Filed 7/26/13 In re D.S. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re D.S., et al., Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

TULARE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.K.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F066146

(Super. Ct. Nos. JJV063751A & 

JJV063751B)

OPINION

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Juliet L. 

Boccone, Judge.

Catherine C. Czar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, John A. Rozum and Jason Chu, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-
2

L.K. (mother) appeals juvenile court orders summarily denying her petition for 

modification under Welfare and Institutions Code1section 388, and terminating her 

parental rights to her daughter, Rebecca S., and establishing a legal guardianship for her 

daughter, D.S., under section 366.26. Mother contends the court erred by summarily 

denying her modification petition, by which she sought to have her daughters returned to 

her custody or to have reunification services reinstated. She also contends the court erred 

by failing to find the beneficial parent/child relationship and beneficial sibling 

relationship exceptions to adoption applied to preclude termination of her parental rights 

to Rebecca. Finally, she contends the court erred by terminating visitation with D. We 

affirm the orders.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In January 2010, D., who was then nine years old, was hospitalized under section 

5150, after assaulting mother, Rebecca, and two other children in the home. D. was 

diagnosed with acute posttraumatic stress disorder attributed to being exposed to a history 

of domestic violence between her parents. In 2006, D.‘s father, Daniel S. (father), was 

arrested and served a 360-day jail term after pleading guilty to spousal abuse. During 

father‘s incarceration, mother and father divorced and mother obtained sole physical and 

legal custody of the children at that time. 

Following D.‘s hospitalization, mother requested assistance in placing D. based on 

her inability to protect Rebecca from D. or protect D. from herself. The respondent 

Tulare County Health and Services Agency (agency) initiated dependency proceedings 

and placed D. in a therapeutic foster home. 

In May 2010, the juvenile court took dependency jurisdiction over D. under 

section 300, subdivision (c) (serious emotional damage). The court removed D. from 

parental custody, and granted the parents reunification services. The court also ordered 

 

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

specified.
3

weekly supervised visits. The court removed D. from parental custody, and granted the 

parents reunification services. The court also ordered weekly supervised visits. 

As of mid-November 2010, the parents had complied with court-ordered services 

and consistently visited with D. Agency and CASA (Court Appointed Special 

Advocates) reports both noted that D. experienced anxiety before visits with mother but 

not before visits with father. Despite her anxiety, however, D. also reported enjoying 

visits with mother. 

In a report for the six-month review hearing, the social worker noted that during a 

recent visit with mother in late November 2010, D. became agitated and refused to return 

to her foster home, indicating she wanted to go home with mother. The social worker 

learned from several sources mother had been telling D. she would be going home. After 

speaking with mother, the social worker concluded that, for the past five months, mother 

had maintained a sincere belief D. would be going home once she stabilized. The social 

worker explained the outcome was unknown and mother appeared to understand. 

At the six-month review hearing in early December 2010, the juvenile court 

ordered father to begin having some unsupervised visits with D. The court ordered 

supervised visits to continue with mother, finding there was evidence unsupervised visits 

would be detrimental to D. based on the child‘s anxiety and behavior, and mother‘s 

inability to follow the court‘s orders regarding discussing placement and return home 

with the child. 

In early February 2011, the agency initiated dependency proceedings on behalf of 

Rebecca, who was then six years old. Among other things, the agency alleged Rebecca 

was at substantial risk of suffering from serious emotional damage due to mother‘s 

emotionally abusive behavior (§ 300, subd. (c)), which included manipulating Rebecca 

into making allegations of physical and sexual abuse against father and exposing her to 

age-inappropriate materials and pictures about abuse. Based on the dependency 

proceedings involving D., the agency also alleged that mother‘s emotional abuse of D.
4

engendered a similar risk of harm to Rebecca (§ 300, subd. (j)). At the detention hearing, 

the juvenile court ordered Rebecca to be placed with father and ordered therapeutic 

visitation with mother. 

In a report for the 12-month review hearing in D.‘s case, the social worker 

recommended terminating mother‘s reunification services. The social worker noted that, 

although mother had completed parent training and continued to attend therapy, she had 

not stabilized her living situation, personal life, or mental health. Instead of focusing on 

herself, mother appeared to have spent all her energy attempting to prove father was not a 

suitable parent. 

Shortly after Rebecca‘s detention, mother called the social worker and said her 

house ―burned to the ground.‖ The social worker subsequently learned from a fire 

department investigator that the fire was confined to the master bedroom and, while 

mother claimed father started the fire, all the evidence pointed to mother having started 

the fire. Similarly, a police investigator reported he was 100 percent certain mother 

committed arson. The fire department investigator also reported a pet died in the fire and 

expressed concern that someone who would leave animals in the house to die would be a 

danger to herself and her children. 

The social worker further reported that mother had subjected her daughters to 

inappropriate behavior and conversations. Mother made false reports that father molested 

Rebecca and coached Rebecca to tell her physician she was molested. Mother also 

subjected Rebecca to a ―SART‖ examination at the hospital. Rebecca told her therapist 

that mother ―showed her how to throw fits‖ and she was helping mother send father back 

to jail. The therapist felt Rebecca carried a lot of weight in having to take care of mother 

and mother was not capable of parenting. The social worker believed the therapist‘s 

assessment would also apply to D. 

The social worker further reported that mother made inappropriate comments 

during visits with D. and engaged in conduct interfering with the foster parents‘ ability to 
5

make day-to-day decisions regarding D.‘s care. On several occasions, mother looked at 

D. at the beginning of the visit and stated, ―You need your eyebrows waxed.‖ The foster 

parents reported that mother had recently asked them to allow her to follow them to a 

salon and offered to pay for the hair removal. In the social worker‘s opinion, suggesting 

to a 10-year-old she needed her brows waxed in order to look acceptable was hurtful and 

did not promote the self-confidence others were trying to instill in her. 

On another occasion, mother gave D. money with a list of specific instructions on 

what to do with the money. The foster parents reported the responsibility mother placed 

on D. for spending the money led to a major incident with D. running away from the 

foster home and the police being called. 

