Filed 6/23/26 M.G. v. Superior Court CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
M.G. et al., No. B349246
Petitioner, (Super. Ct.
No. 19CCJP00598H)
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent;
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Real Party in Interest.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for extraordinary
writ. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Cristina Gutierrez
Legaspi, Judge. Petition denied.
Law Office of Amy Einstein, Nicole J. Johnson, Tafadzwa J.
Mafurirano; Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates and
Vincent W. Davis for Petitioner N.M.
Law Office of Rachel Ewing, Melissa A. Chaitin and
Dominika Anna Campbell for Petitioner M.G.
No appearance for Respondent.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County
Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
******
N.M. (father) and M.G. (mother), parents of T.M. (born
April 2014), petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to
California Rules of Court, rule 8.452.1 Father and mother
separately seek review of an order setting a permanency
planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section
366.26.2 Father argues the juvenile court erred in denying
mother’s motion for a bonding study, filed in advance of the
contested section 366.22 status review hearing. In a
supplemental petition, father further argues the juvenile court
lacked substantial evidence in support of its jurisdictional and
dispositional findings and orders; the juvenile court erred in
setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 instead of
terminating jurisdiction and returning T.M. to the parents’
custody; the juvenile court erred in finding the Los Angeles
County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS)
failed to provide reasonable visitation; and the juvenile court
1 All further rule references are to the California Rules of
Court.
2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
erred in basing its decision not to return the child to his care on
the child’s preference. Mother joins father’s arguments.
For the reasons set forth below, we deny the petitions.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The family
The family consists of mother, father, and their five
children: now-adult Na.M., now-adult G.M., L.M. (born May
2007), D.M. (born August 2008), and T.M.3
The family has a child welfare history with DCFS. On
January 24, 2019, DCFS received a referral alleging father
physically abused the children and mother neglected the
children. The referral was substantiated. On April 30, 2019, the
juvenile court sustained a petition alleging father physically
abused then-minor Na.M. by slapping, striking, and throwing
objects at the child, causing the child to have a broken finger,
bleeding lacerations, and swelling in his body. The sustained
petition further alleged on numerous occasions father abused the
children by using belts and forcing them to excessively exercise,
and father and mother had a history of engaging in violent
altercations in the presence of the children.
On June 12, 2019, the juvenile court made a home-of-
parent mother order for G.M., L.M., D.M., and T.M. Na.M. was
ordered suitably placed, and the parents were granted
reunification services. On August 6, 2020, the parents’
reunification services were terminated for Na.M. because he was
3 T.M.’s siblings are not subjects of this writ proceeding and
will be mentioned only as relevant.
3
designated a non-minor dependent. In September 2020,
jurisdiction was terminated over the children.
Current referral and removal
On November 1, 2022, DCFS received a referral alleging
the parents physically and emotionally abused and neglected the
children. The caller reported when D.M. was eight years old
father took pliers to D.M.’s genitals and pinched them to get D.M.
to tell the truth. D.M. never told anyone because he was scared.
In addition, father had punched all the children in the chest and
mother tried to stop him, but father pushed her down. Father
cursed at the children daily and told them they were worthless.
The caller reported the children L.M. and D.M. were concerned
for T.M., who was still in the home, although the children
reported there were no incidents of anything happening to T.M.
On November 8, 2022, a DCFS social worker interviewed
maternal great-aunt, Rochelle M., who stated that L.M. and D.M.
had been in her care for 10 days. Rochelle indicated D.M. may
have mental health issues as he was hyperactive. Rochelle
acknowledged T.M. was still in the home with the parents, but
the parents were nice to T.M., and there was no reported abuse
towards her. Rochelle later explained several days earlier L.M.
and D.M. had called her “hysterically” and reported father had
kicked them out of the home. Rochelle drove immediately to pick
them up.
D.M. and L.M. reported they had seen father arrested in
2019 after getting in a fight with their oldest brother. Both
children reported father was verbally and emotionally abusive
and cursed at them. G.M. was interviewed and described father
as a violent person who does not want to change. G.M. said
mother and father kicked her out of their home because G.M. no
4
longer wanted to experience what they did to her. Father cussed
at her and threatened to kill her. G.M. said father never changed
after the last DCFS case. She had witnessed father being
abusive towards D.M. and observed father using pliers on D.M.’s
genitals when he was eight years old. Father would punch all of
the children and tell them he wished they did not exist. G.M. had
also witnessed mother and father engaging in domestic violence.
G.M. wanted T.M. to remain in the parents’ home because she
was “treated like a princess and no one is physically abusive
towards her.”
D.M. also reported T.M. was “treated like a princess.” D.M.
disclosed he had been physically abused, and he had witnessed
mother and father engaging in domestic violence. D.M. recounted
the incident during which father pinched his genitals with pliers
until he told the truth. L.M. also recalled the incident with the
pliers and said father would hit the children with “a bamboo
stick, and golf club or whatever was in his reach to hit the
children.”
On November 17, 2022, the social worker interviewed T.M.
in an interview room. T.M. said she wanted mother present for
the interview. T.M. was eight years old and in third grade. She
was homeschooled. T.M. reported her siblings ran away and
tried to take her with them, but she was unaware of why her
siblings ran away from home. T.M. denied witnessing any abuse
or mistreatment in the home. T.M. denied witnessing any
domestic violence or sexual abuse.
Mother and father denied all allegations and wanted all the
children back in the home. Mother and father owned a
veterinary hospital, and the children ran away because they did
5
not want to work at the hospital. Mother stated the children
wanted a different life without rules.
On December 15, 2022, the social worker spoke with nurse
practitioner Teresa Camacho, who reported she examined the
family in 2019. At the time, T.M. was very animated and
reported, “I have the best parents in the world,” “My parents are
perfect,” and “My sister is lost.” T.M. would often not make eye
contact.
On December 16, 2022, the social worker received a police
report regarding suspected child abuse reported by Rochelle.
D.M. reported father began abusing him when he was seven or
eight years old. Father would punch him, slap him, and hit him
with objects. D.M. also related the incident when father pinched
his penis with pliers.
G.M. stated father had recently slapped her on the right
ear, causing her left ear to bleed. Father had also gotten into a
physical altercation with mother because he thought she was
having an affair. Father threw mother onto a couch-bed and
called her “bitch whore.” Father threatened to break G.M.’s neck
and she spent the night worried that father was going to enter
her room and break her neck. L.M. also described abuse, saying
father hit her with a spoon and a wooden ruler, and once slapped
L.M. across the face, causing her to hit the wall.
T.M. denied observing any physical violence in the home
and reported, “My daddy is loveable.” She denied being afraid of
father. The officer observed scars on T.M.’s arm, but T.M.
reported they were bug bites that she picked at.
On January 4, 2023, L.M. reported she did not want to
return to the parents’ home because she feared abuse by father
6
would continue. L.M. felt her parents were bribing D.M. with
gifts and being nice to him because DCFS was involved.
An April 2023 email from a police detective Nova Simon to
the social worker stated the detective was “gravely concerned for
the victims’ safety because DCFS has not detained the children,
despite considerable evidence of abuse and neglect.” The
detective described a “15-year period of significant, ongoing
abuse,” during which time “there have been numerous law
enforcement and D[CF]S investigations.” Beginning in 2020, the
four eldest children reported being required to work eight to 12
hour shifts, six days per week, sometimes without breaks. The
children were required to handle intravenous drugs as well as
dangerous chemicals while working. D.M. and T.M. frequently
entered the treatment room and handled the animals, some of
which were dangerous. In addition, T.M. stayed at the veterinary
clinic seven days a week and was frequently left unsupervised
and unattended for hours at a time. T.M. was not allowed to use
the restroom because the company that owned the facility did not
want young children unattended in the store. Thus, T.M. was
required to urinate and defecate in a paper shred bin. T.M. was
in the operating room during surgery and was in the X-ray room
without protective equipment where she was exposed to radiation
several times per week. T.M. was allowed to use a scalpel with
dead tissue that was left around the animals unattended.
