allegations of general neglect were substantiated, allegations of severe
neglect were found to be inconclusive, and mother agreed to voluntary informal
supervision services.  Mother’s case plan
included parenting education,
outpatient substance abuse treatment, substance abuse testing, a 12-step
program, and early intervention drug court. 


            Upon N.H.’s release from the
hospital in late January 2010, the Department put N.H. in an emergency
placement because mother had not done any substance abuse testing or met with
her recovery specialist, and because her mental health issues had not
stabilized. 

            In February 2010, mother tested
positive for methamphetamine and showed visible signs of active use.  She agreed to enter residential substance
abuse treatment.  In June 2010, N.H.
was returned to mother’s care at the treatment facility.  In July 2010, mother completed residential
treatment and moved into transitional housing. 


            In October 2010, mother was
discharged from early intervention drug court for failure to comply; she missed
some scheduled group treatment sessions. 
In December 2010, mother was discharged from transitional housing
because she violated curfew by staying out all night. 

            From December 2010 through October 24, 2011, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department
received 15 calls dispatched for mother’s address.  Mother’s probation expired in August
2011. 

            In a domestic violence incident on October 3,
2011,
father injured his arm while punching a window and mother pepper sprayed
father.  In another domestic violence
incident on October 16, 2011, mother had bruising on her arm
and a small puncture wound.  Father had a
large cut on his hand and received emergency room treatment.  N.H. was 10 to 15 feet away from the
altercation.  Mother declined to pursue
charges and was not fearful of future violence. 


            On October 20,
2011,
N.H. was removed from mother’s care and placed in protective custody.  At that time, mother was pregnant with I.H. and
she was unwilling to pursue a restraining order against father or force him to
leave the home. 

            On October 24,
2011, a
petition was filed alleging a substantial risk that N.H. would suffer serious
physical harm or illness because the parents engaged in domestic violence in
her presence.  Mother failed to protect
N.H.; she was unwilling to seek or enforce a restraining order against
father.  On October 25,
2011, the
juvenile court ordered N.H. detained. 

            In a November 2011 interview for the
jurisdiction report, mother told a social worker, “ ‘I want to get my
daughter back.  I will do whatever it
takes.  I will go over and beyond.’ ”  Mother said she last used methamphetamine in
2009.  She said she first consumed
alcohol at age 11 and had last done so four years before the November 2011
interview.  Mother stopped drinking
because she “ ‘didn’t want to end up like [her] dad.’ ”  Mother had been diagnosed with bipolar
disorder and depression and had taken medication until she became pregnant with
I.H. 

            In November 2011, mother entered a
waiver of her rights.  The juvenile court
sustained the petition, adjudged N.H. a dependent of the court, removed her
from mother’s custody, and ordered reunification services for mother. 

C

            In February 2012, I.H. was born five
weeks premature.  Both I.H. and mother tested
positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. 
After the birth, mother became agitated, denied substance abuse, denied
knowing who had fathered I.H., began removing her intravenous tubes, and
threatened to leave the hospital without medical clearance.  I.H. was placed in neonatal intensive care
for his safety and the treating nurse advised the Department to have security
present during any interview with mother. 


            On February 21,
2012, a
petition was filed alleging a substantial risk that I.H. would suffer serious
physical harm or illness because mother failed or refused to rehabilitate from
substance abuse, and that mother had not engaged in domestic violence services or
counseling following the loss of custody of N.H. 

            At the February 22, 2012, initial
hearing for I.H., the juvenile court prohibited mother from breastfeeding him unless
authorized to do so by a physician aware of mother’s drug history and unless
mother established a pattern of clean tests. 
The juvenile court found father to be an alleged father of I.H.  I.H. was ordered detained and mother was
awarded visitation. 

            The jurisdiction report for I.H.
noted that mother had been assessed for use of alcohol and drugs.  Mother said methamphetamine was her drug of
choice.  She first used it at age 14 and
has eaten, injected, and smoked it.  She
stopped using the drug in January 2010 but then relapsed three times
between December 2011 and February 2012. 
Her most recent use was one week prior to the assessment.  Mother related that she had tried other drugs
one to three times each.  She first used
alcohol at age 14 and last used it at age 17. 
Mother was offered residential drug treatment but expressed a preference
for intensive outpatient treatment. 

            On February 27,
2012,
mother cancelled a visit with I.H. because she had become ill. 