Additionally, the social worker received ongoing complaints from the foster 

parents about mother making inappropriate statements during phone visits with D. For 

example, shortly after Rebecca‘s detention, mother told D. that Rebecca had been 

kidnapped and a bald man had been seen taking Rebecca from her school. D. was very 

distressed by this ―news‖ about Rebecca. Although the foster parents monitored the 

phone visits, mother would usually blurt something out and it would be too late to 

intervene. 

D. also made repeated statements about father wanting to kill mother that were 

clearly a repetition of mother‘s words. 

In a report for the jurisdiction/disposition hearing in Rebecca‘s case, the social 

worker reported Rebecca was doing well in her placement with father and her negative 

behaviors had stabilized. The social worker also recommended that mother not be 

offered reunification services based on her failure to reunify with D. 

At the 12-month review hearing in D.‘s case, which occurred on April 12, 2011, 

the juvenile court terminated mother‘s reunification services. The court ordered weekly 

supervised visits with mother and unsupervised visits with father, including overnight 

visits at the agency‘s discretion. 
6

In late April 2011, the juvenile court exercised its jurisdiction over Rebecca under 

section 300 subdivisions (c) and (j), and granted sole legal and physical custody of 

Rebecca to father. The court ordered monthly visits with mother were to continue in a 

therapeutic setting until the therapist determined visits could occur outside such setting. 

In a report for the 18-month review hearing in D.‘s case, the social worker 

recommended that D.‘s visits with mother be changed from supervised to therapeutic 

visits. During visits with D., mother continued to overstep boundaries she knew were not 

acceptable. For example, she turned up the music so the case aide could not hear what 

she was saying to D. However, mother did comply when the case aide told her to turn the 

music down. Mother also questioned D. over and over again about how she was feeling, 

not stopping until D. gave her the response she wanted. The social worker thought 

mother was attempting to act as D.‘s therapist during visits. 

Regarding sibling visits, the social worker reported that D. had been having 

supervised visits with Rebecca every other week since May 2011. Although the children 

had some difficulty with sibling rivalry, many service providers remarked there was an 

obvious bond between them and the children expressed they liked spending time together 

at their visits. 

At the 18-month review hearing in D.‘s case on August 12, 2011, the juvenile 

court placed D. in father‘s custody and set a hearing on the agency‘s recommendation 

regarding visitation with mother. In an addendum report prepared for that hearing, the 

social worker reported that on July 5, 2011, following an incident in which D. and 

Rebecca ran away from father‘s house, mother called the social worker and claimed the 

investigating police officer told her the children said they ran away because father was 

hitting them and they were afraid of him. The same day, the officer told the social 

worker the children did not make the statements mother attributed to them. Instead, the 

children said mother told them to run away during D.‘s supervised visit on Friday, July 1, 
7

2011. When the officer asked D. if father was hurting her, she said no. The children did 

not appear to be afraid of father when they were dropped off at his house. 

The social worker also described recent incidents in which mother flouted 

instructions regarding visitation, including not to bring presents or to talk about her recent 

loss of stillborn twins. As to the latter, the children‘s therapist had made it very clear to 

mother that talking about the loss of the twins would not be beneficial to either Rebecca 

or D. Nonetheless, mother engaged in behavior drawing attention to the loss, including 

exposing a tattoo on her back depicting two sets of baby feet, wearing a necklace with 

symbols representing four children, and including photos of the twins‘ funeral among 

photos of a grandparent‘s funeral D. had asked mother to bring to the visit. 

Mother also continued to make inappropriate statements about the dependency 

proceedings. During a supervised visit on August 15, 2011, mother told D. she would not 

have visits anymore because of the upcoming court hearing and because it might conflict 

with her visits with Rebecca. The case aide said she would try to reschedule visits so 

mother could still visit D. Later during the same visit, when D. suggested she might be 

able to have overnight visits with mother, mother responded it would not be possible. D.

then suggested mother might be able to come to her school. Mother replied, ―That would 

never happen.‖ When D. asked her mother why not, mother replied, ―You made your 

choice.‖ D. asked, ―What?‖ Mother repeated, ―You made your choice.‖ Confused, D.

asked her mother to explain how she had made a choice. The case aide intervened and 

told mother the conversation was inappropriate. A few minutes later, D. asked mother if 

she was okay. Mother stated she felt bad and guilty, she did not mean it, and it came out 

wrong. Mother also apologized to the case aide and claimed she meant to say ―the 

decision has been made.‖ 

The social worker observed that, since D. had been receiving rehabilitation 

services in father‘s home, her behaviors had begun to improve. But D. continued to have 

difficulty managing her behaviors after visits with mother. Because of mother‘s ability to 
8

twist words and actions to portray only good intentions, the social worker opined a 

trained therapist would be the best person to handle visits with mother. 

At the hearing regarding visitation on August 23, 2011, the juvenile court found it 

was in D.‘s best interests to have visits with mother occur only in a therapeutic setting. 

The court also reduced visits to twice a month. 

On November 29, 2011, the agency filed a section 300 petition on Rebecca‘s 

behalf alleging father‘s physical abuse placed the child at a substantial risk of suffering 

serious physical harm (§ 300, subd. (a)). The same day, the agency filed a supplemental 

petition (§ 387) on D.‘s behalf. According to the petition, on August 12, 2011, the 

juvenile court returned D. to father‘s custody under court-supervised family maintenance 

and ordered there was to be no corporal punishment used on the child. This placement 

disposition had been ineffective in protecting D. due to father‘s anger management issues 

and incidents of physical violence against D. Since D.‘s return to father‘s custody, there 

had been four agency referrals for physical abuse by father, one of them substantiated. 

At the detention hearing in early December 2011, D. and Rebecca were placed 

together in a foster home and father was ordered supervised visits twice a week. 

