Filed 9/30/20 In re Rose G. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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

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

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re ROSE G., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B303899

 (Los Angeles County

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent.

v.

CRISTINA L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP04092A)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County. Nichelle Blackwell, Juvenile Court Referee. 

Affirmed.

Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County 

Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Cristina L. (mother) appeals from an order denying her 

petition for modification of juvenile court order pursuant to 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 388.1 Mother filed her 

section 388 petition prior to the section 366.26 hearing 

terminating her parental rights to Rose G.L. (born May 2018). 

Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in 

denying her petition because mother, who was diagnosed with 

mild mental retardation, had full time residential support to 

assist her with her living needs and caring for her child. We find 

that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining 

that mother had failed to show changed circumstances or that the 

requested change of order would be in Rose’s best interests. 

Therefore, we affirm the order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Rose’s father has been identified as Carlos G. (father), who

was not living with mother and Rose at the time of the initial 

referral.

2

In June 2018, the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral that 

mother was not properly caring for one-month-old Rose. Mother, 

a heavy sleeper, was co-sleeping with the baby, Rose, who was 

____________________________________________________________

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.

2 Father is not a party to this appeal. 
3

constantly crying. Mother did not regularly bathe or change the 

baby’s diaper and as a result Rose had a rash. 

Prior child welfare history

Mother had been a dependent of the juvenile court between 

2002 and 2004, when the juvenile court ordered a legal 

guardianship for her. In 2013, mother was declared a non-minor 

dependent until 2014, when she reached the age of 21.

In April 2013 a referral alleged general neglect by mother 

of her daughter Aaliyah, including concern regarding mother’s 

ability to care for Aaliyah. The home and the baby were dirty 

and mother would yell at the child. The referral was closed as 

substantiated. The child was detained in August 2013 with 

family reunification services. 

In August 2013, there were allegations of mother’s general 

neglect of Aaliyah. A juvenile petition was filed on behalf of 

Aaliyah, and the court sustained allegations of neglect. In 

January 2014, the juvenile court made a home-of-parent-mother 

order with family maintenance services for the parents. Later, 

the juvenile court terminated jurisdiction with a family law order 

granting the parents joint legal and physical custody of Aaliyah 

with mother’s residence to be primary. 

In January 2016, there were again allegations of general 

neglect as to Aaliyah by both parents. Mother was reported to be 

developmentally delayed with mild mental retardation. Regional 

center staff visited the home and found Aaliyah to be sick and 

hungry, and no food in the home. Mother was asleep when the 

staff arrived around 12:30 p.m. and the child was unsupervised, 

and dehydrated. Mother told the regional staff that she used 

crystal methamphetamine for weight loss. The allegations were 
4

substantiated and Aaliyah was detained in February 2016 with 

family reunification services. 

Mother was ordered to comply with weekly drug testing. 

She did not comply with drug testing and did not enroll in a drug 

rehabilitation program. She attended only three parenting 

classes. Eventually a family law order was issued, awarding 

Aaliyah’s father sole legal and physical custody. 

Initial investigation

The June 25, 2018 referral to DCFS regarding Rose came 

from a caller who lived in the same home as mother and Rose. 

The caller was concerned about leaving the baby with mother, 

who the caller believed might have a cognitive disability. The 

caller reported that mother was neglectful and not taking the 

child to the pediatrician for care. Mother was co-sleeping with 

the baby, did not bathe the baby, and the baby was constantly 

crying. 

The social worker who went to the family home 

immediately noted that mother had some developmental delay. 

Mother spoke warily with the social worker, but acknowledged 

that though she had mild mental retardation, she could care for 

her baby. Mother was a client of the Lanterman Regional 

Center, although it had been over eight months since she had 

contact with the center. 

Mother admitted to sharing a bed with Rose, and that she 

is a heavy sleeper. She liked having the baby in bed with her, 

laughing while noting “She can cry and cry and I won’t wake up!” 

Mother showed the social worker that Rose slept near two large 

pillows, which separated her from piles of clothes and other 

belongings stored on the bed. The social worker advised mother 

to get some sort of crib or bassinet for the baby. Mother “looked 
5

annoyed” and said she would do that. When the social worker 

offered mother assistance, mother replied “I don’t want any help 

from you people! I don’t need any help.” 

