Filed 3/23/15 In re R.G. CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 EIGHT

In re R.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

 B257710

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. CK94347)

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. 

Teresa Sullivan, Judge. Affirmed.

 Patricia K. Saucier, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Merrill Lee Toole, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.

* * * * * * * * * *
2

This is the second time this family has come before us. On November 13, 2014, 

we granted mother’s petition for an extraordinary writ, which challenged an order

terminating reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, 

subdivision (b)(15)1for mother’s youngest child, V.T. (D.T. v. Superior Court

(B257555) [nonpub. opn.].) In that opinion, we concluded that the juvenile court abused 

its discretion when it denied mother’s request for a continuance of the disposition hearing 

as to V.T. after minor’s counsel suggested (for the first time at the hearing) that 

reunification services to mother should be bypassed under the “parental abduction”

provision of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(15).

Mother now appeals the juvenile court’s dispositional orders as to her older three 

children, J.M., S.G., and R.G., terminating dependency jurisdictional with family law 

orders granting sole legal and physical custody to the children’s fathers under 

section 361.2. Mother contends she received inadequate notice of the dispositional 

hearing because the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services

(Department) filed (and the juvenile court considered) an untimely report changing its 

recommendation, and newly recommending that jurisdiction be terminated with a family 

law order. Mother also contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied 

her request for a continuance of the hearing on this basis. Lastly, mother contends that 

insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s order denying mother reunification 

services under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(15), and that reunification was in the 

children’s best interests. 

Finding no merit in any of these contentions, we affirm the orders below. Mother 

received adequate notice that jurisdiction could be terminated with a family law order at 

the disposition hearing, and in any event, she was not prejudiced by the order. Mother’s 

poor participation in reunification services and failure to cooperate with the Department 

demonstrates that any error was necessarily harmless. Moreover, we need not address the 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise indicated. 
3

juvenile court’s findings under the reunification bypass statute, section 361.5, 

subdivision (b)(15), as those findings related only to mother’s youngest child, V.T., who 

is not at issue in this appeal. Lastly, we find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion 

when it declined to order additional reunification services for mother under section 

361.2.2 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 18, 2012, the family came to the attention of the Department 

following a “caretaker absence” referral for then four-year-old J.M., six-year-old S.G., 

and eight-year-old R.G. Mother had driven drunk to McDonald’s with the children in the 

car, and had not restrained them in appropriate car seats. Mother dropped the children off 

at the McDonald’s play area, and then crashed into the restaurant. Mother then got into a 

physical altercation when a witness tried to take her keys away. Mother was arrested for 

driving under the influence, with a blood alcohol level over twice the legal limit. She did 

not tell arresting officers that her children were at the restaurant because she “ ‘did not 

want [her] kids to be taken away. . . .’ ” Instead, officers later received an anonymous 

call that the children had been left at the restaurant. The children were unattended at the 

restaurant for approximately 21⁄2 hours before they were taken into protective custody by 

the sheriff’s department. 

When interviewed by the Department, mother admitted to drinking five beers 

before driving the children to McDonald’s. She denied having a drug or alcohol problem, 

but admitted to drinking approximately eight beers per week. 

The children were released to J.M.’s father, T.M., who had been mother’s live-in 

boyfriend until the two had separated several months earlier. He “absolutely” wanted all 

 

2 We note at the outset that mother appears to be under the misapprehension that the 

juvenile court terminated her reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision 

(b)(15), and mother’s appellate briefs completely fail to discuss the applicable provision, 

section 361.2. Nevertheless, to the extent we can, we review the merits of her 

contentions. 
4

three children placed with him. T.M. denied that mother used drugs, but agreed that she 

did drink alcohol. The whereabouts of R.G.’s and S.G.’s father were unknown. 

R.G. told the Department social worker that T.M. “is like our dad.” She did not 

have a relationship with her father. R.G. denied any physical or sexual abuse, and 

reported that mother disciplined her with time-outs. S.G. also denied any physical abuse

or inappropriate discipline. Neither child had seen mother use illegal drugs. J.M. cried 

for mother, and refused to speak with the social worker. 

