Filed 8/25/26 In re E.A. CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
In re E.A. et al., Persons 2d Juv. No. B350777
Coming Under the Juvenile (Super. Ct. No. 23JD-00155)
Court Law. (San Luis Obispo County)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
I.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
I.M., mother, appeals the juvenile court’s visitation orders
after a permanent plan of dependency guardianship was ordered
for her three children. We will affirm.
SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In June 2023, the Department initiated dependency
proceedings after the mother and newborn C.A. tested positive for
amphetamine. Petitions were also filed for mother’s three older
children – Is.A. (then 16 years old), E.A. (then 9 years old), and
Iy.A. (then 1 year old) – due, in part, to mother’s unresolved
substance abuse issues and repeated positive drug tests for
amphetamine and methamphetamine.
Mother received both family maintenance and reunification
services, but she failed to participate regularly and did not make
substantive progress in the court-ordered treatment plans and
her services were terminated. Before termination of services,
mother regularly attended her court ordered supervised visits
with the children on average seven to eight times each month.
She was generally loving and attentive, although there was an
incident where she used her eldest child to secretly provide a cell
phone to E.A. and then denied having done so.
After reunification services were terminated in June 2024
the court ordered that visits be gradually reduced to occur once a
month for one hour pending the Welfare and Institutions Code
section 366.26, selection and implementation hearing.1
During the time reunification services were offered the
three youngest children had multiple placements.2 C.A., who was
originally detained at birth, had four placements, and E.A. and
Iy.A. had three. All three children were eventually placed
together in June 2024 with a caregiver who was willing to adopt
them.
At a contested section 366.26 hearing in January 2025, the
court terminated mother’s parental rights. The court ordered
1 Undesignated statutory citations are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
2 The oldest child, Is.A. was living separately from her
siblings and turned 18 years old in July 2024.
2
that the children and parents receive three final visits. The last
of these visits occurred in April 2025. After the visit, C.A. and
Iy.A. transitioned easily to the prospective adoptive parent
showing no signs of distress. E.A., ten years old at the time,
stated she was very sad and would miss her parents. After this
last visit, E.A. became more affectionate and closer to her
prospective adoptive family, participating more in family life and
demonstrating more attachment.
In August 2025, the Department reported a legal
impediment prevented the children’s caregiver from adopting the
children. Because the Department did not believe it would be in
the children’s best interest to move them from their current home
it requested and the juvenile court granted an order vacating the
order terminating the parents’ rights.3 The court reappointed
counsel for the parents, set a new selection and implementation
hearing and granted the Department discretion to allow visits
between the children and the parents.
At the selection and implementation hearing in November
2025 guardianship with the current caregiver was the proposed
permanent plan. Mother requested the court order a return to
the visitation schedule that existed before her rights were
terminated – supervised visits once a month for one hour. The
Department recommended the parents have only one visit every
six months. The social worker’s report stated although E.A.
continued to demonstrate more attachment to her caregiver and
the caregiver’s extended family, after she was told visits with her
3 Mother appealed the order terminating her parental
rights. When the impediment to adoption was discovered, in
October 2025 the parties stipulated to and we granted an order
vacating the order terminating parental rights and remanding
the matter back to the juvenile court. (In re E.A. (Oct. 15, 2025,
B344454) [nonpub. order].)
3
parents would resume, she became more distant and defiant.
She was reported to “want to continue attaching to her caretaker,
and at the same time, feels a sense of loyalty to her biological
family.” Her therapist also reported she had “less openness
during sessions.”
On November 12, 2025, the court adopted the Department’s
recommendation ordering guardianship with the current
caregiver and one supervised visit every six months for the
parents.
Mother appeals the court’s visitation orders. (§ 395(a)(1).)
She argues the court abused its discretion. We disagree.
DISCUSSION
If a court orders guardianship as the permanent plan at a
section 366.26 hearing it also must order visitation between the
children and the parents unless it finds visitation would be
detrimental. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(4)(C).)
The juvenile court is afforded “great discretion in deciding
issues relating to parent-child visitation, which discretion we will
not disturb on appeal unless the juvenile court has exceeded the
bounds of reason.” (In re S.H. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-
1558.) Juvenile courts must “consider ‘the best interests of the
minors in all deliberations.’” (In re J.C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th
984, 992-993; §202, subd. (d).) After reunification services end,
the focus is on the child’s needs for permanency and stability. (In
re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.)
The juvenile court did not exceed the bounds of reason in
determining twice a year visits were in the children’s best
interest. These children had experienced multiple placement
changes before being placed together with their guardian. There
is no plan for the children to return to the mother’s custody. The
youngest children, C.A. and Iy.A. had not lived with the mother
for most of their lives and had not exhibited any distress at not
4
seeing her between visits or after visits ended. Reintroducing
mother more frequently than twice a year when they were
demonstrating significant attachment to their now guardian
could cause disruption and confusion.
As for E.A., despite her grief, she was adjusting well to
knowing she would not see her mother again, but understandably
began to exhibit signs of emotional dysregulation and distress
when she was told visits would resume. The juvenile court could
have reasonably concluded that allowing the mother to have more
frequent contact with E.A. would disrupt her growing attachment
to the guardian and would exacerbate the conflict she felt
between that attachment and her “sense of loyalty to her
biological family.” Supporting her bond with the guardian and
the guardian’s extended family would meet E.A.’s need for
permanency and stability.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s November 12, 2025 findings and orders
are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
CODY, P. J.
We concur:
YEGAN, J.
BALTODANO, J.
5
Matthew G. Guerrero, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
_______________________
Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
Jon Anasolabehere, County Counsel, Vincent Uberti,
Deputy County Counsel; Gordon-Creed, Kelly, Holl, & Sugerman,
Jeremy Sugerman & Anne H. Nguyen, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
6