Mother claimed to have taken Rose for her first doctor’s 

appointment three days after they left the hospital. However, 

they had not returned, and mother did not know the doctor’s last 

name. Mother also did not know the location of the doctor’s 

office. Mother was vague and unwilling to provide further 

information. 

Mother provided father’s first name and claimed that they 

intended to move in together soon. Mother did not want to 

provide father’s address, though she said he lived with friends. 

Mother said father would be very angry if he found out that she 

had spoken with the social worker. For this reason mother 

insisted that the social worker not speak to father. 

Mother refused the social worker’s offer of bus tokens, 

again stating “I don’t want any help from you.” Mother initially 

denied drug use, then later admitted to using crystal 

methamphetamine, stating that she was “young and dumb,” and 

that she no longer uses the drug. She denied participating in 

rehabilitation. Mother first denied having any other children but 

then admitted having an older child who lived with her paternal 

grandparents. When the social worker asked why, mother 

responded, “I don’t want to talk about that. I don’t have to talk 

about that.” 

The social worker formed the opinion that mother could 

benefit from assistance, despite mother’s refusal. The social 

worker advised mother to take the child to a doctor, and mother 

responded that it was none of the social worker’s business. 

Mother appeared distrustful and resistant to assistance. 
6

Wendy G., mother’s roommate, was concerned about Rose 

because mother would only feed her once or twice a day, and the 

formula was often sour due to sitting out for long periods of time. 

Mother also never washed the baby bottles, so Wendy would 

wash them when she returned from work. Neither mother nor 

the baby would bathe, and both were dirty and had a foul odor 

that permeated the room. Wendy also had grave concerns about 

the sleeping arrangements. Wendy said she would try to wake 

mother when Rose cried, but often mother would not respond. 

Thinking that mother might be a flight risk, DCFS took 

Rose into protective custody and detained her in a foster home 

with Jorge and Sandra E. 

Section 300 petition and detention

On June 28, 2018, DCFS filed a petition on behalf of Rose 

pursuant to section 300. Under section 300, subdivision (b), the 

petition alleged that mother had cognitive disabilities, including 

a diagnosis of mental retardation, which rendered her unable to 

care for the child. The mother’s disabilities interfered with her 

ability to provide regular care and supervision to the child. 

Under section 300 subdivision (j), the petition alleged that Rose’s 

sibling was a prior dependent of the court due to mother’s 

cognitive needs, and that mother’s inability to provide parental 

care and supervision placed the child at risk of serious harm and 

damage. 

At the June 29, 2018 detention hearing, the juvenile court 

ordered Rose detained from parental custody. Mother was 

permitted six hours of monitored visitation per week. Mother 

was to be given referrals for a 26-week parenting class and was to 

comply with regional center services. The matter was set for an 

adjudication hearing. 
7

Adjudication/disposition report and last minute reports

On August 6, 2018, DCFS filed a jurisdiction/disposition 

report and Rose remained placed with her foster family. 

In a July 2018 interview, mother admitted to having a 

diagnosis of mild mental retardation. However, she stated that it 

was not right to take her daughter for this reason. Mother 

acknowledged that she received “WIC” (a federal supplemental 

nutrition program) to provide formula for Rose; that she slept in 

her “couch bed” with Rose; and claimed that the allegations 

against her regarding Aaliyah were false. Mother admitted to 

using crystal meth in the past but had not used in two years, 

after having overdosed and being hospitalized. 

Mother’s landlord wanted mother to leave the home by the 

end of July. Mother initially planned to move in with father, but 

later said she did not know where she would live. Mother did not 

want the social worker to speak with father, as father would be 

upset that the minor was not in mother’s care. 

Wendy G. expressed concern about mother’s ability to sleep 

through the baby’s incessant crying and mother’s failure to bathe 

Rose. Wendy would bathe the baby once a week, because mother 

could not bathe the baby. Wendy had never met father, but 

reported that mother told her that once father had hit mother 

and had been arrested. Mother told Wendy that father would 

take mother’s money. Since mother had been staying with 

Wendy, mother had not washed her clothes, so Wendy gave 

mother clothes. 