            On March 7,
2012, I.H.’s
foster mother indicated that I.H. had “a leaky mouth” with “poor suck” and that
he “screams and cries a lot, and experiences tremors.”  He was drinking infant formula every two
hours.  The doctor told the foster mother
that I.H. was at high risk for sudden infant death due to exposure to drugs
during gestation. 

            Between March 5 and 9, 2012, the
Department scheduled three different interview appointments for mother.  She did not appear for the first appointment,
rescheduled the second appointment, and did not appear for the third
appointment.  On March 12,
2012, mother
cancelled a visit with I.H. because she had been evicted from her
residence.  Between March 15 and 19,
2012, I.H. was hospitalized with various ailments.  A neglect allegation against his caretaker
was substantiated and his placement was changed. 

            On March 22,
2012,
mother did not attend a prejurisdictional status conference for I.H.  The juvenile court ordered mother’s appearance
at the continued hearing the next month. 
On April 20, 2012, mother entered a waiver of her
rights.  The juvenile court sustained the
petition, adjudged I.H. its dependent, and ordered mother into dependency drug
court. 

D

            The six-month review report for N.H.
noted that N.H. initially had difficulty adjusting to placement; she played alone,
bit other children, pulled out her hair, and had nightmares and tantrums.  But by the time of the report, those
behaviors had subsided and N.H. had developed a strong bond with the foster
family. 

            The report noted that mother had not
completed the following components of her case plan:  parenting education, domestic violence
counseling, psychotropic medication evaluation and monitoring, substance abuse
services, and random drug testing.  Mother
visited the children twice per week and had additional visits at the home of
the maternal grandmother. 

            The Department assessed that the
risk of returning N.H. to mother was high due to mother’s substance abuse and
domestic violence history, her relapses in December 2011 and February 2012, and
her inadequate participation in case plan services.  At the hearing on May 4,
2012, the
juvenile court continued N.H. in her placement and set a 12-month review
hearing for October 2012. 

            On May 15,
2012, the
dependency drug court found that mother was noncompliant.  The court set a compliance hearing for June 12,
2012.  Mother failed to attend the compliance
hearing, which was continued to June 19, 2012. 
At the continued hearing, the court found that mother was
noncompliant. 

            The 12-month review report for N.H. noted
that mother underwent a psychiatric assessment in May 2012.  Her clothing was disheveled and unclean, she had
an outward odor, and her speech was dysphoric. 
She appeared to be actively hallucinating and was diagnosed as suffering
from a psychotic disorder.  She refused
to sign a release of information and declined to discuss the dependency matters
with the evaluator.  Although mother’s
Medi-Cal was active during her assessment period, mother failed to return to
complete the assessment and her case was closed in July 2012. 

            On June 22,
2012,
mother was discharged from a residential drug treatment program because she had
used threatening language during a confrontation with a program peer.  On July 3,
2012,
mother failed to appear at a dependency drug court hearing.  She was dismissed from the court for failure
to participate.  That same day, mother
was arrested for public intoxication and jailed overnight.  Prior to the arrest, mother had been in a
physical altercation with her brother, the uncle of the children.  Mother failed to submit to urinalysis testing
from July to mid-August 2012 and on two dates in August and September
2012.  She tested negative on eight
occasions in August and September 2012. 

            On October 4,
2012,
mother’s counsel requested an order requiring mother to participate in dependency
drug court.  But mother failed to appear
at the hearing to consider the request and, as a result, the request was
denied. 

            The review report recommended that mother’s
reunification services regarding N.H. be terminated.  N.H. was calling her foster parents “mommy”
and “daddy,” her hair-pulling and nightmares had ceased, and her development
was appropriate for her age group.  Counsel
for the children joined in the Department’s recommendation that mother’s
reunification services be terminated. 

            The six-month review report for I.H.
noted that at the beginning of his current foster placement, I.H. had tremors
and would choke on his formula, hold his breath until he turned blue and awaken
approximately four times per night.  But
by the time of the review, I.H. no longer choked or had tremors and would
resume breathing before he turned blue. 
He was alert, happy, and was developing a strong bond with the foster
family. 

            At an October 12,
2012
hearing, the juvenile court set a contested hearing for November 2012. 

            In a November 2012 addendum to the
reports for both children, the Department noted that mother had not provided
any documentation that she had received psychotropic medication monitoring or
other mental health services.  The
Department was unable to confirm mother’s participation in substance abuse
services.  The juvenile court confirmed
contested hearings in both children’s matters.  

            In December 2012, at a contested
hearing for both children, the juvenile court found that mother had been
offered reasonable services; there was not a substantial probability the
children could be returned to her within six months; and mother’s progress in
alleviating or mitigating the causes of the children’s placements was
fair.  The juvenile court terminated
mother’s reunification services.  When
the hearing continued in January 2013, the court set a selection and
implementation hearing for May 17, 2013. 