At the September 24, 2012 detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered the 

children detained with T.M. Mother was ordered to receive monitored visitation. The 

juvenile court also ordered that R.G.’s and S.G.’s paternal grandmother be assessed for 

placement, in case placement with T.M. did not work out. Mother was referred to drug 

and alcohol testing and counseling. T.M. was found to be the presumed father of J.M., 

and S.G., Sr. (who had been located) was found to be the presumed father of R.G. and 

S.G. 

S.G., Sr., told the Department that he and mother had not been involved for “a 

while.” She started drinking heavily when they separated. S.G., Sr., worked at a truck 

stop in North Dakota. He admitted to using marijuana as a juvenile, but had no other 

drug history. He wanted his children placed with him in North Dakota. 

Mother reported that her relationship with S.G., Sr., ended when she caught him 

using methamphetamine around the children. After they separated, S.G., Sr., had no 

interest in maintaining a relationship with R.G. and S.G. Mother soon started a 

relationship with T.M. She and T.M. had been separated for the last five months, but 

were still in contact over their child, J.M. They had argued in the past, but did not have a 

history of domestic violence. 

Mother admitted she made a “big mistake” and she wanted her children back. 

Mother had been convicted of misdemeanor drunk driving, and received three years 

probation. She was in compliance with her MADD program, community service 

program, and traffic program ordered by the criminal court. 
5

Father T.M. reported that he was employed by a heating and cooling company, 

and that his work often takes him out of the area for several days at a time. He and 

mother had dated for six years, and were currently “taking a break to figure out what they 

want.” Father told the Department that mother made a mistake, and that the children 

should be placed with her. 

The older children, R.G. and S.G. told the Department they wanted to live with 

their mother, while J.M. told the Department “I live with my daddy.” R.G. and S.G. had 

not seen their father in year, and they did not want to be placed with him. 

On October 29, 2012, mother completed a waiver of rights and plead no contest to 

the allegations of the petition concerning the drunk driving incident. The juvenile court 

ordered mother to participate in random and on demand drug testing, and to enroll in 

parenting and individual counseling. The children were ordered to remain with T.M. 

Mother tested negative for drugs on November 6, 2012. 

The disposition hearing on the original petition was held on November 26, 2012. 

The children were returned to mother under Department supervision. Mother was 

ordered to make the children available for unannounced home visits, and to keep the 

Department advised of her telephone number and address. Mother was ordered to submit 

to random and on-demand drug and alcohol testing, to participate in parent education and 

individual counseling, and to comply with all orders of the criminal court, including 

completing an AA program. The court also ordered that only the children, mother, and 

maternal grandfather were permitted to live in the family home, and that no alcohol was 

to be kept in the home. 

A May 28, 2013 status review report noted that on January 16, 2013, the 

Department had been advised that R.G. could not remain at school because she was 

infested with lice. The school had offered mother boxes of lice treatment, but mother 

declined them, saying she already had some. The Department admonished mother to 

address the lice issue, and on January 30, mother assured the Department that R.G.’s lice 

problem had been remedied. However, on February 1, the Department learned from 

R.G.’s school that she still had lice. When a Department social worker met with mother 
6

and the children on February 13, mother said she had purchased shampoo and spray to 

treat the infestation. 

On April 26, 2013, R.G.’s school reported that R.G. was wearing a hood over her 

head to hide the lice, and the school’s nurse noted that she was still suffering from a lice 

problem. 

A Team Decision Making meeting was held on May 7, 2013, to address case 

issues, including the persistent lice problem. A public health nurse inspected the children 

and discovered that R.G. and J.M. had lice. Mother was told how to treat the problem, 

and the school nurse agreed to give three boxes of RID to mother. It was agreed that the 

Department would apply for a removal warrant for the children if the lice problem was 

not resolved by May 28, 2013. 

There were also school attendance problems. On March 4, 2013, mother was 

supposed to attend the Abolish Chronic Truancy Program and meet with the District 

Attorney regarding the children’s school attendance, but mother failed to show up. 

R.G.’s teacher sent the Department a letter on May 7, 2013 noting that R.G. was 

often “extremely disheveled.” Her shoes were torn and her glasses had been broken for 

several months. R.G.’s academic progress was also poor because she had missed 30 days 

of school. R.G.’s teacher noted that R.G. continued to have lice, and would often hide 

her head with a hood. 