Mother’s previous regional center case manager reported 

that mother had refused services and did not attend parenting 

classes. When DCFS requested assistance in activating mother’s 
8

case, the case manager had mother’s charts taken out of storage 

and the case re-opened. 

On July 18, 2018, mother reported that she had not had 

any visits with Rose. Mother’s visits were scheduled for 

Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 

Mother did not appear for her scheduled visits on July 24, 27, or 

30, 2018. On July 25, 2018, mother arrived for the visit 50 

minutes late. On August 1, 2018, mother arrived on time for the 

visit, stating that she was having difficulty obtaining money for 

transportation. 

In a last-minute information for the court, DCFS reported 

that the parents had a visit on September 21, 2018. Though the 

visit was scheduled to be three hours, father left after an hour. 

The baby was fussy and father threw her in the air. Mother told 

father not to toss the child in the air, and father became 

aggressive towards mother. Upset, father left shortly thereafter. 

On September 26, 2018, the parents were scheduled for another 

visit. Mother reported to the caregiver that father was hungover 

due to drinking the previous night, therefore he was unable to 

visit. Mother was present for three hours, and appeared to be 

bonding with the baby and soothing her. The caregiver reported 

her opinion that it was not a good idea for the parents to visit 

together. Mother had expressed to the caregiver that she did not 

want Rose released to father because father had been abusive 

towards her. Mother added that the paternal family was abusive 

towards her, but provided no details. 

A multidisciplinary assessment team summary report was 

provided to the court. Father had been interviewed on 

September 13, 2018, when he stated that mother had problems 

with self-care such as bathing, brushing her teeth, and nutrition. 
9

Mother’s mental and emotional state also put Rose at risk of 

general neglect and deprivation of her basic needs. Mother 

denied being neglectful and did not understand why Rose was 

being detained. Rose had adjusted well to living with Sandra and 

Jorge and seemed to be developing a strong attachment to them. 

In a last-minute information for the court dated November 

6, 2018, DCFS reported that mother failed to appear for her 

scheduled regional center intake on October 8 and 9, 2018, 

claiming that she had overslept. On October 26, 2018, mother’s 

assigned regional center counselor arrived at mother’s address for 

a scheduled meeting, but was informed that mother no longer 

lived there. The regional center counselor told DCFS that mother 

should contact the regional center if she wanted services as they 

were going to deactivate her account. 

On October 26, 2018, mother informed the DCFS social 

worker that she had rented a room, but would not provide her 

address. 

The parents last visited Rose on October 11, 2018. The 

visit lasted three hours. Though mother called to confirm her 

October 24, 2018 visit, she did not appear. Mother did not appear 

for the October 25, 2018 visit.

At father’s second scheduled visit, the parents arrived 

together and bickered during most of the visit. Father told 

mother that she slept a lot and that if he had not awakened her, 

she would not have visited the child. He also told mother that 

she did not know what she was doing, and he did not know how 

she was going to take care of the child. 

When mother called Sandra and Jorge, she did not inquire 

about Rose. During visits, when prompted by Jorge, mother 

would change Rose’s diaper and feed her. Jorge noted that 
10

mother visited more frequently when court dates were 

approaching. 

On October 9, 2018, DCFS filed a first-amended petition 

adding an allegation that mother and father had a history of 

engaging in violent altercations. 

Jurisdiction/disposition hearing

The jurisdiction/disposition hearing took place on 

November 6, 2018. The juvenile court sustained the allegations 

set forth under section 300, subdivision (b)(1), regarding mother’s 

inability to care for the child based on her cognitive disabilities. 

It also sustained count b-2, alleging that mother and father had a 

history of violent altercations. Rose was ordered removed from 

parental custody. The court ordered family reunification services 

for mother, including a 26-week developmentally appropriate 

parenting program, an assessment for a hands-on parenting 

class, individual counseling to address case issues such as 

parenting and child safety and protection, transportation 

assistance, and a regional center referral. 

The court had previously granted mother six hours of visits 

per week, but because mother was not taking advantage of those 

hours, mother’s monitored visits were reduced to three hours per 

week. The parents were not to visit together. 

Six-month review period

Rose continued to thrive with Sandra and Jorge, who were 

meeting all of her needs. Mother was residing with father in a 

cluttered rented room in a two-bedroom apartment with another 

family. Mother was pregnant and due in August 2019. 