In an addendum report submitted in January 2012, the social worker reported that 

mother continued to be manipulative and was now contacting D. through letters. After 

assuming the therapist was helping D. review the letters in therapy, the social worker 

learned the therapist had not been reading the letters. The social worker also learned that 

mother contacted D.‘s principal and teacher on a weekly basis and communicated with D.

through these professionals, even though the school had been sent the court‘s orders 

regarding mother‘s contact with D. 

The social worker observed that both mother and father continued to act without 

the children‘s best interests at heart. They disobeyed court orders and failed to accept 

responsibility for their actions, instead blaming others involved in the case. It was 
9

evident the children had suffered as a result of their parents‘ bitter custody battle and 

inability to parent appropriately. 

The social worker added that D. and Rebecca had become very close over the past 

six months and it would be detrimental to both of them to be separated at that time. 

In an addendum report submitted in early March 2012, the social worker reported 

that, on January 17, 2012, after Rebecca disclosed she had been sexually abused by D., 

the agency instructed the foster parents to separate the children and alarms were installed 

on their bedroom doors. On January 28, 2012, D. attempted to make a sexual advance 

towards another foster child. The agency placed D. and Rebecca in separate licensed 

foster homes and implemented a safety plan to assure other foster children were protected 

from D.‘s sexualized behavior. 

The social worker further reported that father made statements indicating he had 

been aware of a number of incidents of sexualized behavior between D. and Rebecca 

occurring between April 2011 and November 2011. When asked why he failed to report 

these incidents to the children‘s therapists or social workers, he responded he did not 

think it was necessary and he felt ―uncomfortable‖ addressing the behavior with the 

children. 

Following the contested jurisdiction hearing, which took place in late January 

2012, the juvenile court issued a written ruling on March 14, 2012, sustaining allegations 

against father in amended section 300 and section 387 petitions, as well as in a 

subsequent petition (§ 342), the agency filed on behalf of the children. In so ruling, the 

court found the following two incidents of physical abuse occurred: ―On or about 

November 14, 2011, while Rebecca was in the shower, [father], as a form of punishment, 

struck Rebecca in the face and hip with his hand‖ and ―On or about October 13, 2011, 

[father] engaged in a physical altercation with [D.]. During the physical altercation [D.]‘s 

face was injured.‖ The court also found that father neglected D.‘s medical needs by 

failing to ensure she regularly received all doses of her psychotropic medication. 
10

In early April 2012, mother filed her first section 388 petition for modification, 

seeking to have Rebecca returned to her care and reunification services reinstated as to D. 

As changed circumstances, the petition alleged: ―Both children were removed from their 

father‘s care and remain in foster care. I have continued to attend and participate in 

therapeutic visitation with my children and attend counseling.‖ In an attachment to the 

petition, mother asserted, among other things, that the allegations of physical abuse 

involving father recently found true by the juvenile court were ―the same allegations that 

the mother was accused of making up and was used as a denial of continued services as 

to [D.] ... and as a basis for removal of Rebecca.‖ 

At the disposition hearing in May 2012, the juvenile court ordered Rebecca and D.

removed from father‘s custody based on the facts of the sustained petitions. The court 

also denied mother‘s section 388 petition, finding there had been no change of 

circumstances, and even if there had been a change of circumstances, mother had not 

shown it was in the children‘s best interests that they be returned to her custody or for 

reunification services to be reopened. 

The juvenile court further found both parents were out of time for reunification 

services as to D., and denied reunification services as to Rebecca based on their failure to 

reunify with D. The court suspended mother‘s rights to make any medical, dental, mental 

health, and educational decisions for the children. The court ordered weekly supervised 

visits with father, twice monthly supervised visits with mother, and set a section 366.26 

hearing. 

In a report on Rebecca for the section 366.26 hearing, the social worker 

recommended the juvenile court find Rebecca adoptable and terminate parental rights. 

The social worker noted that, since visits with mother had changed from a therapeutic to 

a supervised setting, visits had been a better experience for the children. They were 

happy to see mother and interacted appropriately with her. Rebecca was very easy going 

and carefree, while D. was much more emotional and quick to become upset and 
11

withdrawn. At the end of a recent visit, Rebecca gave mother a hug and kiss but did not 

show any signs of being sad it was time to say goodbye. The children ran to meet their 

foster mothers. Rebecca said, ―Hi mommy!‖ and gave her foster mother a hug when she 

saw her. 

The social worker concluded that, while Rebecca appeared to enjoy visits with her 

parents, there did not seem to be any benefit to her in having the visits continue. Rebecca 

had adjusted to the idea she would be living permanently with her foster parents and 

understood parental visits were coming to an end. She did not ask to see her parents, did 

not look forward to visits with them, or show distress when the visits ended. The social 

worker also noted a trend in that the visits would bring up a lot of negative memories for 

Rebecca regarding things that had happened in the past. Her foster parents would listen 

to her and help her process those thoughts and memories. The social worker noted that 

Rebecca‘s primary attachment was to her foster parents. Rebecca referred to them as 

mom and dad, and viewed their daughters as her sisters. 

Regarding sibling visitation, the social worker reported that Rebecca enjoyed 

visiting with D., but visits could also be stressful for her because of D.‘s behavior. When 

they spent significant periods of time together, there tended to be conflict. During a week 

in August 2012, the children spent almost every day together. By the end of the week, 

Rebecca had become very stressed due to the frequent conflict with D. The foster parents 

reported that on the Saturday night after the week spent with D., Rebecca had a major 

tantrum when she was told it was time to clean up an art project she was working on. She 

started screaming and ripping the paper. This type of behavior was very uncharacteristic 

for Rebecca, and it appeared the stress of the week spent with D. was the cause of 

Rebecca‘s outburst. The social worker recommended that sibling visits be closely 

monitored by their foster parents, and if Rebecca continued to have similar reactions after 

prolonged visits with D., the visits be reduced to no more than once a week. 
12

A CASA report for the section 366.26 hearing noted that mother continued to 

bring gifts to the visits without approval. Most recently mother had brought school 

supplies for the children but was not allowed to bring them into the visit. Mother also 

continually sent emails to the foster parents about various topics and with various 

requests. She recently sent news of her engagement and future wedding, and asked the 

foster parents to communicate the news to the children. When her request was denied, 

mother responded that she would not lie to the children if it came up and she would tell 

them the news. Mother sent another email asking the foster mothers to attend a group 

counseling session with mother‘s therapist of 10 years in order to ―set boundaries‖ until 

the children turned 18 and were returned to her. 