S.G.’s teacher reported that S.G. was performing poorly in all academic areas, and 

“no longer seems to care.” He had missed 29 days of school, never had his homework 

assignments completed, and received failing grades on most assignments. S.G. reported 

that mother did not read with him at home. 

On April 12, 2013, mother completed a nine-week parenting course at Youth 

Support Association. Mother had also started counseling at Tarzana Treatment Center, 

but withdrew because she did not believe it was benefitting her. Mother intended to 

enroll in another counseling program. 

The Department told mother to get medical and dental checkups for the children, 

but mother failed to do so, claiming she did not have their Medi-Cal cards. However, the 
7

Department of Social Services confirmed that mother received Medi-Cal cards that had 

been issued to her four months prior. The children had last seen the dentist in August 

2012. Mother had also refused to have R.G. and S.G. participate in mental health 

assessments to determine if they qualified for services. 

Mother tested negative for drugs on November 6 and 26, December 5 and 13, 

2012; and January 8 and 23, February 13 and 25, March 8 and 21, and April 12 and 23, 

2013. 

Father S.G., Sr., had not visited with the children at all, and according to mother, 

T.M.’s visits were inconsistent. 

On May 17, 2013, the public health nurse reported that the children had not missed 

any more school, and that the school nurse had cleared them for lice. 

The Department was concerned because mother appeared depressed, especially 

about her relationship with T.M., and her belief that the relationship had worsened since 

the Department’s involvement with the family. She did not take any responsibility for 

the lice problems, her inability to meet the children’s medical and dental needs, or their 

educational problems. She admitted to needing help, but seemed “defeated” and 

“unmotivated to improve her situation.” The Department recommended that mother 

receive another six months of family maintenance services to allow her to complete 

counseling, AA, and her ABC Traffic Program. 

At the May 28, 2013 hearing, the court ordered that the children remain with 

mother, and that the children receive referrals for individual counseling. 

The Department’s August 26, 2013 Status Review Report noted that mother had 

missed two drug tests in June and one in July. A July test was diluted. However, mother

did submit two negative tests in July. Mother had also failed to execute a release so the 

Department could receive updates on her progress with the ABC Traffic Program that 

had been ordered by the criminal court. 

The children and mother received mental health assessments on July 23, 2013, and 

it was determined that the children did not require mental health services. Mother, 
8

however, received a referral for individual counseling. Nevertheless, mother had not 

enrolled in counseling. 

Mother claimed to have made medical and dental appointments for the children in 

August 2013, at the Antelope Valley Community Clinic. When the Department followed 

up with the clinic it learned that dental appointments had been made, but no medical 

appointments had been scheduled. 

S.G., Sr., traveled to California to visit with the children in May, and R.G. and 

S.G. enjoyed the visit. T.M.’s visits with J.M. had been inconsistent. 

The Department was concerned that mother appeared depressed, and had not 

started counseling. R.G. and S.G. were once again infested with lice. Mother was not 

addressing the children’s medical and dental needs, and appeared “defeated” and 

“unmotivated.” The Department recommended that mother continue to receive family 

maintenance services. 

At the August 26, 2013 hearing, the court ordered that all reports must be filed two 

days before the court hearing. The court also ordered mother to take the children to the 

doctor to address their lice problem. 

The Department’s October 21, 2013 interim review report noted that R.G. missed 

a total of 38 days of school during the 2012-2013 school year, which included 

22 unexcused absences. During the first five weeks of the 2013-2014 academic school 

year (which started on August 12, 2013), R.G. missed three days of school (two of which 

were excused) and left early on four days. R.G. was working below grade level in 

language arts, math, social studies, and science, and was reading below grade level. She 

had failing grades in most subjects. Although mother had signed R.G.’s planner, 

indicating that her assignments had been completed, R.G.’s teacher had never received 

any homework assignments from R.G. R.G.’s teacher made numerous requests for 

conferences with mother, but received no response. R.G.’s report card for the 2012-2013 

academic year reflected poor grades, including two F’s, a D, and a C. The excessive 

absences and missed assignments were negatively affecting R.G.’s grades. 
9

S.G. missed 35 days in the 2012-2013 school year, 26 of which were unexcused. 

He had one excused absence in the first five weeks of the 2013-2014 academic year, and 

left early on four days. His grades for the 2012-2013 school year consisted of three D’s, 

one B, and one C. Excessive absences and missed assignments affected his grades. 

