Filed 8/27/21 In re D.D. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re D.D., A Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

2d Juv. No. B310083

(Juv. Ct. No. 20JV00217)

(Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL 

SERVICES,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S.D.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

S.D., paternal grandmother (Grandmother) of infant D.D., 

appeals an order of the juvenile court denying her request for 

placement pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 
2

361.3.

1 We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by 

denying placement and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

D.D. (Father) and A.M. (Mother) are the parents of 

newborn D.D. At birth, the infant had positive blood and urine 

tests for marijuana, amphetamines, methadone, and heroin. The 

infant also suffered from drug withdrawal symptoms and was 

admitted to the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit. Mother, 

after awakening from giving birth, asked if the infant tested 

positive for heroin.

On May 29, 2020, the juvenile court issued a protective 

custody warrant for the infant. Santa Barbara County 

Department of Social Services (DSS) filed a juvenile dependency 

petition alleging that the newborn had suffered or was at risk of 

serious physical harm. (§ 300, subd. (b).) DSS also alleged that 

Mother and Father had criminal histories for drug and theft 

crimes. The DSS detention report states that Mother has three 

older children who are no longer in her custody and care, 

including a child who also tested positive for methadone at birth. 

Following a detention hearing, the court ordered the infant 

detained and placed the child’s temporary care and custody with 

DSS. 

In researching family placement, a DSS social worker 

spoke with a paternal aunt who reported that Grandmother and 

her parents (Great-Grandparents) have a history of illegal drug 

use, including methamphetamine. The aunt described the family 

as “toxic.”

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
3

DSS filed a jurisdiction and disposition report prior to the 

combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. The report 

recommended that Mother and Father be bypassed for family 

reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision 

(b)(13).

Following the infant’s release from the hospital, DSS placed 

the child with a foster-prospective adoptive family. Mother later 

informed a DSS social worker that Grandmother recently was 

asked to leave her family home by Great-Grandparents because 

Grandmother was under the influence of methamphetamine. 

Grandmother reportedly stated that she would not stop using 

illegal drugs. The paternal aunt also informed a DSS social 

worker that the “whole family has a history of drug abuse.”

On August 25, 2020, Mother and Father rested on 

jurisdiction and submitted to DSS’s recommendation regarding 

disposition. The juvenile court sustained the allegations of the 

dependency petition, bypassed family reunification services to

Mother and Father, and set a permanent plan hearing for 

December 15, 2020. 

Grandmother’s Requests for Placement

Approximately one month following the infant’s birth, 

Grandmother asked regarding placement. DSS informed 

Grandmother, however, that placement would not be considered 

until Mother and Father no longer lived with her. Grandmother

then offered to “get rid of them.” DSS instructed Grandmother to 

apply for placement after Mother and Father left her home; the 

agency then provided Grandmother with follow-up contact 

information.

Mother and Father eventually moved from Grandmother’s 

and Great-Grandparents’ home, and on November 10, 2020, 
4

Grandmother received Resource Family Approval. The family 

home was clean, well-maintained, and furnished. Grandmother 

visited the infant monthly and demonstrated caregiving abilities.

On December 11, 2020, four days before the scheduled 

permanent plan hearing, Grandmother filed a trial brief 

regarding placement. Grandmother indicated that her home 

with Great-Grandparents had been approved. The juvenile court 

then continued the contested permanent plan hearing date until 

January 7, 2021, and ordered that the placement request be 

determined then. 

Prior to the permanent plan hearing, DSS filed a section 

366.26 report recommending that the juvenile court terminate 

Mother’s and Father’s parental rights and select adoption as the 

permanent plan.

The section 366.26 report also discussed Grandmother’s

request for placement. DSS specifically discussed the

enumerated factors set forth in section 361.3 regarding relative 

placement. Many of the section 361.3 factors were positive, 

favoring placement, i.e., Mother and Father no longer lived with 

Grandmother, Grandmother’s three monthly visits with the 

infant were affectionate and appropriate, and Grandmother 

intended to provide adoption permanency. 

Other factors, however, were negative, i.e., Mother and the 

paternal aunt reported that Grandmother recently used 

methamphetamine, Mother believed that the foster-adoptive 

home was in her child’s best interests, Grandmother left the 

family home due to a reported conflict with Great-Grandparents 

regarding drug use, and Grandmother tended to minimize 

Mother’s and Father’s illegal drug use. Grandmother reported 
5

that she accidentally consumed methamphetamine when it was 

surreptitiously placed in her coffee at a fast-food restaurant. 