The CASA report also described a recent visit in which mother reportedly noticed 

―sores‖ all over Rebecca‘s body and exclaimed that Rebecca had to be taken to the doctor 

immediately to have them treated. When the visit ended, Rebecca was convinced she had 

sores on her arms and legs and wanted to be taken to the doctor right away. Neither the 

worker who supervised the visit nor the foster mother could see or find any kind of sore 

or mark on Rebecca‘s skin. However, Rebecca was taken to the doctor‘s office. There, 

the doctor found no evidence of sores and expressed no concern about Rebecca‘s health. 

According to the CASA report, both sets of foster parents continued to express 

concern about the negative impact visits with mother was having on the children and their 

ability to maintain stability in their foster homes. D.‘s foster parents reported D.

continued, although less frequently, to have behavioral issues when returning from visits 

with mother. After visits, she seemed to be more emotionally unstable and was often 

unable to follow rules already set and established in the foster home. When she was 

disciplined, her behavior could turn into a full blown ―tantrum.‖ Similarly, Rebecca‘s 

foster parents reported she had some behavioral issues after her visits with mother. She 

would often become reserved and distant or very hyperactive. She would also exhibit 

some anxiety for a few days. 
13

Concerning the relationship between D. and Rebecca, the CASA report noted that, 

although they were placed in separate foster homes, both foster families had an 

established relationship with the children and with each other and this helped increase the 

amount of time the children were able to spend with each other outside of scheduled 

visits. Both D. and Rebecca expressed a desire to continue spending time with each other 

and with each other‘s foster families. The children were also together during visits with 

mother, and there had not been any issues with their interaction at these visits. 

In a report on D. for the section 336.26 hearing, the social worker recommended 

that a legal guardianship be established for D. with her current care providers and her 

dependency be dismissed. The social worker reported that mother‘s mental health 

instability and manipulative and controlling behavior continued to cause D. to be stressed 

and confused about reality. During a visit in late July 2011, which the social worker 

supervised, D. constantly sought mother‘s approval. When mother‘s attention was on 

Rebecca, D. became upset towards both of them. D. would either become withdrawn or 

engage in behaviors such as whining, kicking, and crying. When visits with mother 

ended, D. was eager to return to the foster parents and did not cry when they departed 

from the visit. 

The foster parents reported that D. continued to have emotional breakdowns 

attributed to visits with mother. Any topic relating to mother usually escalated into a 

tantrum, during which D. would scream, kick, and bite the foster parents. On one 

occasion, when the foster parents attempted to schedule events for the summer, D.

became angry because, according to her, mother had already planned her summer during 

a visit. D. told her foster parents, ―My mom said I have to do these events.‖ The social 

worker opined that D.‘s apparent belief that mother still had some level of control in her 

life was unhealthy and jeopardized her well-being. D.‘s need to be accepted by mother 

appeared to be a stressor leading to behavioral issues in the foster home. 
14

D.‘s therapist reported the child had been diagnosed with reactive attention 

disorder (RAD), a mental disorder characterized by a failure to form a normal attachment 

with the primary caregiver in early childhood. By definition, RAD ―is associated with 

grossly pathological care that may take the form of persistent disregard of the child‘s 

basi[c] emotional needs.‖ The social worker observed that, since D.‘s birth, her parents 

had maintained a dysfunctional and hostile relationship, adding to D.‘s mental health 

instability. Visits with her parents appeared to have a negative influence on D.‘s 

behavior due to her failure to establish a healthy attachment with them. 

With respect to sibling visitation, the social worker noted that D. and Rebecca 

were unable to visit for long periods of time as it led to arguments. At times, D.

exhibited overwhelming, controlling behavior towards Rebecca. D. appeared to resent 

Rebecca because she was a resilient child who rarely got in trouble, while D. was often 

viewed as the ―troubled child.‖ For this reason, D. felt animosity towards Rebecca and 

would immediately become upset if a parent paid more attention to Rebecca. D.‘s 

negative behavior also appeared to have a negative influence on Rebecca‘s behavior in 

that she tended to mimic D.‘s aggressive behavior. The social worker recommended 

reducing sibling visits to once a month. 

On August 27, 2012, mother filed a second section 388 petition for modification 

requesting the juvenile court to return D. and Rebecca to her custody or to reinstate 

reunification services. Mother also requested the court to reinstate her medical, 

educational, and mental health rights, and to consider relative placement if the court did 

not agree with returning the children to her custody. As changed circumstances, the 

petition alleged: ―Both children were removed from their father‘s care and remain in 

non-relative placement. I have continued to attend and participate in visitation with my 

children and additional services, described in the attached declaration.‖ 

In addition to the changed circumstances alleged in the section 388 petition, 

mother‘s supporting declaration asserted further changed circumstances included that she 
15

was getting married in September 2012, and had the support of her fiancé, family and 

friends; she resided in a large four-bedroom home with plans to purchase; she completed 

her graduate education; she had a part-time job affording a flexible schedule; and she had 

been hired by two companies for contract work to begin with the commencement of the 

school year. Mother declined to identify the companies that had hired her, asserting: ―I 

am afraid to indicate where I have been hired as the Agency ... has told me a number of 

places that  ̳you cannot work because it would be a conflict of interest.‘ I am afraid that 

if I disclose this information, another restriction, by the Agency, will be imposed on me.‖ 

In her declaration, mother leveled numerous complaints against the agency 

regarding its handling of the dependency proceedings. For example, mother asserted:

―The Agency has a history of making hasty and poor decisions in 

regards to this case, shutting me out at any opportunity, and not seeking 

what a multitude of Professionals contributed as to the best interests of the 

girls, which was the fostering of an ongoing bond and relationship with me. 