J.M. had just entered kindergarten. 

A public health nurse examined the children for lice on August 20, 2013, and saw 

lice eggs on all three children. The nurse advised mother to treat the children, and mother

stated she had shampoo at home. 

The children were examined again for lice on October 10, 2013. There were 

visible eggs on all three children, and the children denied that mother had shampooed 

their hair or taken them to the doctor. 

Mother continued to miss drug tests, and did not return phone calls from the 

Department. When she met with a Department social worker on September 24, 2013, 

mother explained that her father was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer, and his diagnosis 

was the reason she was missing tests and not returning calls. However, mother had been 

unresponsive and missed tests before her father’s diagnosis. Mother tested negative on 

August 21 and September 19, but was a no-show for three tests in September 2013. 

On September 24, the Department social worker found the children’s bedroom to 

be in “deplorable” condition. The room smelled of urine, and the bedspread and linens 

were dirty. Mother said that one of the children wets the bed, and that she would buy 

new mattresses. The bathroom was also dirty, with trash strewn all over the floor. 

Maternal grandfather’s bedroom, where S.G.’s bed was located, was locked, and could 

not be inspected. The Department agreed to provide a homemaker to help mother. 

It was also noted that R.G. and S.G. often wore dirty clothes to school, and had to 

be sent to the restroom to wash their hands and faces because they were so dirty. 

The Department recommended that the case remain open to address the lice and 

educational issues. 
10

At the October 22, 2013 hearing, the court ordered the Department to send a 

public health nurse to mother’s home to assess the lice problem. The public health nurse 

was to bring medication and show mother how to use it if the problem persisted. 

The Department’s December 9, 2013 interim review report noted that mother had 

given birth to a baby girl, V.T., on October 31, 2013. The Department reported that 

policy prohibited a public health nurse from distributing or administering medicine as 

ordered by the court. The public health nurse was willing to do a home visit, but believed 

that mother had already received extensive instruction on how to eliminate the lice

problem. A public health nurse visited with the children at Department offices on 

November 12, 2013, and noted visible lice eggs. Maternal aunt, who was present at the 

meeting, said she would ensure that the children were treated. 

At the December 9, 2013 hearing, the court ordered the Department to report on 

the lice situation. 

The Department’s April 17, 2014 detention report noted that a petition as to 

mother’s new child, V.T., was sustained on February 5, 2014, based on mother’s 

unresolved history of substance abuse (because of her failure to engage in treatment or to 

drug test), and the fact that V.T.’s older siblings were dependents of the court. The 

Department had received a referral concerning V.T. on January 14, 2014. Mother had 

given birth to her at home, and had not sought medical attention until the day after her 

birth. Mother had also not received prenatal care for V.T. Mother claimed she did not 

know she was pregnant, but then inconsistently claimed to have been unable to comply 

with her case plan because she was pregnant. Moreover, V.T. had been diagnosed with 

respiratory problems but mother had missed several follow-up appointments. 

At the February 5 jurisdictional hearing on the petition as to V.T., mother was 

ordered to submit to weekly drug testing, and to complete a full treatment program if she 

had any missed or dirty tests. Mother was also ordered to participate in individual 

counseling, and to attend AA and comply with any criminal court orders. 
11

On February 26, 2014, mother had confirmed she received a referral packet from 

the Department, and she signed an acknowledgement confirming that she understood her 

case plan and what was required to reunify with her children. 

Since the December 2013 court hearing, mother’s drug testing had become even 

more erratic. Of the seven tests ordered over the months of December, January, 

February, and March, mother only tested on January 15, 2014, with negative results. 

Maternal grandfather had died, and it appeared that multiple people had moved 

into the family home notwithstanding the court’s order that only mother, the children, and 

maternal grandfather reside in the home. 

On March 12, a social worker attempted to visit mother at her designated address. 

A maternal uncle told the social worker that mother and the children were in the house, 

however, a young man named Arthur, who arrived at the home in maternal grandfather’s 

car, claimed mother and the children were at the store. On March 18, mother and the 

children were not at home, and a young man with a pit bull said they were at the store. 

Arthur was seen in the home lying on the sofa. 

On March 20, a Department social worker visited the children’s school, and was 

informed that the children were no longer attending, and had moved to another 

elementary school. The social worker was able to locate the children at their new school. 