On April 11, 2023, the social worker decided to move
forward with requesting a removal order for the children.
On April 21, 2023, the juvenile court granted a removal
warrant for L.M. and D.M. from the parents. D.M. was detained
with the maternal grandmother. L.M. was detained with
7
Rochelle. The removal warrant for T.M. was denied, although
DCFS had recommended T.M. be removed from parental custody.
Section 300 petition and initial proceedings
On April 27, 2023, DCFS filed a section 300 petition on
behalf of L.M., D.M., and T.M., alleging father physically abused
L.M. and D.M. and mother failed to protect them; the parents
engaged in violent altercations; father physically abused adult
sibling Na.M.; the parents medically neglected D.M.; the parents
allowed the children to consume alcohol; and father emotionally
abused L.M. and D.M.
At the May 1, 2023 detention hearing, the juvenile court
detained T.M. from father and released her to mother’s custody.
The matter was set for an adjudication hearing.
In a June 28, 2023 addendum report, the dependency
investigator reported T.M. refused to meet with the social worker
privately. T.M. was hugging mother and looking at her before
answering questions. T.M. would tell mother she loved her and
act “babyish” during the interview. T.M informed the
dependency investigator she loved father.
On August 16, 2023, DCFS received a referral regarding
D.M. The child disclosed when mother and T.M. visited him,
mother threatened to disown him if he discussed abuse in the
home. Mother told T.M. not to hug D.M. because he was
betraying the family by talking to T.M. about physical abuse.
The referral was still under investigation.
On September 1, 2023, DCFS requested to dispense with
notice of the removal order request on the ground that the
children tended to be coached and T.M. would not speak with any
professional alone without her mother present. DCFS was
concerned if given notice, the parents would coach T.M. not to be
8
forthcoming with DCFS. The request was granted. On
September 5, 2023, the juvenile court granted DCFS’s request to
remove T.M. from parental custody. T.M. was detained in foster
care.
On September 7, 2023, DCFS filed a section 385 petition
requesting the home-of-parent order be vacated and T.M. be
ordered suitably placed. DCFS reported the parents violated the
order that they not speak about the case or intimidate the
children. The parents were using T.M. to influence D.M. not to
disclose any more details about the parents’ physical and
emotional abuse. DCFS noted that T.M. was the same age as her
siblings were when the parents began abusing them.
DCFS had interviewed G.M. for the September 8, 2023
detention report. G.M. reported T.M. was present during many of
the parents’ altercations. In addition, the parents would coach
T.M. The child was not allowed to visit D.M. or Na.M. G.M. also
revealed father would make the girls massage him, and she felt
had she not refused to give father massages, she was sure the
massages would have led to sexual acts. G.M. believed because
T.M. was the only girl left in the house, she would be the next one
victimized by father.
L.M. reported T.M. was not allowed to hug her siblings
because the parents brainwashed T.M. into believing negative
things about her siblings. Rochelle’s daughter, Lauren M.,
reported mother and father told T.M. that since they had not
been living with the parents, T.M.’s sisters would turn into
“sluts.” L.M. had not had any contact with T.M. since she left the
home because the parents would not allow it. L.M. had no desire
to reunify with the parents due to the long history of abuse she
and her siblings had endured at the hands of the parents. D.M.
9
reported that although T.M. would get some punishment at
home, it was never as bad as what he and his siblings received.
Mother would not allow the social worker to interview T.M.
alone. The social worker observed T.M. spoke as if she was much
younger than nine years old. She appeared “childish,” and made
spontaneous statements about her parents being “the best
parents.”
On September 9, 2023, DCFS took T.M. into protective
custody. At the DCFS office, T.M. stated her parents told her
never to speak to social workers because social workers were not
nice. The parents told T.M., “They … tell me to say I don’t want
to talk. They tell me, don’t talk to them.” The social worker
found it notable T.M. knew the acronym DCFS.
T.M. revealed the parents would hit D.M. and G.M. when
they got in trouble; mother would get into physical fights with
T.M.’s sisters; father would get into physical fights with T.M.’s
brothers, and father would use a belt, a metal baseball bat, and a
bamboo stick to hit D.M. and Na.M. Mother would call the girls
names like “bitch, fuck heads, and demons from hell.” T.M.
disclosed father kicked her once when she got too close while
father was kicking her brothers, and mother slapped her once
when she got too close while mother was slapping her sisters.
T.M. had seen the parents punch each other, which caused her
fear. T.M. observed the parents drink alcohol, and she would
drink some when they left it on the table.
At the September 8, 2023 arraignment hearing, the
juvenile court ordered T.M. detained from parental custody and
ordered monitored visits for the parents twice a week for two
hours each visit, either at the DCFS office or in a therapeutic
setting. T.M. was placed in foster care.
10
In a November 7, 2023 supplemental report, DCFS
reported T.M. had been referred to wraparound services as she
was exhibiting behavior such as bed wetting, drawing of unusual
pictures referring to sex, and sexualized behavior. Mother was
making overwhelming demands and was disrespectful, including
making racist comments.
Adjudication hearing and related reports
The juvenile court held the adjudication hearing on
November 7, November 8, November 29, and December 19, 2023,
and February 9 and February 13, 2024.
On November 8, 2023, the juvenile court ordered DCFS to
refer the family for conjoint therapy and ordered monitored visits
for the parents twice per week for two hours each visit, with the
visits taking place at the DCFS office and monitored by a social
worker.
On November 29, 2023, DCFS reported the parents were
scheduled to visit D.M. and T.M. on Tuesdays and Thursdays
from 5:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The parents were scheduled for
phone calls on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays for 30
minutes each call.
When T.M. began visiting with the parents, her behavior
began to regress. She exhibited daily bedwetting; daily
intentional self-soiling; regressed baby talk; daily disrespect to
her foster mother; spoke to other children in the home about
sexual topics such as asking if they wanted to see how big her
breasts had become; and engaged in full conversations with
herself in the bathroom. T.M. stated the parents would buy her
great gifts, such as a ranch with horses, when she returned to
their care.
11
In a last minute information for the court filed
December 19, 2023, DCFS reported the parents were often late to
visits and often lingered after visits causing the visits to end later
than scheduled. The parents were not considering the children’s
travel time back to their placements or their need to be up the
next day for school. When the children complained about their
foster homes, the parents wanted to discuss the concerns with the
monitors during the visits. The parents refused to abide by
DCFS’s direction to contact the social worker at a later time to
discuss case issues.
On January 25, 2024, the social worker reported DCFS
continued to work with the parents on guidelines for the phone
calls with T.M. Mother told T.M. she would return home in
February, and she could play with a puppy the parents purchased
for her. Father had told T.M. that upon her return he would buy
her a ranch and a horse. T.M. said she would name her new
horse Penelope. Additionally, father had been scolding T.M
about her school performance, although the child was doing well
in school.
DCFS acknowledged there were issues with the minors
being available for their scheduled phone calls. T.M.’s caregiver
allotted additional time for T.M. to speak with her parents and
her siblings, per the parents’ request. T.M. called the parents
and her siblings every morning before school and every evening
before bedtime.
The wraparound team noted T.M. was a people pleaser and
would often minimize herself to praise others. For example,
during a call with mother, T.M. excitedly shared about her new
hairdo and how much she wanted to show mother. Mother did
not share the child’s excitement, and the child quickly changed
12
her tone and began to praise mother, telling her what a great
mother she is and how happy the child was that she is her
mother.