The Agency has been very selective only allowing their opinion or the 

selected opinions that align theirs into the records the Court have for review 

and fully omitted or incorrectly reported what the Therapists had reported 

to the Agency.... [¶]

―... In this case, time and time again, the Agency has worked to 

build a case against any reason to provide me services while bending over 

backwards to support the Father in his reunification efforts. While it is not 

meant to be comparative, I have no criminal history; I work in Education; 

and I have previously worked for 10 years in Social Work, and yet not even 

similar opportunities were afforded me. I have been the one who has been 

responsible for primary parenting responsibilities and daily care needs, in 

addition to their emotional and spiritual needs being met, not the Father. 

The Agency does not seem to weight any significance as to the history of 

the bond between these children and myself nor to the Professionals 

opinions that have been afforded the Agency. Not allowing me the 

opportunity of reunification services is simply not in the best interest of the 

girls and, in fact has already proven detriment[al] to them and will continue 

to prove detrimental.‖ 

Mother repeatedly referred to the agency as having a ―personal agenda to alienate the 

children from their parents a biological family.‖ She also criticized others involved in the 
16

dependency proceedings including father, father‘s attorney, social workers, and foster 

parents. 

On August 29, 2012, the agency filed an addendum report addressing the sibling 

relationship. The social worker noted that, since late January 2012, the children had been 

living in different homes after they were separated because D. was acting out in a 

sexualized manner towards Rebecca. After the children were separated, Rebecca 

continued to thrive. She did not suffer any hardship or anxiety from being separated from 

D. She was able to settle in with her current foster home and create an identity with her 

new foster sisters and foster parents. Rebecca did not request more frequent contact with 

D. and did not ask to be placed back together with her. Frequent contact with D. could be 

very stressful for her. The addendum report concluded that, although Rebecca enjoyed 

visiting with D., it would not be detrimental to Rebecca if visitation came to an end. 

Because the children were placed with family friends, continued contact between them 

was likely. However, if that contact were to be severed, Rebecca would continue to be 

happy and successful in her home and other areas of life. 

On August 30, 2012, the agency submitted an addendum report responding to 

mother‘s section 388 petition. In the report, the social worker recommended denying the 

petition, observing: ―In the mother‘s twenty-five page report named Declaration and 

Argument of Mother, dated July 29, 2012, she presented information that is evidence in 

and of itself that the mother has not changed. Her declaration is old or is already before 

the court.‖ The social worker continued: ―The same reasons and concerns why the court 

denied Reunification Services on 04/29/2011 and 05/10/2012 remain of concern today.‖ 

The social worker observed that, despite mother‘s participation in numerous 

intervention programs, which mother listed in her declaration, those services had been 

ineffective in addressing her mental health issues. Mother continued to engage in 

controlling and manipulative behavior towards the children to the detriment of their wellbeing. The social worker referred to recent examples, including the visit where mother 
17

convinced Rebecca she needed medical care for sores on her body. In another visit, 

mother questioned Rebecca why she was dirty. Rebecca explained her feet were dirty 

because she had just returned from ―playing outside.‖ Mother subsequently filed a claim 

against the foster parents, alleging the foster home was filthy and Rebecca did not 

shower. The allegation was investigated and determined to be unfounded.2 

The social worker noted mother‘s behavior reflected a consistent pattern of 

manipulating the children‘s behavior by making them believe a false claim. Mother also 

had a long history of fabricating false allegations against people who posed a threat to 

her, and it appeared she was now using her visitation time to obtain information from the 

children in hopes of making such claims. 

Finally, the social worker observed that mother had failed to take responsibility for 

her role in the children‘s abuse and failed to understand the reasons why the court 

terminated reunification services. When the social worker spoke with mother in late May

2012, he specifically asked if she understood why the children could not be returned to 

her care. She failed to answer the question. Instead she blamed father for his role in 

domestic violence. When the social worker repeated the question, mother again avoided 

the question and failed to accept responsibility for her role in the abuse. 

On October 22, 2012, the juvenile court summarily denied mother‘s section 388 

petition, stating: ―I don‘t find that there‘s sufficient change of circumstances to warrant a 

388 hearing at this time.‖ The court then proceeded to the section 366.26 hearing and 

heard the parents‘ testimony.

Mother testified she had ongoing contact with D. since the child was removed 

from her care. Until May 2012, mother participated in all of D.‘s educational, medical, 

 

2 Mother repeated this allegation against the foster parents in the declaration she submitted 

in support of her section 388 petition. Mother claimed Rebecca had arrived at the last couple of 

visits ―with medical needs not met and her hygiene being extremely poor‖ and that Rebecca had 

made the following statement: ―I am filthy dirty. I don‘t remember when I took a shower but it 

was last week some time... Tonight I am going to ask permission to take a bath or a shower.‖ 

Mother complained the agency failed to address the concerns raised by Rebecca‘s appearance 

and statement. 
18

mental health, dental, and vision services. Prior to D.‘s placement in foster care, the 

children lived together with mother and continuously participated in family activities. 

They went to church every week, took family vacations together, and celebrated their 

birthdays with other family members. The children were also enrolled in activities 

including soccer, basketball, and cheerleading. 

Mother testified that, at the beginning of visits, D. and Rebecca would run right up 

to her and call her ―Momma.‖ They expressed affection towards her continually 

throughout the visits. They would kiss her, play with her hair, and say, ―I love you 

Mommy, I miss you Mommy.‖ Rebecca would specifically ask about mother‘s fiancé, 

asking whether he missed and loved her, and would ask mother to tell him she missed 

and loved him. 

Usually at the end of visits, Rebecca would ask mother to carry her and D. would 

hold mother‘s hand while mother walked them out. According to mother, this stopped 

during the second visit in July 2012, when mother ―was no longer allowed to hug them or 

walk them out.‖ The children always asked mother to walk out with them and could not 

understand why mother was unable to walk them to the door. 