In March 2019, father reported that mother slapped him 

during a November 2018 argument, however, the parents 

minimized the situation. DCFS assessed that mother became 
11

frustrated easily due to her inability to express herself. Since 

mother wanted to move out of her room with father, her regional 

center worker was helping mother relocate to a supportive living 

residence, where staff would assist mother with tasks associated 

with independent living, such as cooking and cleaning. Parenting 

responsibilities however, would need to be assumed by mother. 

Mother and father intended to maintain their romantic 

relationship.

Mother enrolled in a hands-on parenting class and her 

attendance had been consistent. Mother had also scheduled her 

first therapy session. 

Since November 2018, mother had been consistently 

visiting Rose. Mother had requested and was granted three 

additional hours of visits per week. Mother’s visits were 

appropriate. She was able to change Rose’s diaper, feed her, and 

noticed when Rose was crying. However, mother still sought the 

assistance of others when Rose cried, rather than attempting to 

find ways to soothe Rose on her own. Mother seemed unable to 

console Rose. Mother was also distracted during visits, speaking 

to the adult monitors and making unimportant phone calls to 

father. 

On May 2, 2019, mother moved to an assisted living facility 

with a staff member, Glenda P. Glenda reported that mother was 

expected to clean up after herself, vacuum once a week, rinse her 

dishes, wash her clothes, follow the rules, and keep her room 

clean. Glenda was available to transport mother to appointments 

but mother would need to arrange for transportation for her 

personal matters. Glenda reported that mother would spend an 

excessive amount of time in her room and would benefit from 

activities outside the home. In June 2019, mother complained 
12

that Glenda would not transport her places and that she felt 

picked on. Mother’s parenting instructor explained that mother 

expected Glenda to provide a higher level of support, while 

Glenda expected mother to live more independently. 

Mother and father maintained their relationship and spoke 

daily. On June 1, 2019, due to stomach pains, mother was 

transported to the hospital, where she tested positive for 

methamphetamine. Mother had been spending weekends with 

father at a motel, and DCFS opined that mother was engaging in 

unsafe activities with father while absent from the supportive 

living housing. Mother missed a mental health appointment, but 

claimed it was because she was not reminded by Glenda P. 

Mother continued to visit with Rose, where she was 

directed by her parenting instructor. The social worker who 

observed a May 22, 2019 visit found that mother did not ask 

about medical updates or Rose’s preferences. However, mother 

asked for guidance in feeding Rose and in her food preparation. 

Mother was easily distracted by other adults during the visit. 

Mother also required assistance in monitoring Rose, who moved 

around more quickly than mother. Mother informed the social 

worker that she was concerned about her ability to care for two 

children at the same time, prompting DCFS to be concerned that 

mother’s cognitive delays would require her to have ongoing 

support in order to raise Rose.

In a June 2019 interview, father admitted being an 

alcoholic and that mother was a methamphetamine addict. He 

said that mother had asked if she could move back in with him 

once the new baby was born. He added that mother had lice, 

which he believed mother had passed on to Rose. In July 2019, 

the social worker observed that mother had head lice, and 
13

mother’s visits were suspended due to her failure to address the 

issue. 

The six-month review hearing was held on July 9, 2019. 

The juvenile court found mother in partial compliance with her 

court-ordered case plan. The court ordered mother’s reunification 

services continued for an additional six months. Mother was 

ordered to participate in weekly random drug testing. If any test 

was positive or missed, mother was to enroll in a full inpatient 

treatment program. Father was found to be noncompliant, and 

his family reunification services were terminated. The court 

warned mother to minimize contact with father because father 

was not engaging in services and the parents still engaged in 

conflict and disputes when they saw each other. 

Status review report

In an August 2019 status review report, DCFS reported 

that Rose continued to thrive with Sandra and Jorge. Mother 

stated that she still spoke with father daily, and the two were 

still involved in a romantic relationship. Mother and father had 

spoken about meeting near her residence when the baby was 

born so he could visit with the child. Mother thought she and 

father were less hostile with each other when they spoke on the 

phone. 