T.M. was dishonest and intentionally damaged her
caregiver’s belongings. When confronted about this behavior, the
minor stated, “I do it because I know you can’t hit me.” T.M.’s
behavior regressed after visits and phone calls with the parents.
In a February 9, 2024 last minute information for the court,
the social worker reported a referral had been made following a
doctor visit on January 18, 2024. During the doctor visit, T.M.
revealed that she never attended school because she would work
at the family’s veterinary clinic Mondays through Saturdays, and
her job was also to cook leftover food for the family. T.M. added
that she had her own pots to cook in. When asked about
witnessing abuse of her siblings, T.M. recalled a time when D.M.
failed to fully flush the toilet. Father grabbed D.M. by the head
and pushed it into the toilet with the unflushed soil. She also
recalled an incident during which father took a “cleaver knife”
and cut Na.M. T.M. demonstrated by using her left hand and
making a cutting motion across her right wrist. The injury
caused “[a] lot of blood,” and mother sewed up Na.M.’s injuries.
T.M. expressed that she is expecting to go back home next month,
thus a concern arose that the parents were giving her false
information.
On January 18, 2024, T.M. expressed to the social worker
that her father was “evil.” He would beat up her older siblings
and had cut her older sibling’s wrist. She further said father had
punched her older sibling in the face, put his head in the toilet
with diarrhea, and would hit them any time they did not do what
their father instructed. T.M. told the social worker she wished
13
she could experience being part of a normal family and not her
“chaotic family.”
On February 13, 2024, the parents submitted waiver of
rights forms pleading no contest to the section 300 petition,
which the juvenile court found were knowingly, intelligently, and
voluntarily made. The juvenile court sustained the following
counts: (1) a-1, b-1, and j-1, alleging father physically abused
D.M., including pinching the child’s genitals with pliers, striking
the child with a stick, a belt and a golf club, and instructed the
child to provide false information about the abuse. Mother knew
the child was being physically abused by the father and failed to
protect the child. The physical abuse placed the child and the
child’s siblings, L.M. and T.M., at risk of serious physical harm;
(2) a-2, b-2, and j-2, alleging father physically abused L.M.,
including striking her face, pulling her hair, and striking the
child’s body with objects such as a stick, golf club, belt, spoons
and a wooden ruler, and instructed the child to provide false
information about the abuse. Mother knew the child was being
physically abused by the father and failed to protect the child.
Such abuse placed the child and her siblings, D.M. and T.M., at
risk of serious physical harm; (3) a-3; b-3; and j-3, alleging father
and mother had a history of engaging in violent altercations,
including in the presence of the child D.M. Such violent conduct
on the part of the father against the mother created a
detrimental home environment and placed the children at risk of
serious physical harm; (4) counts a-4; b-5; and j-5, alleging father
had a history of violent behavior towards the children’s adult
sibling G.M., mother knew of the violent behavior and failed to
protect G.M., and such violent conduct and failure to protect
placed the children at risk of serious physical harm; (5) counts
14
a-5; b-6, and j-6, alleging father physically abused the children’s
adult sibling Na.M., including by brandishing a butcher knife and
cutting the sibling’s wrist, inflicting a laceration to the then-16-
year-old sibling’s wrist, that mother knew of the abuse and failed
to protect Na.M., and such physical abuse and failure to protect
placed the children at risk of serious physical harm; (6) counts
b-4 and j-4, alleging the child D.M. has mental and emotional
problems, and the child’s mother and father have medically
neglected the child by failing to ensure the child receives
necessary psychological services for his condition, and such
medical neglect endangers the child and his siblings; (7) count
b-7, alleging mother and father placed the children in a
detrimental and endangering situation in that the parents
allowed the children to consume alcohol, including allowing L.M.
to drink wine, beer, rum and vodka resulting in the child passing
out from alcohol consumption; (8) count c-1, alleging father
emotionally abused L.M., resulting in the child feeling stress and
threatening to harm herself if she is forced to return to the family
home; and (9) count c-2, alleging father emotionally abused D.M.,
calling the child derogatory and demeaning names including
calling the child worthless and wishing he never had the child;
the child has mental and emotional problems resulting from such
abuse, and the parents failed to ensure the child received
necessary psychological services; and such emotional abuse on
the part of the parents placed the child at substantial risk of
suffering serious emotional harm.
The juvenile court declared T.M. a dependent of the court,
ordered her removed from parental custody, ordered family
reunification services for the parents, ordered the parents not to
discuss case issues with the children, and ordered monitored in-
15
person visits in a DCFS-approved setting for a minimum of four
hours per week and phone visits for a minimum of 15 to 20
minutes per call.
Mother’s case plan included a domestic violence program,
conjoint counseling with T.M. if appropriate, and individual
counseling to address parenting teens and preteens and the
effects of domestic violence on children.
Father’s case plan included a domestic violence program,
conjoint counseling with T.M. if appropriate, and individual
counseling to address anger management, parenting teens and
preteens, and the effects of domestic violence on children.
The juvenile court set the matter for a six-month review
hearing.
Reunification period
In May 2024, T.M. reported to her social worker that she
loved her foster mother and foster siblings. T.M.’s telephone calls
with her parents caused her some negative feelings. During the
calls, the parents questioned T.M.’s activities, academics, meals,
and overall care. T.M. felt pressure to answer the parents on
these subjects. The parents would tell T.M. they were going to
reward her and get her a surprise. During one phone call, the
parents “talked down” to T.M. about getting “1’s” on her report
card. The caregiver shared that due to being previously
homeschooled, T.M. was struggling with the curriculum at school.
T.M.’s teacher explained that T.M. was doing her best. T.M.
expressed that she did not like talking on the phone with her
parents but enjoyed in-person visits.
On May 22, 2024, the juvenile court ordered DCFS to
provide a progress report regarding T.M.’s therapy and whether
she was ready for conjoint counseling.
16
On June 10, 2024, T.M.’s wraparound facilitator,
Brandy Brandon, stated T.M. was resistant to having her parents
in a therapeutic session, so conjoint counseling was not yet
recommended. T.M. had been doing well in meeting her goals in
therapy and with her team. T.M. had increased her ability to
identify her feelings and use coping skills and participated in her
sessions. On two occasions, T.M. had stated, “I do not want to go
back home to my parents.” She also expressed, “Sometimes I do
not want to talk to my parents over the phone. Can I choose
when I talk to them? Can I just have calls sometimes … like
Monday and Wednesday?” Given these comments, the
wraparound team recommended the parents not be part of the
therapeutic process until the wraparound team recommended it.
On July 9, 2024, T.M. was re-placed to a new foster home,
due to problematic behaviors such as bedwetting and skin
picking, and due to the parents’ coaching the child and making
allegations against the previous foster mother. T.M. continued to
verbalize not wanting to return home to live with her parents.
Mother consistently called late for the scheduled phone
calls with T.M. The parents were also distracted during the
phone calls, talking about surgery or being in surgery, with loud
sounds and animals crying in the background. During these
phone calls, T.M. would attempt to get the parents’ attention, and
the parents would ask the child to repeat herself. The social
worker tried to address the issue with the parents, but they said
they had a right to work and visit at the same time. The parents
had been inconsistent about answering the monitored phone
calls. On several occasions, T.M. stated she felt the parents liked
D.M. more than her because the parents only asked questions
about D.M.’s school, friends, and girlfriend.
17
The parents became confrontational when the social worker
reported T.M. did not want to participate in monitored phone
calls. They accused the foster parent of controlling the child. The
social worker asked T.M. to inform the parents that she did not
want to have calls, but T.M. did not want to do so and preferred
the social worker tell the parents. T.M. appeared to be fearful of
her parents.