S.G. reported that they were sleeping in the living room, and were living with their 

cousin, Trish. His hair was neatly combed and his attire was “fair.” J.M. was in dirty 

clothes with uncombed hair. She said they had moved in with their cousin, and all slept 

together. S.G. would wet the bed, and as a result, J.M.’s pants got wet. According to 

J.M., maternal grandmother lived in maternal grandfather’s home with J.M.’s uncle and 

cousins (the home which was listed with the Department as mother’s address). R.G. also 

reported they had moved in with their cousin. R.G. said mother would go out at night 

and leave the children. Maternal grandmother had “put them out.” R.G. said they were 

going to stay with maternal grandmother during the school break. R.G. had a poor 

appearance, with dirty clothes. 
12

A Team Decision Making meeting was held on March 24, 2014, and was attended 

by mother, T.M., two maternal aunts, a maternal cousin, maternal grandmother, and 

paternal grandmother (S.G., Sr.’s mother). T.M. expressed concerns that mother was 

using methamphetamine, as she had lost a lot of weight, and there was significant foot 

traffic in mother’s home. Paternal grandmother was also concerned about the number of 

people at mother’s home, but maternal family members claimed people were visiting in 

the wake of maternal grandfather’s death. T.M. also was concerned because J.M. 

continued to have lice, and also had pink eye. 

Mother told the Department she moved in with her friend, Trish K., but a maternal 

aunt and Trish reported that mother was in the “process” of moving. Mother said she was 

trying to secure housing at Valley Oasis. She refused to provide the Department with her 

current address. 

Mother had not been participating in counseling or drug testing. 

T.M. was also concerned because J.M. told him she had been sleeping on the 

floor, and that she had been held down to have her hair cut. J.M. also told T.M. that 

mother would lock herself in a room with other people. The children told a Department 

social worker that maternal grandmother had kicked the family out because mother was 

out late “partying” and sometimes took the children with her to “party.” 

At the conclusion of the meeting, it was decided that the Department would seek a 

removal warrant for the children. The Department obtained a removal order for the 

children on April 3, 2014. 

The Department attempted to detain the children at mother’s last known address, 

and at an address provided by T.M. and S.G., Sr., as an address where they had visited 

the children. The Department was unable to locate the children to serve the removal 

warrant on April 8, 9, or 10th at these addresses. 

On April 12, T.M. requested a welfare check on J.M. by the sheriff’s department. 

When the Department and sheriffs went to mother’s last known address, maternal 

grandmother answered the door and reported that mother and the children were not home. 

Sheriffs walked through the home and confirmed that mother and the children were not 
13

there. Maternal grandmother said she had not had contact with mother or the children, 

and did not know where they were. 

Father S.G., Sr., also was concerned about his children and wanted custody of 

them. 

Appended to the report were numerous supportive documents, including the 

docket for mother’s criminal case, which indicated mother had not completed an alcohol 

program. 

A supplemental petition (§ 387) was filed on April 17, 2014, alleging that all four 

of mother’s children were in danger because of mother’s failure to drug test, to 

participate in drug treatment, and to make the children available for visits with the 

Department. Mother’s and the children’s whereabouts were unknown. At the April 17, 

2014 hearing, the juvenile court noted that mother and the children were AWOL. The 

court issued a protective custody warrant for the children, and an arrest warrant for 

mother. The court gave the Department discretion to place the children with their fathers 

when they were located. 

An April 29, 2014 Addendum Report documented the Department’s efforts to 

locate the children. On April 22, 2014, the Department learned that mother was 

homeless, and using her E.B.T. card in the Antelope Valley Area. It was later reported 

that mother had repeatedly used the card in Hemet. The social worker recalled that 

mother had family in Hemet. 

On April 24, a Department social worker contacted the Palmdale School District, 

and was advised that the children had not attended school since April 4, 2014, and were 

not enrolled within any school in the District. The social worker also contacted the

Eastside, Westside, Lancaster, and Keppel School Districts and was informed that the 

children had not been enrolled in school. 

The Department’s June 9, 2014 jurisdiction/disposition report on the supplemental 

petition noted that the Department contacted the Hemet School District on May 7, 2014, 

and learned that the children had not been enrolled there. The Department also checked 

with the San Jacinto School District to no avail. The Department notified the Department 
14

of Justice and other law enforcement agencies in the Antelope Valley and Hemet that the 

children were missing. 