Regarding the visit in which mother reportedly told Rebecca she had sores or spots 

on her, mother testified: ―She told me. I did not tell her.‖ Mother claimed that both she 

and the social worker present saw some sores or spots on Rebecca. 

Mother further testified that during visits, the children interacted with each other 

most of the time and expressed affection towards each other. According to mother, this 

expression of affection was ―typical for them‖ and they had ―a real good, sharing 

relationship.‖ 

Father testified he loved his daughters, but he thought it was in their best interests 

to be placed with their current foster families. He did, however, oppose the 

recommendation to terminate his visits with D. During visits, the children were 

affectionate towards him and D. did not have tantrums. In father‘s opinion, D.‘s 
19

emotional and mental health had improved dramatically since her placement with her 

current care providers. He was now able to sit down and talk to her like an adult. But he 

also thought she was susceptible to falling back into old patterns. 

After considering the evidence and arguments of counsel, the juvenile court 

adopted the agency‘s findings and recommendations, which included terminating parental 

rights to Rebecca, ordering a legal guardianship for D., and dismissing D.‘s dependency. 

The court further found that parental visitation ―would be detrimental and not in the best 

interest of the child [D.],‖ and ordered the parents were to have no visitation, telephone 

contact, or other communication with D. In regard to its orders in D.‘s case, the court 

observed: 

―[S]he‘s doing much better in her current placement and I believe the 

stability is absolutely necessary for her success in life. Based on the mental 

health findings, it does not seem appropriate to place her in a precarious 

situation where she‘s torn between her parents and her legal guardians.‖ 

DISCUSSION

I. Denial of section 388 petition

Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by summarily denying her 

second section 388 petition for modification seeking to have D. and Rebecca placed with 

her or for reunification services to be reinstated. Mother asserts she made a prima facie 

showing her circumstances had changed and that the proposed modifications were in the 

children‘s best interests.

A. Applicable legal principles

Section 388 allows a parent of a dependent child to petition the juvenile court to 

change, modify, or set aside any previous order of the juvenile court. When it appears 

from the petition that the best interests of the child ―may‖ be promoted by the proposed 

modifications, the court ―shall‖ order a hearing on the petition. (§ 388, subd. (d); see In 

re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309–310 (Marilyn H.) [―[t]he parent need only make 

a prima facie showing to trigger the right to proceed by way of a full hearing‖].) The 
20

court may summarily deny a section 388 petition without a hearing, however, if the 

petition fails to make the required prima facie showing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

5.570(d); In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250 (Anthony W.).) ― ̳There are 

two parts to the prima facie showing: The parent must demonstrate (1) a genuine change 

of circumstances or new evidence, and that (2) revoking the previous order would be in 

the best interests of the children....‘ [Citation.]‖ (In re C.J.W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 

1075, 1079.)

A section 388 petition must be liberally construed in favor of its prima facie 

sufficiency (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(a); Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 309), 

but conclusory allegations in a petition or its supporting declarations, without supporting 

evidence, are insufficient to make the required prima face showing (Anthony W., supra, 

87 Cal.App.4th at pp. 250–251). ―A  ̳prima facie‘ showing refers to those facts which 

will sustain a favorable decision if the evidence submitted in support of the allegations ... 

is credited. [Citation.]‖ (In re Edward H. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 584, 593.) ―Successful 

petitions have included declarations or other attachments which demonstrate the showing 

the petitioner will make at a hearing ....‖ (Anthony W., supra, at p. 250.) Indeed, ―[i]f a 

petitioner could get by with general, conclusory allegations, there would be no need for 

an initial determination by the juvenile court about whether an evidentiary hearing was 

warranted. In such circumstances, the decision to grant a hearing on a section 388 

petition would be nothing more than a pointless formality.‖ (In re Edward H., supra, at 

p. 593.)

We review a juvenile court‘s summary denial of a section 388 petition for abuse of 

discretion. (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 460.) If the petition fails to make 

the required prima facie showing, summary denial of the petition without a hearing does 

not violate the petitioner‘s due process rights. (Id. at pp. 460–461.)

Furthermore, when a section 388 petition is filed after the parents‘ reunification 

services have been terminated, in assessing whether the petition has made the required 
21

prima facie showing, the court must be mindful that ―the parents‘ interest in the care, 

custody and companionship of the child are no longer paramount. Rather, at this point 

 ̳the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability‘ [citation] ....‖ (In 

re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 (Stephanie M.).)

B. Analysis

Having reviewed mother‘s arguments on appeal, and her section 388 petition, we 

are not persuaded the juvenile court abused its discretion in summarily denying the 

petition without a hearing. Mother failed to make a prima facie showing there had been a 

genuine change of circumstances undermining the substance of the court‘s prior orders. 

Reunification services were terminated in D.‘s case and denied in Rebecca‘s case based 

on evidence that, despite her ongoing participation in counseling and other services, 

mother continued to engage in inappropriate behaviors during visits with the children. 

The destabilizing effect mother‘s behaviors had on the children was well documented 

throughout the dependency proceedings. However, mother‘s petition failed to take any 

responsibility for these behaviors, let alone show she had made any changes ameliorating 

them. Instead, she portrayed herself as a victim who always tried to do what was best for 

her children, not recognizing her own role in the children‘s dependencies.3 Mother‘s 

declaration thus reflected a persistent lack of insight into her emotionally harmful 

behaviors and failed to show she had made any meaningful progress that would justify 

modifying the court‘s prior orders.

Moreover, all but two of the numerous attachments to mother‘s petition—i.e. 

declarations supporting mother, therapist and psychologist reports, and family law 

documents—existed at the time she filed her first section 388 petition in April 2012, and 

therefore did not constitute new evidence or changed circumstances in support of her 

August 2012 petition at issue here. The two most recent documents were emails written 

 

3 For example, at one point she declares: ―I do take responsibility in so much I have 

attempted to be an advocate and protect my children, in the coming out of a highly volatile 

marriage that ended in a highly volatile fashion.‖ 
22

by relatives of mother expressing an interest in having the children placed with them. 