The parents had been inconsistent with in-person visits, as
they continued to arrive late. During visits, the parents talked
about case-related issues with T.M. Often the parents tried to
talk about case-related issues with the monitor rather than
visiting with T.M. During in-person visits, T.M. exhibited some
troubling behavior, such as asking, “Isn’t mom perfect?” She also
spoke in a baby voice to the parents.
During one visit, the parents asked T.M. why she did not
want to talk to them on the phone. T.M. shrugged her shoulders,
laughed, and said she did not know why. Father told the child
they could change the call time, and mother said it hurt her
feelings when T.M. did not want to talk on the phone.
The social worker noted the family was very affectionate,
hugged, and gave compliments. Mother was loving, attentive,
and caring towards T.M.
At the August 14, 2024 six-month review hearing, the
juvenile court found the parents in partial compliance with their
court-ordered case plans and set the matter for a 12-month
review hearing.
The social worker noted the parents had been consistently
visiting, and the family was bonded. However, the parents
continued to exhibit confrontational behavior towards the social
worker at visits. During a September 5, 2024 visit, mother asked
18
if Na.M. could be present for the next visit. The social worker
asked mother to confirm before the visit, and mother got upset,
saying she already told the social worker Na.M. was coming and
the social worker was making more work for her. Mother
continued to question the social worker, who attempted to
redirect mother towards the visit. Mother continued to be upset
and grabbed her phone, telling the social worker she would send
her an e-mail. T.M. appeared uncomfortable while mother was
questioning the social worker. T.M. asked mother, “If you had to
save one person, would you save me or Daddy?” Mother declined
to answer the question, saying she loved them both and would
save them both. Mother agreed to allow T.M. to watch a show
and continued texting on her phone. Father arrived to the visit
20 minutes late and became upset that D.M. was not present for
the visit. After further questioning, he returned to visit T.M.
Towards the end of the visit, the family watched a show. T.M.
placed her hand on father’s knee and father wrapped his arm
around the child’s shoulder.
The family had been consistently visiting, and they were
observed to laugh, smile, and pray together. However, the
parents’ visits had not been liberalized to unmonitored because
there remained concerns regarding the lack of behavioral change
from the parents. The parents complained of lack of time with
the children, yet one parent was consistently late for each visit.
The parents continued to try to bribe the children with gifts and
accused DCFS of creating a report full of lies. During their
interview, the parents did not admit to anything and were
observed to roll their eyes and giggle throughout the interview.
The parents complained that T.M. picked her skin because
she had a gluten allergy and the caregiver was not feeding her
19
appropriately. However, T.M. had openly admitted she picked
her skin as a coping mechanism due to the trauma she had
experienced in the family. T.M. did not feel any symptoms of a
gluten allergy after eating. It was also observed the parents
brought food to the visits that was not gluten-free. The parents
continued to minimize the issues that brought them to the
attention of the juvenile court.
On September 5, 2024, the social worker noted T.M. had
changed her mind and now stated she wanted to return home to
her parents. T.M. shared she believed she could be her father’s
therapist and talk to him about what he is feeling. When the
social worker told T.M. she was not a therapist, T.M. said she
had seen lots of parenting movies and could teach her parents.
The social worker asked T.M. what would be different this time if
she returned home. T.M. responded that she would be brave and
speak up for herself, and that her parents would not hurt her.
T.M. expressed a belief that if she did not lie, her parents would
not hurt her.
In September 2024, the parents complained they were not
getting enough visits with T.M. However, during the summer the
social worker had offered to adjust the visitation schedule to
maximize the parents’ time with the children, and the parents
declined, stating they could not adjust their work schedule.
On November 1, 2024, the juvenile court ordered a court
appointed special advocate (CASA) to be appointed for T.M.
In a November 14, 2024 status report, DCFS reported the
family appeared to get along well during visits, as they laughed
and joked around. DCFS remained concerned that the parents
were attempting to bribe the children with money, gifts, and
fancy food. Although the juvenile court had ordered them not to
20
bring fancy food or gifts, the parents had been ordering Pieology
at least once a week for the visits and had secretly placed a $100
bill inside a toothpaste box for D.M. The children’s therapists
continued to not recommend conjoint counseling.
T.M. continued to urinate daily in her bed. T.M.’s caregiver
instructed the child to use the bathroom before bed, but she was
inconsistent. She had to be prompted to shower, brush her teeth,
and use deodorant. T.M. continually picked at her skin,
especially after visits with her parents. The caregiver was
confused because T.M. previously said she was terrified of father
but now could not stop talking about her father and mentioned
wanting to return to parental custody. She did not appear to
have a reason for changing her mind.
On September 18, 2024, T.M. expressed to the wraparound
team, “I kind of want to go home.” When the team asked her why
she changed her mind, she said she missed her parents, they had
been paying more attention to her, “plus I will get a horse.” T.M.
disclosed father promised her she would get a horse when she got
older. She added that she thought she could change her father,
because her siblings had never tried talking to him about his
discipline. T.M. disclosed sexual abuse history, but declined to
provide details, stating she did not want to talk about it.
T.M.’s therapist reported his sessions with T.M. were going
well, but she shut down and deflected whenever the topic of her
parents was introduced. In addition, T.M. picked her skin when
her father was mentioned.
On October 3, 2024, T.M. stated she enjoyed in-person and
telephone visits with her parents and felt she was developing a
connection with them. She was unable to describe the
connection, stating, “I don’t know. I just miss home.”
21
T.M. did not want phone calls with the parents on
August 23, August 30, and October 4, 2024. Father was not
engaged in the September 9, September 13, October 2, and
October 18, 2024 telephone visits. On September 25, 2024, when
T.M. told father she did not like his squash soup, he cut her off,
stating everyone else enjoyed it. On September 27, 2024, father
told the child, “just know that if and when you do come home, we
can give you whatever you need.” On October 11, 2024, father
told T.M. he had a surprise for her. Although the parents had
been participating in court-ordered services, the parents had not
mitigated the concerns that brought them to DCFS’s attention
and had not taken accountability for their actions. DCFS
recommended termination of family reunification services.
At a section 366.21, subdivision (f) hearing on
November 14, 2024, the juvenile court continued its monitored
visitation order for the parents and ordered the parents to abide
by the visitation parameters and to abide by T.M.’s wishes if she
did not want to interact with them.
Mother had completed 47 sessions of individual therapy
and had shown improvement in implementing anger
management strategies. Father had completed 36 sessions of a
domestic violence program, but his progress was very slow as he
was distracted by DCFS’s perceived persecution against him.
The parents continued to consistently visit and T.M. stated she
enjoyed the visits. However, the parents continued to have
inappropriate conversation with T.M. and D.M.
At a visit on November 12, 2024, T.M. kept trying to get her
parents’ attention, but they were focused on D.M. The parents
pressured T.M. about not having a phone conversation on Friday,
22
despite the social worker asking them to change the subject.
Father complained DCFS was trying to censor the family.
At the end of the November 26, 2024 visit, T.M. gave
mother a hug and mother said, “Please stop telling people you
don’t want to talk to us.”
At a December 4, 2024 visit, T.M. expressed surprise that
her grandmother’s funeral was that weekend. Father said, “how
are we supposed to tell you when you never want to have [our]
scheduled phone calls.” T.M. looked at the social worker, and
father said, “[D]o not look at anyone else look at me I’m talking to
you.”
T.M. declined seven phone calls and four were cancelled
due to technical difficulties. In December 2024, T.M. had one call
with her parents, declined seven, and three were cancelled.
DCFS offered to make up the cancelled calls, but T.M. declined.