The Department’s report recommended that mother “comply with family 

reunification services” and that she complete and participate in “parenting education, 

submit to random/on-demand substance abuse testing, individual counseling and attend 

ALANON.” 

A June 9, 2014 last minute information for the court reported that the children had 

been found on June 7, 2014. T.M. had called the sheriff’s department, informing them he 

located mother and the children at a Palmdale address. T.M. had been actively searching 

for his daughter since she went missing. The children appeared disheveled but healthy, 

with no marks or bruises. V.T., however, had a severe diaper rash, and was taken for 

medical attention and determined to have a yeast infection. R.G. and S.G. were placed 

with paternal grandmother, and J.M. was placed with T.M. V.T. was placed in foster 

care. Mother was taken into custody. 

On June 9, 2014, the juvenile court recalled the warrants. Mother was in custody, 

and was not present in court. However, she was represented by counsel. The court made 

orders releasing R.G. and S.G. to the home of their father, who had made a plan for them 

to stay with paternal grandmother, as he was out of state. J.M. was released to her father, 

T.M. 

At the hearing, T.M.’s counsel informed the court that father was “seeking to close 

the case with a family law order giving himself sole legal and physical [custody].” S.G.,

Sr.’s counsel noted that S.G., Sr., joined in that request. 

The court continued the jurisdictional hearing on the supplemental petition to

July 1. The court ordered the Department to prepare a supplemental report addressing the 

appropriateness of closing the case with a family law order. 

On June 10, mother was arraigned on the supplemental petition. Mother was 

ordered to provide her most current contact information to her attorney or the social 

worker. Mother was in custody, and provided her current telephone number to the court. 
15

She said she would provide an address to counsel after her release from custody. Mother 

was ordered to comply with the drug testing requirements of her case plan. 

On July 1, 2014, the Department filed an addendum report. The children reported 

that they had been living in Hemet with their mother’s cousin, Cynthia, and then had 

moved to Trish’s house in Palmdale because S.G. was fighting with one of Cynthia’s 

children. The Department social worker observed V.T.’s severe diaper rash. V.T.’s

foster mother reported that V.T. screamed whenever she wet her diaper. There were also 

problems with mother’s visitation. During a June 13 visit with V.T., mother accused the 

caregiver of scratching V.T.’s ear. Mother spent most of the visit complaining about 

V.T.’s care. Mother also minimized the severity of the rash. 

Mother visited with J.M. and V.T. on June 19, and spent most of the visit 

interrogating J.M. about father’s girlfriend. R.G. and S.G. were not at the visit because 

they were residing with their father in North Dakota. Mother blamed the Department for 

her case remaining open, and took no responsibility for her actions or her noncompliance 

with her case plan. 

At the conclusion of the report, the Department recommended terminating 

jurisdiction over J.M., R.G. and S.G. with family law orders granting their fathers legal 

and physical custody of the children. It made no new recommendations as to V.T. 

Mother and her counsel appeared at the July 1 adjudication hearing. Mother 

objected to the July 1 addendum report, arguing that it was not timely, and that it changed 

the recommendation for disposition. Minors’ counsel pointed out that mother had 

requested a supplemental report, and that the Department had been ordered to address 

closing the case with a family law order under section 361.2. The juvenile court 

overruled mother’s objection, and admitted the report into evidence. 

Mother asked the juvenile court to set the disposition hearing for contest, based on 

the “last minute change in recommendation.” Mother indicated that she wanted to call 

the children to testify as witnesses, and the children were not present as their appearance 

had been waived for the hearing. 
16

The parties offered argument as to adjudication, with both the Department and 

minors’ counsel arguing that mother had not complied with her case plan, and had 

absconded with the children, taking them out of the county with the help of maternal 

family members. Mother contended that she had been attending AA. Mother admitted

she failed to test and comply with her case plan, but only after the protective custody 

warrant was issued because she was “in fear” and felt the Department was not addressing 

concerns she had. Mother presented sign-in sheets for AA, but the court did not find the 

evidence of her participation in AA to be credible, as the sheets included identical 

signatures for different dates spanning a two-year period. 