However, mother presented no evidence showing that removing the children from their 

current stable placements and placing them with either their aunt in Cheyenne, Wyoming 

or great uncle in Sacramento would be in the children‘s best interests. Given mother‘s 

failure to meet the threshold requirements for a hearing on her section 388 petition for 

modification, we find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court‘s summary denial of the 

petition.

II. Beneficial parent/child relationship

At the section 366.26 hearing, mother‘s attorney argued that termination of 

parental rights would be detrimental to Rebecca based on the strong relationships she had 

with mother and D. On appeal, mother contends the juvenile court erred by failing to 

apply the beneficial parent/child relationship exception to preclude termination of her 

parental rights. Mother asserts she regularly visited and occupied a parental role towards 

Rebecca, who had a loving, positive, beneficial relationship with her. She further asserts 

Rebecca would suffer detriment if parental rights were terminated.

A. Applicable legal principles

The purpose of a section 366.26 hearing is to select and implement a permanent 

plan for the dependent child. (In re S.B. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 529, 532.) The Legislature‘s 

preferred permanent plan is adoption. (In re D.M. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 283, 290.) 

―At a section 366.26 hearing, the court must terminate parental rights and free the child 

for adoption if [1] it determines by clear and convincing evidence the child is adoptable 

within a reasonable time, and [2] the parents have not shown that termination of parental 

rights would be detrimental to the child under any of the statutory exceptions to adoption 

found in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) through (vi). [Citation.]‖ (Id. at p. 290.) 

In this case, mother does not dispute that Rebecca is adoptable; she contends the 

parent/child relationship exception applies. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
23

To avoid termination of parental rights under the parent/child relationship 

exception, the juvenile court must find ―a compelling reason for determining that 

termination would be detrimental to the child‖ due to the circumstance that ―[t]he parents 

have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit 

from continuing the relationship.‖ (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) It is the parent‘s burden 

to prove the exception applies. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 574 

(Autumn H.).)

The Court of Appeal in Autumn H. defined a beneficial parent/child relationship as 

one that ―promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the wellbeing the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents.‖ (Autumn 

H., supra, 27 Cal.4th at p. 575.) ―[T]he court balances the strength and quality of the 

natural parent/child relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and the sense 

of belonging a new family would confer. If severing the natural parent/child relationship 

would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child 

would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural 

parent‘s rights are not terminated.‖ (Ibid.)

A parent must show more than frequent and loving contact or pleasant visits for 

the exception to apply. (In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 555; In re C.B. (2010) 

190 Cal.App.4th 102, 126; In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1527 (I.W.).) ―The 

parent must show he or she occupies a parental role in the child‘s life, resulting in a 

significant, positive, emotional attachment between child and parent. [Citations.] 

Further, to establish the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) exception the parent must 

show the child would suffer detriment if his or her relationship with the parent were 

terminated. [Citation.]‖ (In re C.F., supra, at p. 555.)

There is a split of authority concerning the standard of review in this context. (See 

In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314–1315 (Bailey J.) and In re K.P. (2012) 

203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621–622 [hybrid combination of substantial evidence and abuse of 
24

discretion standards; applying substantial evidence test to determination of the existence 

of a beneficial sibling relationship and the abuse of discretion test to issue of whether that 

relationship constitutes a compelling reason for determining that termination would be 

detrimental to the child]; Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 [substantial 

evidence test—―On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, we presume in favor of the 

order, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving 

the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts 

in support of the order.‖]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 (Jasmine 

D.) [abuse of discretion test].)

Our conclusion in this case would be the same under any of these tests because the 

practical differences between the standards are ―not significant,‖ as they all give 

deference to the juvenile court‘s judgment. (See Jasmine D., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 1351.) ― ̳[E]valuating the factual basis for an exercise of discretion is similar to 

analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence for the ruling.... Broad deference must be 

shown to the trial judge. The reviewing court should interfere only ― ̳if [it] find[s] that 

under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court‘s action, no 

judge could reasonably have made the order that he [or she] did.‘ ... ‖‘ [Citation.]‖ 

(Ibid.) Moreover, a substantial evidence challenge to the juvenile court‘s failure to find a 

beneficial relationship cannot succeed unless the undisputed facts establish the existence 

of a beneficial parental relationship, since such a challenge amounts to a contention that 

the ―undisputed facts lead to only one conclusion.‖ (I.W., supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 1529; Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1314.)

B. Analysis

In this case, it is undisputed mother maintained regular visitation and contact with 

Rebecca. Mother, however, did not meet her burden of proving that Rebecca would 

benefit from continuing her relationship with her, as she had not shown that relationship 
25

promoted Rebecca‘s well-being to such a degree that it outweighed the well-being she 

would gain in a permanent home with new adoptive parents.

The evidence showed Rebecca was bonded to mother and enjoyed visits with her. 

But visits also had a negative effect on her. Rebecca‘s anxiety increased and her 

behavior worsened after visits with mother. Mother also continued to engage in 

controlling and manipulative behaviors. The CASA report prepared for the section 

366.26 hearing described a recent visit in which mother convinced Rebecca she needed 

immediate medical attention for nonexistent sores on her body.4 In another visit, after 

questioning Rebecca about being dirty, mother filed an unfounded complaint again the 

foster parents claiming their home was filthy and they were not allowing Rebecca to 

shower. These interactions suggest mother misused the visits and her ability to influence 

Rebecca to raise false doubts regarding the quality of care Rebecca was receiving from 

her foster family. Thus, the evidence indicated Rebecca‘s attachment to mother was a 

troubled and not a positive one.

In contrast, there was evidence showing Rebecca was thriving in her placement 

with her prospective adoptive parents. She was strongly bonded to them, referring to 

them as mom and dad, and she viewed their daughters as her sisters. Moreover, Rebecca 

did not ask to see her parents or show any distress when parental visits ended. Given the 

emotional problems Rebecca was having following visits with mother and the stability 

she experienced while in her foster family‘s care, the juvenile court reasonably could find 

Rebecca‘s need for permanence outweighed the benefits she would derive from a 

continued relationship with mother. It also could find that severing Rebecca‘s 

relationship with mother would not deprive her of a substantial, positive emotional 

attachment that would greatly harm her.