On January 14, 2024, T.M. acknowledged she kept
changing her mind about returning to the parents but believed
she had made up her mind. She did not want to return to her
parents’ home because it was no longer home. T.M. explained,
“people grow up and leave and if she were to go back home it
would not feel the same.”
On January 25, 2025, DCFS had a team meeting with the
parents. When read the sustained allegations, the parents were
observed to laugh and chuckle and have side conversations with
each other. Father tapped his pen loudly and shook his head.
The parents refused to answer questions about taking
responsibility and what they would do differently. DCFS opined
the parents had not demonstrated learned or changed behavior
and dismissed the reasons for DCFS involvement with the family.
23
The 12-month review hearing took place on February 7,
2025. The same date, DCFS filed an ex parte application and
order requesting that the juvenile court terminate the parents’
reunification services. T.M.’s CASA recommended that the child
be evaluated for more intensive services as she was picking at her
skin. The juvenile court found the parents had made substantial
progress in their programs and set the matter for a section 366.22
hearing.
T.M. declined all phone calls with the parents in February
2025. In March 2025, T.M. accepted three phone calls. The
parents had been trying to persuade T.M. to accept their phone
calls, causing T.M. to increase her skin picking and bedwetting.
T.M. admitted she told her parents what they wanted to hear so
they would stop bringing up the issue of monitored phone calls.
T.M. enjoyed in-person visits, but she felt frustrated and annoyed
by the parents’ comments that she did not care about them and
demanding she participate in phone calls.
On March 7, 2025, T.M. stated she did not want to return
to the parents’ care, but she wanted unmonitored visits. She
stated she felt she could protect herself because she could call
G.M. or her previous caregiver. T.M. declined a monitored phone
call that day. T.M. denied feeling pressured by her parents,
saying, “I feel annoyed and inside I just want to scream at them
and say, ‘shut up!’”
T.M.’s caregiver reported T.M.’s skin picking had worsened.
She thought T.M. was anxious that she would need to testify at
the upcoming court hearing. T.M. did not want to testify in her
parents’ presence.
On March 12, 2025, T.M. stated she had informed her
parents she no longer wanted phone calls on Fridays. During a
24
March 18, 2025 visit, mother told T.M. they needed to stay in
communication to solve problems. T.M. left the visitation room
with DCFS staff.
On March 25, 2025, T.M. informed the wraparound team
that she did not want to return home to her parents, although
she had told her parents she wanted to return home. She was
afraid to express her feelings to her parents and wanted to
appease them. The team continued to address T.M.’s behaviors
such as baby talk, bedwetting, inappropriate boundaries, pulling
her hair, feeling the need to fix her parents, and holding in
feelings about the past.
T.M. declined her March 26, 2025 phone call with her
parents. T.M. said although she told her parents she wanted to
see them every day, she did not mean it. She said it because
“they don’t leave me alone, they are always bugging me about the
calls and saying I don’t care about them …. So I tell them what
they want to hear to get them to leave me alone.” T.M. said,
“[W]hat I told my parents is not true, I don’t want to see them
everyday.”
On March 27, 2025, the social worker noticed several open
wounds on T.M.’s forehead. T.M. expressed feeling upset with
her parents because they kept saying things like “you don’t care
about us.” T.M. requested the visitation monitors intervene
when the parents talked about T.M. declining telephone visits.
When the social worker showed T.M. a picture of a school project
the parents helped her with, T.M. became upset because the
parents took over the project and made changes without her.
When T.M. confronted the parents about making the changes,
mother stated if the child took her phone calls they could
communicate about the changes to her project. T.M. began crying
25
and said she wanted “me time.” Mother said, “I hate what they’re
doing to you.” T.M. said she made her own decisions and “this is
her.” After the situation calmed down, mother told T.M. to take
their phone calls and the child nodded. On March 28, 2025,
T.M.’s bedwetting escalated as she was throwing her pullups on
the floor and hiding them under the bed.
On February 18, 2025, mother requested a new therapist.
Mother’s previous therapist said mother pushed back when she
addressed case issues and taking accountability for why the
children had come to DCFS’s attention. On March 25, 2025,
mother’s new therapist discussed miscommunications with DCFS
as the reason for the children’s removal.
On April 16, 2025, the social worker asked T.M. if she
wanted a phone call with the parents, and T.M. declined. T.M.
said the parents asked her if she wanted to return home, and
T.M. responded, “[Y]ou already know the answer.” The parents
replied, “We know but we want to hear it from you.” T.M.
responded, “[W]ell it doesn’t matter what I think, it[’]s up to
Court.” T.M. informed the social worker she did not want to
return home with the parents.
Father completed his domestic violence program on
April 21, 2025. His domestic violence counselor reported father
was seeing things differently but did not explain what he viewed
differently. Father continued to display aggressive and
intimidating behaviors towards the social worker, such as
prolonged intense staring and criticism in the children’s presence.
Father would also raise his voice at the social worker and
interrupt her when she spoke.
On April 29, 2025, D.M.’s counsel stated D.M. wanted to
return to the parents’ home. The juvenile court ordered D.M.
26
released to the parents’ custody on the condition that the parents
continue their treatment programs. The court ordered DCFS to
provide a conjoint counseling referral for the parents and T.M.,
but T.M. was not to be forced to participate. On May 1, 2025,
T.M. reported she did not want to return home even though D.M.
had returned to the parents’ home.
T.M.’s therapist reported the parents were upset when she
spoke to them and demanded to know why they were unable to
have conjoint therapy with the child. They alleged the
wraparound team was coaching the child. The parents expressed
T.M.’s behavior at visits was the opposite of what the child
expressed in sessions. The therapist confirmed this was
accurate, because the child did not feel comfortable expressing
her feelings to the parents.
On June 25, 2025, DCFS conducted a child and family team
(CFT) meeting with the parents, wraparound team members,
D.M., and the Department of Mental Health. When the
wraparound team was explaining that conjoint therapy was not
appropriate at the time, the parents continually interrupted the
team members. The parents continued to express their belief
that T.M. was coached by DCFS. The parents were disrespectful
to DCFS staff, the Department of Mental Health, and the
wraparound team. The parents continually interrupted staff and
blamed others. The meeting could not be concluded due to
parents’ actions.
During a June 30, 2025 monitored phone call, T.M. asked
her parents if they would love her “no matter what.” The parents
asked the child what was wrong and who was telling her what to
say. T.M. denied anyone telling her what to say and again asked
the parents if they would love her “no matter what.” The parents
27
responded affirmatively and T.M. stated, “I’ve been lying to you
guys … I’ve been telling you that I want to go home, but that is a
lie, the truth is I don’t want to go home with you guys because of
what you guys did to my brothers and sisters. [D.M.] wants to
forgive you guys and go back home to you guys, but that is his
choice. I don’t think I can forgive you guys for making them run
away from home. I wanted to tell you guys this now because I
will be saying this during the CFT tomorrow.” T.M. then hung
up.
On July 1, 2025, father sent an e-mail stating the family
was postponing the CFT meeting because he believed T.M. had
“recited a clearly scripted narrative, admitted she had been lying
to make us happy, and referenced an undisclosed individual
coaching her emotionally. She made statements that align
closely with DCFS’s long-standing narrative, despite never
having previously expressed such sentiments when given the
chance.”
Prior to the July 1, 2025 in-person visit, T.M. stated she
wanted to attend because she wanted to see what gifts the
parents were bringing her that day. When she approached her
parents, T.M. said, “[S]o we cool?” The parents did not respond
and gave her pants as a gift. The social worker noted the visit
was awkward. Mother was emotional when saying goodbye to
T.M. The social worker had to re-direct father not to discuss case
issues. On July 3, 2025, T.M. reported the July 1 visit was
awkward and she did not return mother’s hug because of the
awkwardness.