Mother’s support team met and set new, very basic goals 

for mother, such as remembering to care for her hygiene, 

participating in outside activities, and gaining independent living 

skills. Mother still needed to be prompted to complete tasks such 

as laundry and cleaning her room, and to keep up to date with 

her medical appointments. Mother did not have interest in any 

hobbies or work outside of the home, and she worried about her 
14

ability to care for both Rose and the new baby. She was unable to 

articulate a plan as to how she would care for both children. 

Mother failed to participate in individual therapy. She 

missed an appointment on April 12, 2019, claiming it was 

because she was not reminded of the appointment. On July 15, 

2019, mother stated that she did not believe she needed to 

participate in court-ordered therapy. She added that she would 

not be participating in any court-ordered services because she 

was too far along in her pregnancy. 

Mother informed the social worker that she did not like the 

drug testing location, but when the social worker told mother 

that she could choose another site, further away, mother 

declined. The social worker reviewed the procedures for drug 

testing with mother. On July 24, 2019, mother texted the social 

worker and asked her to provide a new testing location. The 

social worker complied. 

As of the status review report, mother still had lice. In a 

last-minute information for the court filed on August 28, 2019, 

DCFS reported that mother had been unable to participate in 

visits or parenting classes due to her lice. Mother gave birth to 

her baby, Kevin, in August 2019, while she still had lice. On 

August 17, 2019, mother was taken to a lice treatment center to 

remove the lice in one treatment. 

Sandra visited mother in the hospital, where mother was 

argumentative with hospital staff. Sandra had to mediate 

several heated arguments. Sandra reported that the nurses were 

so put off by mother’s behavior that mother was not receiving any 

assistance. The hospital provided mother with a voucher for a 

car seat, but would not help her obtain one. Mother argued with 
15

Glenda P. because she would not bring mother a car seat. 

Ultimately, it was Sandra who obtained the car seat for mother. 

Mother failed to be drug tested five times between July 19 

and August 13, 2019. Mother tested negative for drugs on July 

20 and August 17, 2019. Mother did not inform the social worker 

that she had delivered her baby, and missed her well baby check 

with the newborn. 

Twelve-month review

The twelve-month review hearing was held on August 28, 

2019. At the hearing, Rose’s counsel joined with DCFS in asking 

that mother’s reunification services be terminated. Mother’s 

newborn baby had been detained from mother’s custody. Rose’s 

counsel argued that mother’s regional center services were not 

adequate to help mother overcome her inability to care for Rose. 

Rose’s counsel noted that mother had not been able to progress 

even in her new assisted living setting. 

The juvenile court found mother to be in partial compliance 

with her case plan, ordered reunification services to be 

terminated, and set the matter for a permanency planning 

hearing pursuant to section 366.26. In making these findings, 

the juvenile court noted that the child came to the attention of 

DCFS because mother was not properly caring for the child. 

Mother did not properly care for her own hygiene, and was 

involved in an abusive relationship with father. The problems 

which existed at the commencement of the proceedings continued 

to exist. 

Permanency planning report

In the December 11, 2019 section 366.26 report, DCFS 

reported that Rose remained with Sandra and Jorge, where she 

had been placed since July 5, 2018, when she was just six weeks 
16

old. Sandra and Jorge continued to meet all of Rose’s needs, and 

Rose had a loving bond with them. Rose was thriving in the 

placement, and Sandra and Jorge wished to adopt Rose. Sandra 

and Jorge had been approved as a resource family. Sandra and 

Jorge were willing to remain in a relationship with mother and 

father if they adopted the child, but they did not want to enter an 

adoption contract. Rose’s younger sibling, Kevin, had also been 

placed with Sandra and Jorge. Mother had informed the social 

worker that if she were unable to reunify with Rose, she wanted 

Sandra and Jorge to adopt Rose. DCFS recommended that Rose 

be adopted by Sandra and Jorge. 

Mother continued to visit with Rose. However, it was noted 

that mother asked for guidance during the visits and was easily 

distracted by other adults. Kevin would sometimes cry 

uncontrollably during mother’s visits. During one visit, Kevin 

was crying so much that mother and her parent coach decided to 

take him to the emergency room. Jorge and Sandra were 

informed, and Sandra rushed to the hospital. Kevin stopped 

crying when he heard Sandra’s voice. At that, mother became 

aggressive, yelled and screamed that she was Kevin’s mother and 

could take care of her own son. Kevin, in mother’s arms, started 

crying again. DCFS was concerned about mother’s anger 

management issues as she was unable to control herself when 

arguing in the children’s presence.