E

            In April 2013, mother filed a 388
petition, asking that both children be returned to her with supervision or,
alternatively, that her reunification services be reinstated.  The 388 petition was based on mother’s active
participation in outpatient substance abuse treatment, parenting classes,
Narcotics Anonymous meetings, mental health services, and family relationship
counseling.  The 388 petition acknowledged
that mother’s participation in services had ceased due to the onset of
gestational diabetes but claimed her participation would resume some time after
May 2013.  Father supported and
ultimately joined in the 388 petition. 

            The selection and implementation
report noted that mother recently had given birth to a baby girl. 

            N.H. and I.H. were in a foster home
and the Department was hopeful an adoptive home would be found.  The children were generally adoptable due to
their young age, overall good health and lack of developmental, educational, or
behavioral concerns.  The caretaker was
working with N.H. on socialization skills. 
For the most part, N.H. interacted appropriately with other children and
she had a normal sibling relationship with I.H. 
The report described mother’s interaction with the children during
visitations as that of a “friendly visitor.” 


            On June 4,
2013, the
juvenile court heard evidence for the 388 petition and conducted the contested
selection and implementation hearing. 
Mother was the only witness.  She
testified that, after reunification services were terminated, she began a
substance abuse treatment program.  The
program was helpful because mother was learning to avoid people who encouraged
substance abuse.  She said she had not
used drugs since September 30, 2012. 
Due to the difficult pregnancy and birth of her child, mother’s only
substance abuse treatment was three Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics
Anonymous meetings per week, plus drug testing. 


            Mother testified that she attended
five or six individual counseling sessions. 
Mother and father attended a “Flourishing Families Program” that
addressed communication between the parents and techniques for resolving
differences and misunderstandings.  Specifically,
she learned to resolve differences through communication rather than by
“fighting it out or lashing out.” 
Because father speaks Spanish, they communicate using charades and a
Spanish-English dictionary. 

            Mother testified that the last
incident of domestic violence occurred when N.H. was removed.  She said father was no longer controlling
her.  Father knew that “the people that
[mother] used to hang around weren’t so good people.”  He previously would advise her, “don’t go
hang around [with] that person,” but she “never listened.”  By the time of the hearing, father had
stopped trying to control mother’s choice of associates.  Mother added that she and father have lived
together since October 2012.  The couple
married just weeks prior to the hearing. 


            Mother further testified that on March 26,
2013, she
obtained a mental health assessment and was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress
disorder and anxiety.  She met with a
psychiatrist on May 9, 2013, and started taking medications the
next day.  She felt “more clear headed” and
had fewer panic attacks and less anxiety. 
Mother did not know whether she was to have regular follow-up
appointments.  She was in the process of
arranging for mental health group counseling. 
She said that, after she completed drug rehabilitation in March 2011,
she maintained sobriety for eight or nine months before relapsing at the time
of I.H.’s birth.  Mother acknowledged
that she previously completed domestic violence classes in September 2012 and
parenting classes in October 2012.  She
did not know that she was supposed to inform the social worker when she and father
resumed their relationship in September 2012 and when they began living
together in October 2012.  Mother
described the prior domestic violence as mutual.  She predicted there would be no more domestic
violence because father stopped drinking and she stopped using drugs.  

            Mother added that she and father had
attended 12-step meetings in October, November, and December 2012, although
they did not obtain proof of attendance. 
Her safety plan in the event of domestic violence was to leave.  She said the July 2012 domestic violence
incident with her brother occurred while they were “socially drinking.”  Mother’s radio was too loud so the brother
turned down the volume; then he “beat the hell out of” mother. 

            The juvenile court ruled on the 388
petition on June 5, 2013. 
It said mother needed to address three sets of issues:  mental health, substance abuse and domestic
violence. 

            Turning first to substance abuse, the
juvenile court noted that mother was in a program at Strategies for Change.  She started on February 1,
2013, and
was due to graduate on August 1, 2013, or possibly later because she
had missed a portion of the program during her pregnancy disability.  In short, mother had participated in the
program for about three months. 

            As for mental health, the juvenile court
noted mother’s testimony that she had just begun medication in early to mid-May
2013.  She “literally has just begun to
see if this medication will work, won’t work. 
It’s too early to tell.” 