During a visit on July 8, 2025, mother told T.M. they were
not “monsters that they have painted us to be.” At a July 10,
2025 visit, D.M. prayed that the family could be together under
28
the same roof some day. Mother said the child could only be safe
when she was at home. The social worker interjected, stating the
family should not be talking about the child’s return home.
DCFS continued to recommend termination of reunification
services because the parents continued to display a lack of insight
as to the issues that brought the family to the attention of DCFS.
Contested section 366.22 hearing and surrounding events
The juvenile court held T.M.’s section 366.22 hearing on
July 21 and September 29, 2025. The juvenile court admitted
into evidence all the parties’ exhibits.
T.M. testified in chambers. The juvenile court found her
qualified to testify. T.M. acknowledged she had declined many
phone calls with the parents. The child would decline the calls
because she did not want to be interrupted or she had no interest
in having a call with the parents. The social worker never told
the child to decline visits. T.M. told the social worker when she
did not want the call.
T.M. testified she had in-person visits with the parents on
Tuesdays and Thursdays at the DCFS office. Most in-person
visits went well and the family had fun, but sometimes T.M.
would get upset or the parents would say something she did not
like and she would not enjoy the visit. T.M. never declined in-
person visits. The family had a good visit the week before.
T.M. discussed the visit where the parents changed her
school project. T.M. explained when she lived with the parents,
father would beat D.M. when he would do “something wrong.
Like, the smallest little thing.” T.M. continued, “And it was a
very violent place I lived before. And it not only left a physical
scar on me and my siblings, but also an emotional scar.”
29
T.M. testified she did not want to return to her parents’
home. T.M. recalled being scared of father, stating, “Even though
he is sometimes a great guy, he was also a monster, too, because
he would hurt us and beat us. And the things that he did with
us, I can’t forget. And whenever I look at him, I want to believe
that maybe he’s changed and/or maybe I could help him. But I
don’t think I can anymore. And I’d rather be somewhere where I
know I’ll be safe than somewhere where I can only hope and pray
that everything will be fine.” T.M. said she did not get beaten or
hit but father would grab her tightly by the shoulder, arm, hand
or wrist, shocking her into fear.
T.M. thought her parents would try to influence her
because they would bring her favorite foods to visits. She was
getting her favorite foods more and more, whenever she asked.
T.M. enjoyed her therapy sessions because she could speak
her mind. She did not want to do conjoint therapy with her
parents, which was her own decision.
T.M. recalled that almost a year ago, she wanted to go
home. However, she explained, “the more I thought about it …
because I used to say, oh, maybe I could help my dad, maybe I
could show him a different way. But the more I thought about it,
the more scenarios that I thought in my head just got worse and
worse.… And I decided that I did not wish to go home.” T.M.
acknowledged she continued to tell her parents she wanted to go
home because she did not want to hurt them, and she was scared
father would find a way to hurt her. She also wanted the parents
to continue to love her but felt that if she told them the truth
they would no longer love her. T.M. stated the parents promised
her a horse and a nice bedroom if she said she wished to go home.
30
On cross-examination, T.M. acknowledged she had fun
during visits but said that did not change her decision. She
would like to visit the parents but did not want to return to their
home. T.M. wanted G.M. to adopt her even if it meant she might
never see her mother again.
The court continued the matter.
On July 23, 2025, DCFS attempted to conduct the second
part of the CFT meeting with the parents, D.M., T.M., the
wraparound team, and T.M.’s therapist. Father wanted the
supervising social worker and another professional dismissed
from the meeting. Father claimed the individuals were laughing
and smiling about the court hearing, which they denied. T.M.
wanted them present. Father said he was not in agreement and
asked D.M. what he thought. D.M. agreed with father. The
regional administrator requested the parents honor T.M.’s
wishes. The meeting had to be rescheduled.
On July 30, 2025, T.M. informed the social worker she
wanted her phone call with her parents so she could inform them
she was going to a YMCA camp. After the visit, the parents
notified the social worker they were objecting to T.M. attending
the camp. They enrolled her in a day camp instead.
On August 1, 2025, the social worker informed T.M. that
she could not go to the YMCA and her parents had enrolled her in
a day camp. T.M. became upset and declined the monitored
phone call that day, stating “if I can’t get what I want, then they
can’t either!” The social worker said she would check in later to
see if she changed her mind, and T.M. then said, “[W]ait, I do
want my call! I want to give them a piece of my mind!”
During the call, T.M. asked her parents why they signed
her up for a different camp. The parents asked T.M. who told her
31
that and demanded to know who was communicating to her.
When the parents began accusing the social worker of lying, the
social worker had to end the call.
At the August 7, 2025 visit, T.M. informed father and D.M.
she was not going to camp anymore. When father asked T.M.
about the food he had delivered to the camp, the child looked at
the social worker as if seeking support. Father told T.M., “You
don’t need to look at her.” When father again asked about the
camp, T.M. replied, “I don’t see what the problem is. That’s just
what I heard. I’m just a clueless 11 year old.”
On September 5, 2025, mother’s counsel filed a request for
a bonding study.
On September 29, 2025, mother’s counsel informed the
court he filed a request for a bonding study. The court informed
counsel it had read mother’s points and authorities and denied
the request. Mother’s counsel asked to be heard briefly, to which
the court responded, “I denied it. I do not need to entertain
arguments. It is a request I read and considered, and I made a
ruling.”
DCFS requested the juvenile court terminate family
reunification services for the parents because it would be
detrimental to return T.M. to the parents’ custody. DCFS argued
the parents failed to demonstrate meaningful insight and
behavioral change as they continued to minimize and even
mocked the sustained physical abuse counts. T.M.’s counsel
joined with DCFS and argued D.M. was differently situated as he
chose to go home with his parents.
D.M.’s counsel stated D.M. wanted T.M. to return to the
parents’ custody and objected to termination of reunification
services. Father’s counsel joined with mother’s counsel in
32
requesting T.M. be released to parental custody. Father’s counsel
also argued DCFS had failed to provide reasonable services.
Father’s counsel stated if the court was not inclined to return
T.M. to parental custody, father requested further reunification
services. Father’s counsel argued father had not been provided
meaningful visits because he had two visits two hours per week
with T.M. at the DCFS office. Mother’s counsel joined father’s
request that T.M. be returned to parental custody.
The juvenile court found it would be detrimental to return
T.M. to the parents’ custody. The court noted it had been over 24
months since the initial removal of T.M., and it had to either
return the child or terminate family reunification services and
select a permanent plan. The court found the parents had
complied with the court-ordered case plan, noting it had returned
D.M. to the parents’ custody. L.M. did not reunify and was
receiving nonminor dependent services. The juvenile court stated
that each child must be looked at individually.
In determining substantial compliance, the juvenile court
stated it had to look at how the parents interacted with T.M.,
how she interacted with them, and whether the parents were
putting into place the lessons they learned from their programs
so that the relationship could be repaired. The juvenile court
found after two years the parents still had supervised visits.
T.M. had been clear at the six-month review period that she did
not want to return to parental care and was demonstrating self-
harm, such as picking at her skin and showing signs of
regression. At the 12-month review, she vacillated because she
believed she could change father, and at the section 366.22
hearing, she did not want to return to parental custody. T.M.
said it was her choice that she did not want to participate in
33
certain visits. The court found “[T.M.] was still reeling from the
after [e]ffects of abuse.”
The juvenile court found DCFS provided reasonable family
reunification services to the parents and ordered family
reunification services terminated. The matter was set for a
section 366.26 hearing.
On September 29, 2025, the parents filed notices of intent
to file a writ petition.