The court sustained the allegations in the supplemental petition. 

The court then inquired about continuing the disposition hearing. Mother again 

asked to set the hearing for contest. 

The Department requested that the court terminate jurisdiction as to all the 

children except V.T. with a family law order. 

Counsel for T.M. argued that mother was engaging in delay tactics, as her only 

basis for a continuance was to cross-examine the children. Counsel asked for an offer of 

proof as to what evidence mother would hope to obtain from the children. T.M. asked for 

custody of J.M. pursuant section 361.2. 

Mother argued that she “possibly need[ed] to call the children” because “these 

matters are set as to what’s in the best interest of these children.” Counsel argued that 

she did not have ample time to prepare for disposition in light of the new 

recommendation to terminate jurisdiction. 

Minors’ counsel argued that any further delay would be detrimental to his clients. 

Counsel argued the court should issue orders pursuant to section 361.2 giving custody of 

the older children to their fathers, and that it would be in the best interest of the children 

to terminate jurisdiction with a family law order. 

As to the notice issue for the changed recommendation, the Department argued 

that mother had received notice that the Department was ordered to assess termination of 

jurisdiction with a family law order at the June 9 hearing. T.M.’s counsel also pointed 
17

out that he had requested termination of jurisdiction with a family law order at the June 9 

hearing. 

The court found mother had received adequate notice as to the termination of 

jurisdiction. The court went on to make findings under 361.2 that the fathers of J.M., 

R.G. and S.G. wanted custody of them, and that placement of the children with their 

fathers would not be detrimental to the children, and terminated jurisdiction under family 

law orders. This timely appeal followed. 

DISCUSSION

Initially, we must address the impact of this court’s opinion resolving mother’s 

writ petition as to V.T. Mother’s petition challenged the juvenile court’s orders

terminating reunification services as to V.T. under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(15) and 

setting the case for a section 366.26 hearing to terminate her parental rights (as to V.T.). 

In our opinion granting the petition, we concluded that “mother’s counsel was essentially 

ambushed by the children’s counsel’s invocation of subdivision (b)(15). . . .” (D.T. v. 

Superior Court, supra, B257555, p. 15.) We based our decision, in part, on section 358, 

subdivision (a)(3), and California Rules of Court, rule 5.686(b), which require a 

continuance of the disposition hearing when the Department contends that a bypass 

provision under section 361.5, subdivision (b) applies which would deprive a parent of 

reunification services. 

Mother contends that our opinion resolving her writ petition as to V.T. also 

establishes that her due process rights were violated as to the older three children. We 

disagree. The situation with the older three children is entirely different than with V.T. 

Mother received extensive family maintenance services with respect to the older three 

children. Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(15) was not invoked as to the older children. 

Instead, jurisdiction was terminated under section 361.2, and, as we discuss below,

mother had adequate notice that the juvenile court would consider terminating 

jurisdiction under this provision. Also, mother did not face termination of her parental 

rights as to the older three children; she remains free to challenge the custody 

arrangement in family court. 
18

1. Notice of the Hearing

Mother contends her statutory and due process rights were violated when the 

Department “filed an untimely report which altered its recommendation from offering 

reunification services to terminating jurisdiction over the children with no reunification 

services to Mother.” Mother contends that section 358, subdivision (a)(3) requires a 

continuance if “a social worker is alleging that subdivision (b) of Section 361.5 is 

applicable . . . .” However, section 358 relates to the bypass provisions of section 361.5, 

subdivision (b), which do not apply to mother’s older three children. (§ 358, 

subd. (a)(3).) 

Mother further contends that California Rules of Court, rule 5.690(a)(2) requires 

Department reports to be filed and served at least 48 hours before the disposition hearing, 

and requires a continuance if a parent is not timely served with the report. Specifically, 

rule 5.690(a)(2) provides that the Department must provide copies of its report to the 

court’s clerk “at least 48 hours before the disposition hearing is set to begin, and the clerk 

must make the copies available to the parties and attorneys. A continuance within 

statutory time limits must be granted on the request of a party who has not been furnished 

a copy of the social study in accordance with this rule.” 