Mother’s section 388 petition

On December 11, 2019, mother filed a section 388 petition 

requesting that the juvenile court reinstate family reunification 

services. As to changed circumstances, mother asserted that she 

had completed a comprehensive parenting program and was 

continuing to address the issues that brought the matter to the 
17

court’s jurisdiction. Mother asserted that she continued to 

participate in individual counseling and that her therapist was 

willing to testify. Mother stated that the change of order would 

be in the best interests of the child because mother continued to 

establish a bond with Rose and it would be in Rose’s best interest 

if they continued the relationship. 

The juvenile court set a hearing on mother’s section 388 

petition for January 14, 2020. 

DCFS filed an interim review report on January 7, 2020, in 

which it verified that mother completed her parenting course (she 

provided a certificate of completion). However, despite 

completing the course, mother continued to exhibit poor 

parenting skills. Mother had to be reminded of simple tasks such 

as feeding and changing the child. Though mother could follow 

step-by-step instructions, DCFS was concerned that mother had 

not demonstrated her ability to do these things on her own. 

Mother continued her inability to console her children. During 

one monitored visit, Rose accidentally dropped her cup on Kevin, 

who began to cry. Mother had to be prompted to pick up Kevin

and had to be redirected from yelling at Rose. Rose was afraid 

and jumped into the social worker’s lap for security. The social 

worker had to explain age appropriate guidance to mother. 

Mother wanted to put Rose in a time out, an approach mother 

learned in her parenting program, however, it was not age 

appropriate. 

The social worker expressed concern that mother had 

extremely limited knowledge about caring for a toddler and was 

inconsistent with her own self-care. Mother was in need of a 

daily caregiver for herself, and needed to be instructed on daily 

life skills and functions. Mother failed to confirm a scheduled 
18

weekly monitored visit due to mother’s inability to prioritize her 

parenting responsibility. Mother did not confirm her scheduled 

visit on Halloween because mother was trick-or-treating by 

herself. 

Mother was enrolled in a domestic violence batterer’s 

program as well as individual counseling. However, mother had 

not completed the programs and was in only partial compliance 

despite having had ample time to complete them. Mother had 

not shown any progress in her ability to properly care for Rose. 

DCFS opined that it would be detrimental to reinstate 

reunification services, because such an order would prolong 

Rose’s wait for the permanent plan of adoption. DCFS 

recommended that reunification services not be reinstated and 

that the child remain suitably placed with her caregivers. 

The hearing on mother’s section 388 petition was held on 

January 14, 2020. Glenda P. testified that her services included 

room and board, taking mother to doctor appointments, drug 

testing, and visits with Rose and Kevin. Mother could stay with 

Glenda indefinitely. Glenda was willing to help provide services 

to mother’s children, though she had never monitored any of 

mother’s visits with Rose. She had however, seen Rose three 

times when she dropped off mother for the visits. Glenda denied 

that mother used drugs in her home.

The social worker testified that mother was supposed to 

have visits with Rose on Wednesdays, and makeup visits on 

Fridays with Kevin. Mother’s parenting coach attended the visits 

with mother, and provided assistance and redirection for mother. 

She would prompt mother to change the children’s diapers and 

feed them. The social worker would monitor mother’s visits when 

the parent coach needed a break. Mother generally had good 
19

interactions with the children during visits, but mother would 

sometimes fall asleep during the visits. Once mother left Rose 

unattended on the table while changing her diaper, requiring the 

social worker to step in and correct mother. Mother responded 

that she was the mother and knew best. The social worker noted 

that mother was not receptive to being redirected by DCFS 

because she did not trust DCFS. The social worker also described 

the incident during which Rose accidentally dropped a cup on 

Kevin and mother got upset, yelled at Rose, and screamed so 

loudly that the parent coach, who was in the bathroom, ran back 

into the room. 

The social worker said that often during visits the parent 

coach would have to take one of the children because mother 

could not handle both of them or soothe both of them. The parent 

coach had to prompt mother to feed the children, including the 

amount of food to give them. Mother did not provide snacks for 

the visits, instead Sandra and Jorge did. Mother informed the 

social worker that she felt overwhelmed and did not think that 

the parent coach had provided her with enough help.