DISCUSSION
I. Denial of motion for bonding study
A. Applicable law and standard of review
Prior to holding the section 366.26 permanency planning
hearing, the juvenile court has discretion to order a bonding
study under Evidence Code section 730. (In re Jennifer J. (1992)
8 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1084.)
Courts should “seriously consider, where requested and
appropriate, allowing for a bonding study or other relevant expert
testimony” when deciding on the beneficial parental relationship
exception to termination of parental rights.4 (In re Caden C.
(2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 633, fn. 4 (Caden C.).) However, “[t]here is
no requirement in statutory or case law that a court must secure
a bonding study as a condition precedent to a termination [of
parental rights] order.” (In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th
1330, 1339.)
An order denying a request for a bonding study is reviewed
for abuse of discretion. (In re Lorenzo C., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1341.) “A court exceeds the limits of legal discretion if its
4 See section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i).
34
determination is arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd. The
appropriate test is whether the court exceeded the bounds of
reason.” (In re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 851.) However,
“[a] court’s exercise of discretion must ‘be based on correct legal
premises and, therefore, the use of an incorrect legal standard
necessarily constitutes an abuse of discretion.’” (In re P.S. (2024)
107 Cal.App.5th 541, 553 (P.S.).)
B. No abuse of discretion occurred
The parents argue the juvenile court abused its discretion
by denying the motion for bonding study without a hearing on the
merits and without a legal basis. The parents cite Caden C.,
supra, 11 Cal.5th 614, “the Supreme Court’s seminal decision
addressing the beneficial relationship exception.” (P.S., supra,
107 Cal.App.5th at p. 554.) Within the Caden C. court’s
discussion of the third element of the beneficial parental
relationship exception, the court noted “to gauge and balance [the
potential harms and benefits of the parental relationship] can be
a daunting prospect for trial courts.” (Caden C., supra, at p. 635.)
The parents argue “[s]ince it is a ‘daunting’ calculus for a juvenile
court to make, in many cases it will be even more daunting for a
parent to prove, especially without the assistance of an expert.”
(P.S., supra, at p. 555.) The parents argue given the complexity
of the relationship between the parents and T.M., a bonding
study was necessary for the juvenile court’s consideration.
The parents rely heavily on P.S., supra, 107 Cal.App.5th
541. In P.S., the juvenile court denied the mother’s request for a
bonding study prior to the 18-month review hearing on the
ground that it was “‘not timely.’” (Id. at p. 549.) The court felt
that granting mother’s motion prior to the termination of
reunification services meant the court was “‘helping [mother’s]
35
defense.’” (Ibid.) The court expected to see such a motion in
anticipation of a section 366.26 hearing with a recommendation
of termination of parental rights. (Ibid.) Because the juvenile
court erred in believing it had no discretion to order a bonding
study at that stage of the proceedings, the P.S. court remanded
the matter for consideration of the mother’s request. (Id. at
p. 556.)
The matter before us is distinguishable. The juvenile court
was not under the misimpression that it had no discretion to
order a bonding study. Instead, the court read mother’s motion
and denied it on the merits.
The parents contend the court erred in disallowing oral
argument on mother’s motion and not giving them the
opportunity to file responsive briefs or present evidence. The
parents cite no authority that the juvenile court was required to
hold a hearing or allow them to present evidence. As the court
noted, the dependency matter was pending for over two years.
By the time of the section 366.22 hearing, the juvenile court had
before it thousands of pages of evidence concerning the nature of
T.M.’s relationship with her parents and detailed descriptions of
their interactions. While the parents are correct that T.M.
equivocated about her desire to return to the parents’ custody,
those complex feelings and visits were clearly explained by T.M.
on more than one occasion. There is no suggestion in the record
that there was ever a lack of evidence concerning the family
relations or the bonds amongst the family. A bonding study is
not always required, especially where abundant evidence in the
record illuminates the nature of the parent-child relationship.
(In re Lorenzo C., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 1341 [juvenile court
reasonably refrained from ordering bonding study when evidence
36
in the record showed some bonding between child and father but
stronger bond between child and foster parents].)
The standard we apply is whether the juvenile court’s order
denying mother’s motion for a bonding study exceeded the bounds
of reason. (In re L.W., supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 851.) We
conclude it did not. The record includes numerous positive
comments about the parents’ visits, including moments of
affection, joking around, and comments that the family was
bonded. There was also ample evidence of the trauma T.M.
suffered in the home and the negative consequences of such
trauma, including her difficult behaviors and self-harming
actions. The record evidences T.M.’s evolving ability to express
herself and ultimately communicate her desire not to return
home. Nothing in the record suggests it was ever difficult to
assess T.M.’s feelings or the nature of her relationship with her
parents. Accordingly, indulging every presumption in favor of the
judgment, we find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion
in determining the evidence demonstrated there was no need for
a bonding study between T.M. and her parents.
II. Father’s challenge to the juvenile court’s findings
and orders
In his supplemental petition, father argues the juvenile
court lacked substantial evidence in making its findings and
orders.5 Father challenges the juvenile court’s findings under
5 DCFS argues father’s supplemental petition should be
dismissed for failure to cite the record. DCFS points out father
makes factual assertions in the argument section without citation
to the appellate record, in violation of rule 8.412(a)(2). DCFS
cites Central Valley Gas Storage, LLC v. Southam (2017) 11
Cal.App.5th 686, 694–695, for the proposition that an appellant
37
section 300 and the removal order under section 361. Father
argues he completed his case plan, completed therapy focused on
anger management and domestic violence, completed a domestic
violence prevention class, and maintained positive and consistent
contact with the child. Father argues under the circumstances,
there is no substantial evidence before the court that the child
suffered or there was a substantial risk the child would suffer if
returned to her father’s care, as required by sections 300 and 361.
Father’s argument fails for two reasons. First, he pled no
contest to the allegations in the petition on February 13, 2024.
“A plea of ‘no contest’ to allegations under section 300 at a
jurisdiction hearing admits all matters essential to the court’s
jurisdiction over the minor.” (In re Troy Z. (1992) 3 Cal.4th 1170,
1181.) Therefore, father waived his right to challenge the
juvenile court’s findings on appeal. (Ibid.)
Second, father’s argument is untimely. “An appeal from
the most recent order entered in a dependency matter may not
challenge prior orders, for which the statutory time for filing an
appeal has passed.” (In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d
553, 563, abrogated on other grounds in In re Tabitha W. (2006)
143 Cal.App.4th 811, 816–817.) Father’s notice of intent, filed
September 29, 2025, did not give this court jurisdiction to
consider his challenges to the jurisdictional findings and removal
must provide meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to
authority and citations to facts in the record that support his
claims of error. When an appellate argument is asserted without
such authority and citations, it requires no discussion by the
appellate court. While we agree with the proposition set forth in
Central Valley, we address father’s supplemental arguments to
the extent we can do so absent record citations.
38
order made on February 13, 2024. For juvenile dependency cases
heard by a judge, “a notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days
after the rendition of the judgment or the making of the order
being appealed.” (Rule 8.406(a)(1).)
“The time for appealing a judgment is jurisdictional; once
the deadline expires, the appellate court has no power to
entertain the appeal.” (Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v.
Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15
Cal.4th 51, 56.) Thus, in a dependency matter, “‘“an unappealed
disposition or postdisposition order is final and binding and may
not be attacked on an appeal from a later appealable order.”’” (In
re S.B. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 529, 532.) As father failed to timely
appeal the jurisdictional findings and orders and the removal
order, we decline to address his argument that the juvenile court
lacked substantial evidence to make its orders under sections 300
and 361.
III. Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s
decisions continuing jurisdiction, terminating
reunification services and setting a section 366.26
hearing as to T.M.