            Regarding domestic violence, the
juvenile court noted that mother completed a course in domestic violence “but
immediately if not even before she completed it she got back together with the
father.”  The juvenile court said getting
back together with her abuser undermined mother’s claim that she understood and
was dealing with domestic violence.  The juvenile
court acknowledged that the parents had taken a communication course but opined
that the course was “not about domestic violence,” which involves “issues of
power and control and red flags and how to avoid domestic violence, safety
plans.”  The juvenile court said the communication
course did not address those issues. 

            The juvenile court concluded:  “the circumstances are changing, and I don’t
want to diminish or minimize what the parents have done.  I mean the mother has signed up for a class
to deal with her substance abuse.  She
has finally begun to deal with her mental health issues, but in the context of
this motion she has just begun.  The
circumstances I cannot yet conclude have changed.  Changing, yes, but not changed.” 

            The juvenile court said even if
mother’s circumstances had changed, returning the children was not in their
best interests because without a track record, there was no way to predict
whether mother would be successful in addressing substance abuse.  Similarly, regarding mental health, the
juvenile court said mother had just begun treatment.  The juvenile court thought mother had not
really addressed the domestic violence given her relationship with father.  Finally, the juvenile court noted that mother
had no remaining time for reunification with N.H. and only two months for
reunification with I.H., and that was not enough time to address the
significant and longstanding problems. 
The juvenile court denied the 388 petition. 

DISCUSSION

I

            The Department claims mother and
father failed to pursue their appeal of the order denying mother’s 388 petition.  Mother and father, acting in propria persona,
checked box 7b, “Section 366.26,” and its subsidiary box, “Termination of parental
rights,” while leaving unchecked box 7d, “Other appealable orders
relating to dependency (specify).”  In
the Department’s view, the parents should have checked box 7d to specify an appeal from the
order denying mother’s section 388 motion. 
The Department argues the parents’ failure to check and complete box 7d, and their subsequent failure to
raise any substantive issue other than the denial of the section 388 motion,
“excludes them from any hearing by this court on the matter.” 

            Mother and father submitted with the
notices of appeal a two-page handwritten letter referencing their accomplishments
in seeking to regain custody of their children. 
The letter says the classes they attended are very helpful, mother and
father “are very dedicated and sincere in recovery/sobriety,” and they strongly
believe they can be the best parents for their children.  The letter does not expressly state that the
parents are appealing from the denial of the section 388 motion, but the
substance of the letter directly relates to the section 388 issue later addressed
in mother’s appellate brief, with which father joined.

            The Department did not mention the
letter from mother and father and did not address whether the letter, when read
together with the notices of appeal, are still inadequate.  But notices of appeal are entitled to liberal
construction in favor of sufficiency.  (>In re Madison W. (2006)
141 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1450.)  Applying
a liberal construction, we conclude the letter and notices of appeal are
sufficient. 

II

            Mother contends the juvenile court
abused its discretion in denying her 388 petition. 

            A parent may bring a petition for
modification of any order of the juvenile court pursuant to section 388 based
on new evidence or a showing of changed circumstances.[3] 
“The parent requesting the change of order has the burden of
establishing that the change is justified. 
[Citation.]  The standard of proof
is a preponderance of the evidence. 
[Citation.]”  (In re Michael
B. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1698, 1703.) 
Determination of a 388 petition is committed to the sound discretion of
the juvenile court and, absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion, the
decision of the juvenile court must be upheld. 
(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319;
In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067.)  The best interests of the child are of
paramount consideration when the 388 petition is brought after termination of
reunification services.  (In re
Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.)  In assessing the best interests of the child,
the juvenile court looks not to the parent’s interests in reunification but to
the needs of the child for permanence and stability.  (Ibid.; In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th
295, 309.)

            “[T]he petitioner must show changed,
not changing, circumstances. 
[Citation.]  The change of
circumstances or new evidence ‘must be of such significant nature that it
requires a setting aside or modification of the challenged prior order.’  [Citation.]” 
(In re Mickel O. (2011)
197 Cal.App.4th 586, 615-616, italics omitted.)

            The juvenile court may consider “(1)
the seriousness of the problem which led to the dependency, and the reason for
any continuation of that problem; (2) the strength of relative bonds between
the dependent children [and] both [the]
parent and [the] caretakers; and (3) the degree to which the problem may be
easily removed or ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has
been.”  (In re Kimberly F. (1997)
56 Cal.App.4th 519, 532 (Kimberly F.).)

            Mother’s appellate argument tracks
the three Kimberly F. factors.  Regarding the first factor, mother acknowledges
that the reasons for each child’s dependency were “quite serious.” 