 

4 Although mother disputed CASA‘s and the agency‘s version of the incident, the juvenile 

court was free to discount her testimony as self-serving and deserving of little weight.
26

III. Beneficial sibling relationship exception

Next, mother contends the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the beneficial 

sibling relationship exception to termination of parental rights. She asserts Rebecca and 

D., who had spent most of their lives together, shared a strong sibling bond, and ongoing 

contact between them was in Rebecca‘s best interests.

A. Applicable legal principles

The sibling relationship exception to terminating parental rights applies when the 

juvenile court finds there is a compelling reason for determining termination would be 

detrimental to the child because it would substantially interfere with that child‘s sibling 

relationship. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) Factors to be considered include the nature 

and extent of the relationship, whether the child was raised with a sibling in the same 

home and whether the child has a strong bond with a sibling. The court must also 

consider whether ongoing contact is in the child‘s best interests, including the child‘s 

long-term emotional interest, as compared to the benefit of legal permanence through 

adoption. (Ibid.) The purpose of this exception is to preserve long-standing sibling 

relationships that ―serve as anchors for dependent children whose lives are in turmoil.‖ 

(In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 404.)

―The sibling relationship exception contains strong language creating a heavy 

burden for the party opposing adoption.‖ (In re Daniel H. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 804, 

813.) Similar to the beneficial parent/child relationship exception of section 366.26, 

subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), application of the sibling relationship exception requires a 

balancing of interests. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 951.) The parent must 

first show (1) the existence of a significant sibling relationship; (2) terminating parental 

rights would substantially interfere with that relationship; and (3) it would be detrimental 

to the child if the relationship ended. (Id. at p. 952.) After the parent shows a sibling 

relationship is so strong that its severance would be detrimental to the adoptive child, the 

court then decides whether the benefit to the child of continuing the sibling relationship 
27

outweighs the benefits of adoption. (Id. at pp. 952–953; In re Naomi P. (2005) 132 

Cal.App.4th 808, 823.)

B. Analysis

Rebecca may have had a bond with D., shared a home with her, and had common 

experiences with her. To establish the sibling relationship exception, however, mother 

was required to establish severing the sibling relationship would cause Rebecca 

detriment. Here, there is no evidence that Rebecca would suffer detriment if her 

relationship with D. were severed. The children were separated in January 2012, after 

Rebecca disclosed she had been sexually abused by D. After they were placed in 

separate foster homes, Rebecca continued to thrive. She did not suffer any anxiety from 

being separated from D. or request to have more frequent contact with her. Indeed, 

multiple reports reflected that visits with D. were stressful and anxiety-provoking for 

Rebecca and had adverse effects on her behavior. Given evidence of the negative effect 

sibling visits had on Rebecca and Rebecca‘s need for stability and permanence, we 

cannot conclude that the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the beneficial sibling 

relationship exception to termination of parental rights.

IV. Termination of visitation

Finally, mother contends the juvenile court‘s blanket no-contact and no-visitation 

order as to D. was an abuse of discretion because the evidence did ―not support the 

court‘s finding that even limited visitation would be detrimental to the child.‖ Mother 

acknowledges D. had ―a conflicted relationship‖ with her, and that ―the evidence supports 

a finding of some detriment from certain aspects of their contacts.‖ But mother argues it 

was unfair to D. for the court to cut off all contact because the evidence showed 

continuing a relationship with mother was important to D. Mother asserts D. was 

consistently happy to see her, was affectionate towards and sought comfort from her, and, 

more than once, asked to live with or have more visitation with her. 
28

A. Applicable legal principles

Prior to permanency planning, during reunification efforts, visitation generally 

must be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the dependent child. 

(§ 362.1, subd. (a)(1)(A).) When reunification services are terminated and a permanency 

planning hearing set, the court must continue to permit the parent to visit the child 

pending the hearing unless it finds visitation would be detrimental to the child. 

(§ 366.21, subd. (h).) Moreover, where the juvenile court has selected a permanent plan 

of either guardianship or long-term foster care for the dependent child, it must order 

visitation with the parent unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that 

visitation would be detrimental to the child. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(4)(C); Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 5.725(d)(7)(E); In re Randalynne G. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1163.) 

Consequently, upon a finding of detriment, the juvenile court is empowered to terminate 

visitation between a parent and child. 

The power to regulate visitation between parents and dependent minors rests with 

the court. (In re S.H. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557–1558.) The juvenile court has 

great discretion in deciding visitation issues and we will not disturb the juvenile court‘s 

decision absent an abuse of discretion. (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318.)

B. Analysis

Mother‘s argument on appeal minimizes the troubled nature of her relationship 

with D. As in the case of her sister Rebecca, the record is replete with evidence that 

visits with mother had a destabilizing effect on D. Despite prior attempts by the juvenile 

court to minimize this effect, including by decreasing the frequency of visitation and 

ordering visitation in a therapeutic setting, mother continued to engage in inappropriate 

behavior, exploiting D.‘s psychological fragility and need for mother‘s approval. There 

was evidence this behavior created unnecessary divisions between D. and her foster 

parents, who by all accounts, had provided D. with a high degree of stability hitherto 

missing in her life.
29

D. was always eager to return to her foster parents and did not cry when visits with 

mother ended. At the same time, following visits with mother, D. would exhibit severe 

temper tantrums and difficulty following established house rules. In light of evidence 

that visits with mother triggered D.‘s emotional problems, as well as evidence of 

mother‘s ongoing inability to conform her own behavior to appropriate standards, the 

juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding visitation with mother would be 

detrimental to D. or by terminating all contact between them.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court‘s orders issued on October 22, 2012, are affirmed.

_____________________

HILL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_____________________

WISEMAN, J.

_____________________

LEVY, J.