Father argues the juvenile court erred in setting a section
366.26 hearing instead of terminating jurisdiction and granting
father custody of the child. Father points out he completed his
case plan and maintained positive and consistent contact with
the child. For these reasons, father argues, the court erred in
continuing jurisdiction, failing to return T.M. to father’s care, and
setting a section 366.26 hearing.
A. Applicable law and standard of review
Section 366.22, subdivision (a)(1), states in relevant part:
“the court shall order the return of the child to the physical
39
custody of their parent or legal guardian unless the court finds,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to
their parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of
detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-
being of the child.” If the child is not returned to the parent at
the section 366.22 hearing, the juvenile court must terminate
reunification services and order a section 366.26 permanency
planning hearing. (§ 366.22, subd. (a); Michael G. v. Superior
Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 609, 624.)
A parent’s completion of the technical requirements of a
case plan is not dispositive of the question of whether it would be
detrimental to return the child to the parent’s custody. (In re
Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1141–1142.) Instead, the
court must consider all relevant evidence, including the
awareness of the parent of the physical and emotional needs of
the child and the manner in which the parent has conducted
himself in relation to the minor in the past. (Constance K. v.
Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 705–709.) In addition,
the juvenile court may consider the parent’s insight into the
issues that caused the dependency proceeding. (Georgeanne G. v.
Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 856, 867–868.)
The juvenile court’s decision as to whether to return the
child to the parent’s custody at the section 366.22 hearing is
reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165
Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400-1401.) We review the record “to
determine whether substantial evidence supports the court’s
finding that [the child] would be at substantial risk of detriment
if returned” to father’s care. (Ibid.) In applying the substantial
evidence standard, we draw all reasonable inferences in support
of the findings, consider the record most favorably to the juvenile
40
court’s decision, and affirm if supported by substantial evidence,
even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. (In re
Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.)
B. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile
court’s decision
Despite completing their court-ordered case plan, the
record shows the parents lacked insight into the issues that
brought the family before the juvenile court. Father and mother
were observed to laugh when listening to the sustained counts
being read. Father also tapped his pen loudly and shook his head
repeatedly. He blamed the professionals involved in the case and
continued to display aggressive and intimidating behavior
towards the social worker, such as prolonged intense staring and
criticism in front of the children. Father raised his voice at the
social worker, and the parents frequently interrupted the social
worker and others on T.M.’s team.
Mother and father repeatedly blamed T.M.’s team, saying
she had been coached, rather than respecting the child’s wishes
not to participate in telephonic visits and her ultimate decision
not to return home. The parents never acknowledged the issues
that brought the family before the court; therefore they showed a
complete lack of insight and never took responsibility for T.M.’s
removal from their custody.
The evidence that the parents failed to show any insight
into their role in T.M.’s removal supported the juvenile court’s
decision not to return T.M. to their care. “[S]imply complying
with the reunification plan by attending the required therapy
sessions and visiting the children is to be considered by the court;
but it is not determinative. The court must also consider the
parents’ progress and their capacity to meet the objectives of the
41
plan ….” (In re Dustin R., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at p. 1143.)
Here, the parents failed to show insight or even acknowledge the
violent and detrimental acts which brought the family before the
court. Under the circumstances, there is no merit to father’s
argument that T.M. should have been returned to his custody
and jurisdiction terminated.
IV. Reasonable services
Father next argues DCFS and the juvenile court failed to
ensure he received visitation with the minor. Father argues
DCFS and the social worker knowingly and intentionally denied
or interfered with father’s visitation, which is the critical
component of any reunification plan. Father fails to cite specific
instances of such intentional denial or interference. However, he
mentions, without citation to the record, the denial of visitation
because DCFS could not locate a monitor and social worker
interference, such as interrupting the family’s conversations and
prayer during visits.
Section 366.22, subdivision (a)(3), mandates at the 18-
month review hearing the juvenile court must “determine by
clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services have
been offered or provided to the parent or legal guardian.” The
juvenile court’s finding that reasonable services were provided is
reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108
Cal.App.4th 962, 971.) Because the juvenile court must make the
finding by clear and convincing evidence, we apply the
substantial evidence test bearing in mind the heightened burden
of proof below. (Ibid.)
“The adequacy of reunification plans and the
reasonableness of the DCFS’s efforts are judged according to the
circumstances of each case.” (Armando L. v. Superior Court
42
(1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 549, 554.) Reasonable services have been
provided where DCFS “identified the problems leading to the loss
of custody, offered services designed to remedy those problems,
maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the
course of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist
the parents in areas where compliance proved difficult ….” (In re
Riva M. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 403, 414.)
The evidence showed the parents received telephone and
in-person visits with T.M. T.M. never declined in-person visits,
although the parents were often late. The parents were often
distracted during phone calls, as they worked while on the phone
with T.M. When the social worker attempted to address this
problem, the parents said they had a right to work. The parents
were also inconsistent when answering calls. T.M. declined many
phone visits but testified it was her own choice, and she was not
coached or persuaded to decline calls.
In September 2024, when the parents complained they
were not getting enough visits, the social worker pointed out she
had offered to adjust the visitation schedule and the parents
declined, saying they could not adjust their work schedules.
Contrary to father’s assertion that the social worker
interrupted visits and prayers, there was evidence in the record
that the family enjoyed visits. They laughed together, prayed
together, and hugged each other. Father has failed to point to
any evidence showing DCFS was responsible for interfering with
visits.
Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding,
under a clear and convincing standard, that reasonable services
were provided to father.
43
V. The court did not rely on the child’s preferences in
making its order
Father’s final argument is that the court erred when it
based its decision not to return the child to father’s care on the
child’s preference to remain in foster care. Father continues to
argue DCFS violated the court’s orders, interfered with bonding
and visitation, and convinced the child to say that she did not
want to return home. Father provides no citations to the record
in support of these arguments.
Father cites In re C.M. (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1402,
which held, “While the child’s wishes … may be considered by the
juvenile court in determining whether placement of a dependent
child with a … parent would be detrimental to the child’s
physical or emotional well-being,” this factor is not
determinative. (See also In re Michael D. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th
1074, 1087 [“a child’s wishes are not determinative of his or her
best interests”]; In re Melissa S. (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1046,
1058 [“the preference of a minor child is not determinative of his
or her best interests”].) However, the cases cited by father agree
the juvenile court is permitted to consider the child’s preference,
and in some cases, the child’s “testimony and repeated
spontaneous statements” concerning where the child wants to
live “constitut[e] powerful demonstrative evidence it would be in
[the child’s] best interest to allow” the child to reside in his or her
preferred home. (In re Michael D., supra, at p. 1087.)
The record shows the juvenile court did not rely on the
child’s preference as the determinative factor in its decision not
to return the child to father’s custody. In making its decision, the
juvenile court indicated it reviewed the parents’ interactions with
T.M., her interactions with them, and whether the parents were
44
putting into place the lessons they learned from their programs.
The juvenile court found after two years the parents still had
supervised visits. T.M. continued to demonstrate self-harm, such
as picking at her skin and showing signs of regression. The court
acknowledged T.M. had vacillated in her position on whether to
return home, because she believed she could change father.
Ultimately, after considering all of the evidence before it, the
court found “[T.M.] [wa]s still reeling from the after [e]ffects of
abuse.”
There is no evidence the juvenile court improperly relied on
T.M.’s wishes as the determinative factor in declining to return
T.M. to father’s custody.
DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for extraordinary
relief are denied. This opinion shall become final immediately
upon filing. (Rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)
CHAVEZ, Acting P. J.
We concur:
RICHARDSON, J. HOFFSTADT, J.*
* Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI,
section 6 of the California Constitution.
45