In sum, DSS considered the section 361.3 factors and 

recommended that the infant remain in its present foster home 

because placement with Grandmother would not be in the 

infant’s best interests.

On January 11, 2021, the juvenile court held a combined 

placement/section 366.26 hearing. The DSS social worker 

testified that reports of Grandmother’s drug use and conflicts 

with Great-Grandparents were concerning. DSS was also 

concerned that Grandmother would not draw boundaries with 

Mother and Father regarding their drug use and visitation 

requests. Grandmother testified and denied recent drug use, 

conflict with Great-Grandparents, or temporary move-outs. She 

admitted that she applied for resource family approval on August 

28, 2020, one week after the court bypassed family reunification 

services. Grandmother conceded that a DSS social worker 

interviewed her “for two days.” Mother testified that she now 

supported placement with Grandmother because Grandmother 

would allow visitation if Mother ceased drug use.

Following argument by the parties, the juvenile court 

denied Grandmother’s request for placement. The court decided 

that DSS performed a sufficient assessment and that the 

paternal aunt’s statements to DSS and the hospital personnel 

regarding illicit drug use by Grandmother were persuasive. The 

court also stated that it was not impressed with Mother’s 

testimony and that she mistakenly believed that she would 

reunite with the infant. Moreover, the court admitted that it was 

“struck by the fact that these parents have had significant drug 

issues and, for some period of time, [have been] living with 
6

[Grandmother and Great-Grandparents].” Following its decision 

regarding placement, the court then found by clear and 

convincing evidence that it was likely infant D.D. would be 

adopted, and it terminated parental rights.

Grandmother appeals this order, asserting that she was not 

given a fair chance at relative placement.

2

DISCUSSION

Grandmother contends that the juvenile court abused its 

discretion by denying her request for placement. She asserts that 

the DSS investigation was inadequate because DSS did not

require her to drug-test or otherwise verify the paternal aunt’s 

claims of family drug use. Grandmother adds that she has fully 

complied with the placement application, she has taken many 

hours of approved parent education training, and Mother and 

Father now support placement of the infant with her. She also 

faults the court’s oral ruling as an insufficient explanation of the 

infant’s best interests, suggesting that the court did not exercise 

its independent judgment.

The juvenile court possesses sound discretion regarding 

relative placement. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 

318.) When a relative requests placement, the law requires that 

the relatives be assessed and considered favorably, subject to the 

court’s consideration of the best interests of the child, among 

other things. (Id. at p. 320.) Although the law provides that 

relatives are entitled to preferential consideration, there is no 

2 Mother and Father separately appealed the juvenile 

court’s order. Through their respective attorneys, Mother and 

Father filed appellate briefs pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 

47 Cal.4th 835. Accordingly, we dismissed the appeals. 
7

evidentiary presumption that placement with a relative is in a 

child’s best interests. (Ibid.) 

Section 361.3, subdivision (a)(1)-(8) sets forth the factors 

regarding relative placement. The “first and foremost” of the 

factors, however, is the best interests of the child, including 

special physical, psychological, educational, medical, or emotional 

needs. (In re Maria Q. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 577, 592.)

Here DSS analyzed each of the section 361.3, subdivision 

(a) factors in its report. Factors opposing placement with 

Grandmother included the relative information that she had used 

methamphetamine and had conflict with Great-Grandparents 

regarding drug use. Grandmother had also tolerated Mother’s 

and Father’s long-standing drug addictions during their 

residence with her. Grandmother had applied for placement 

after reunification services had been bypassed and no change of 

placement of the child was being considered. Delay in assessing 

Grandmother’s request for placement arose in part from her 

delay in removing Mother and Father from her home.

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying 

Grandmother’s placement request. In ruling, the court referred 

to the DSS reports and the testimony at the hearing, as well as 

the statutory factors of section 361.3, subdivision (a), which were 

discussed in the report and during oral argument. (Ross v. 

Superior Court (1977) 19 Cal.3d 899, 913.) The court considered 

and applied the placement factors and exercised its independent 

judgment concerning the request for placement. (In re Isabella G.

(2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708, 719.)
8

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.
9

Arthur A. Garcia, Judge

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

M. Jude Egan for Defendant and Appellant.

Michael C. Ghizzoni, County Counsel, Lisa A. Rothstein, 

Deputy, for Plaintiff and Respondent.