            As for the second Kimberly F.
factor, mother argues the children’s bonds to the caretakers were not
significant because they were not seeking adoption and no prospective adoptive
home had been identified.  The juvenile
court did not evaluate the relative strengths of the children’s bonds to mother
and the foster caretakers.  That could be
because the caretakers are not prospective adoptive parents.  In any event, the juvenile court did not
dispute that mother shared a bond with her children.  But mother’s bond did not outweigh the other >Kimberly F. factors or require granting the
388 petition.

            Turning to the third >Kimberly F. factor, mother claims her
participation in services ameliorated the reasons for the dependency and
demonstrated changed circumstances.  She
says she showed changes regarding her “substance abuse, history of violence
with partners, and mental instability.”  We
consider these points in turn.

            Mother’s most significant changed
circumstance, “sobriety since September 30, 2012,” preceded the June 5,
2013,
hearing by less than nine months.  In her
testimony, mother admitted returning to drugs within months after completion of
residential treatment.  She said it was
different this time, however, because she “hit rock bottom” and had been “on
[her] deathbed.”  But mother’s testimony
does not establish her claim that, “[f]or the first time, she had a relapse
prevention plan of behavior.” 

            Although mother had been in a
substance abuse program for about three months, she had struggled with her
methamphetamine addiction for 13 years. 
She gave birth to I.H. with amphetamines and methamphetamine in his system.  On that record, less than nine months of
sobriety and just three months of drug treatment following termination of
reunification services did not compel the juvenile court to find that mother
had shown changed circumstances.

            Regarding domestic violence, mother testified
that she and father attended a “Flourishing Families Program” that addressed
communication and techniques for resolving differences and
misunderstandings.  Mother said the
program pertained to domestic violence because it taught couples to resolve
differences through communication rather than by “fighting it out or lashing
out.”  But the juvenile court found that
the course was “not about domestic violence,” which involves “issues of power
and control and red flags and how to avoid domestic violence, safety
plans.  These are not the things that the
communication class that the parents have taken addresses.”  Mother has not shown that the juvenile court’s
characterization of the communication class was incorrect.

            The evidence of changed circumstances
regarding mental health was also insufficient. 
Mother was diagnosed as psychotic in late May 2012.  Her 388 petition included a notice of an
upcoming counseling appointment.  Mother
testified that on March 26, 2013, she obtained a mental health
assessment and was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and
anxiety.  She met with a psychiatrist on May 9,
2013, and
started taking medications the next day. 
She felt “more clear headed” and had fewer panic attacks and less
anxiety.  By the time of the June 4,
2013,
hearing, mother had been on these medications for less than a month.  This record supports the juvenile court’s comment
that mother only recently began taking new medications and it was too early to
assess the medications’ effectiveness.

            Mother also claims she established changed
circumstances because she and father married and resided in a sober household ever
since mother’s sober date of September 30, 2012. 
In the juvenile court, mother claimed their cohabitation was slightly shorter
-- since October 2012 -- and that they had married just weeks prior to the
hearing.  In any event, the recent
marriage does not, without more, establish a significant change of
circumstances.  Mother’s continued sobriety
was problematic given her history of relapse. 
As for father, mother predicted that there would be no more domestic
violence because father stopped drinking and she stopped using drugs.  But the evidence that father had successfully
addressed his alcohol problem was scant. 
Mother claimed that she and father attended substance abuse meetings in
October, November, and December 2012 but admitted that she had no proof of
attendance.  There was no evidence that
father subsequently completed an alcohol treatment program.

            In sum, mother has not shown that
the juvenile court abused its discretion on any of the factors set forth in Kimberly
F., supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at
page 532.  The juvenile court properly
found circumstances that were changing but not changed.  And even if mother’s circumstances had
changed, the change was not “ ‘of such significant nature that it requires
a setting aside or modification of the challenged prior order.’ ”  (In re Mickel
O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at pp. 615-616.)

III

            Father
joined mother’s contentions, arguing that if mother is successful on appeal,
the judgment terminating father’s parental rights must be reversed because I.H.
would not be adoptable.[4] 
But because we have concluded the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying mother’s 388 petition, father is not entitled to reversal
of the judgment.

DISPOSITION

            The order denying mother’s 388 petition,
and the order terminating mother’s parental rights, are both affirmed.  In addition, the order terminating father’s
parental rights is affirmed.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                         MAURO                         , J.

 

 

We concur:

 

 

                    NICHOLSON                     , Acting P. J.

 

 

                    ROBIE                                , J.