The parties do not dispute that the Department’s report was late, as it was filed on 

the day of the hearing. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the failure to comply 

with California Rules of Court, rule 5.690 constitutes a deprivation of due process. (In re 

Melinda J. (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1413, 1419; compare with Judith P. v. Superior 

Court (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 535, 553-558.) “ ‘A failure to comply with state or local 

procedural requirements does not necessarily constitute a denial of due process; the 

alleged violation must result in a procedure which itself falls short of standards derived 

from the Due Process Clause. [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (Tyler v. Children’s Home 

Society (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 511, 546.) Due process only requires “ ‘notice reasonably 

calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of 

the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.’ [Citation.]” (In re 

A.S. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1342.) 
19

Here, at the June 9, 2014 hearing, both father T.M. and S.G., Sr., asked the court

to terminate jurisdiction and have the older children placed in their custody. Under 

section 361.2, when a noncustodial parent wants custody, the juvenile court “shall place 

the child with the parent unless it finds that placement with that parent would be 

detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” 

(Id., subd. (a), italics added.) ‘ “A court’s ruling under [section 361.2(a)] that a child 

should not be placed with a noncustodial, nonoffending parent requires a finding of 

detriment . . . [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (In re Isayah C. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 684, 

699-700.) That is because “a nonoffending parent has a constitutionally protected 

interest in assuming physical custody, as well as a statutory right to do so, in the absence 

of clear and convincing evidence that the parent’s choices will be ‘detrimental to the 

safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child.’ [Citations.]” (Id. at 

p. 697.) 

Section 361.2, subdivision (b) gives the juvenile court three options if it places the 

child with the noncustodial parent. The juvenile court can: (1) order that the parent 

become legal and physical custodian of the child, and terminate jurisdiction over the 

child; (2) order that the parent assume custody subject to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction 

and require a home visit within three months; or (3) order that the parent assume custody 

subject to juvenile court supervision. The juvenile court’s discretion to terminate 

jurisdiction or continue its supervision is very broad and the standard of review is abuse 

of discretion. (In re Nada R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1179.) 

Here, the fathers sought termination of jurisdiction with a family law order, which 

necessarily encompassed termination of mother’s reunification services. (§ 361.2, 

subd. (b)(1).) Their intention to seek such an order was made clear on June 9, 2014, well 

in advance of the July 1, 2014 dispositional hearing. Moreover, the court ordered the 

Department to investigate the propriety of such an order.

Assuming, without deciding, that mother was entitled to a continuance under 

California Rules of Court, rule 5.690, mother has not demonstrated prejudice. (See In re 

Angela R. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 257, 265.) In order to obtain reversal, mother must 
20

demonstrate that the result of the continued hearing would have changed in the absence 

of error. (Ibid., see also People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)

We are not persuaded that a continuance would have resulted in a different 

dispositional order. Mother had not complied with her case plan, and had absconded with 

the children to avoid Department supervision. She had not addressed the children’s lice 

or educational problems over the course of two academic school years, notwithstanding 

significant support and guidance from the school and the Department.

Consequently, we also reject mother’s claim that the juvenile court abused its 

discretion in denying her request for a continuance, finding that mother cannot 

demonstrate she was prejudiced by the court’s order. (§ 352, subd. (a); In re David H.

(2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1635.) 

2. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Mother challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s 

finding that the bypass provisions of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(15) applied. 

However, the juvenile court never made such a finding as to the children subject to this 

appeal. As we discussed, ante, the juvenile court’s findings under section 361.5, 

subdivision (b)(15) related only to V.T. Therefore, we need not reach the merits of this 

argument. 

As a corollary to her argument under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(15), mother

contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it failed to order reunification 

services, reasoning that such services were in the children’s best interest. Although 

mother invokes section 361.5, subdivision (c), which does not apply here, we will 

nonetheless consider mother’s argument as a challenge to the court’s exercise of 

discretion under section 361.2. Under section 361.2, the decision to provide reunification 

services is discretionary, and will be upheld on appeal unless the order exceeds the 

bounds of reason. (In re Jaden E. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1288.)

On this record, we can find no abuse of discretion. As discussed, ante, mother had 

not complied with her case plan. Her case had been pending for almost two years, and in 

that time she had failed to complete counseling, an AA program, had not consistently 
21

drug tested, and had completely failed to meet her children’s medical and educational 

needs. 

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

GRIMES, J.

WE CONCUR:

BIGELOW, P. J.

FLIER, J.