The social worker had not observed any changes in mother. 

Mother continued to demonstrate issues of anger management, 

and mother’s parenting instructor recommended another ageappropriate parenting class because mother was unable to retain 

the information taught in the class and apply it to her children. 

Mother’s counselor also recommended that mother take another 

parenting program. 

Mother’s and father’s counsels argued that mother should 

be granted further reunification services. Rose’s counsel argued 

that mother’s section 388 petition should be denied as mother 

had failed to demonstrate changed circumstances. Mother had 
20

not retained what she had learned in her parenting classes, and 

had not progressed beyond monitored visits with a parenting 

coach. Mother had been residing with Glenda P. for eight 

months, and the court had previously found that this change of 

residence had not improved mother’s ability to parent Rose. 

Further, mother failed to show that such a change was in Rose’s 

best interest because Rose was not bonded to mother and did not 

look to mother as a parent. DCFS joined Rose’s counsel’s position. 

The juvenile court found that mother failed to meet her 

burden of showing changed circumstances. Despite completing a 

10-week parenting course, mother continued to need parenting 

instruction because she did not retain the information that she 

learned. Mother needed constant instruction and redirection in 

order to be able to care for the children during visits. Mother’s 

behaviors, such as falling asleep during visits and leaving Rose 

on the changing table, created a risk to Rose’s safety and 

wellbeing. In addition, mother had failed to address her anger 

management problems. 

The court also found that mother failed to show that it 

would be in Rose’s best interest to make the requested change of 

order. Mother failed to show a parental bond with Rose.

The juvenile court denied mother’s section 388 petition. 

Section 366.26 hearing

The juvenile court found Rose was likely to be adopted, and 

that none of the statutory exceptions to adoption applied. The 

court terminated mother’s parental rights and appointed Sandra 

and Jorge as Rose’s prospective adoptive parents.

Appeal

On January 14, 2020, mother filed a notice of appeal. 
21

DISCUSSION

Mother argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion 

in denying her section 388 petition because mother demonstrated 

changed circumstances and it was in Rose’s best interest to 

continue the positive interactions between mother and child.

I. Applicable law 

Section 388 provides, in part, that a parent “may, upon the 

grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the 

court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of 

the court.” (§ 388, subd. (a).) “The juvenile court may modify an 

order if a parent shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, 

changed circumstance or new evidence and that the modification 

would promote the child’s best interests. [Citations.]” (In re 

Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 685.) Section 388 permits 

a parent facing the loss of parental rights to seek additional 

reunification services “when a reformation has been completed in 

the short, final period after the termination of reunification 

services but before the actual termination of parental rights.” (In 

re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 528.) A parent 

petitioning the juvenile court under section 388 bears the burden 

of showing that both “a change of circumstances exists and that 

the proposed change is in the child’s best interests. [Citation.]” 

(In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47.)

A ruling on a petition under section 388 is “committed to 

the sound discretion of the juvenile court, and the trial court’s 

ruling should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of 

discretion is clearly established. [Citations.]” (In re Stephanie M. 

(1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.) Under this standard, a juvenile 

court’s ruling will not be disturbed unless it is “‘“arbitrary, 

capricious, or patently absurd.”’” (Ibid.)
22

II. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in 

determining that mother did not demonstrate changed 

circumstances

In denying mother’s petition pursuant to section 388, the 

juvenile court focused on mother’s failure to demonstrate changed 

circumstances. The court noted that mother had not even shown 

changing circumstances. In spite of completing parenting 

education, mother had not established that she could retain the 

information she learned in the class. Mother’s ability to parent 

remained severely compromised in the absence of constant 

instruction and redirection.

Mother claims that her reasonable efforts to address the 

issues that led to the dependency should be considered a changed 

circumstance. Mother admits that her cognitive disability was 

not going to be resolved or cured. However, mother argues that 

she was not required to show that she was cured of the problems 

leading to the dependency -- only that she had addressed the 

concerns.

Mother provides no support for her position that 

unsuccessful efforts to address the problems leading to 

dependency constitute changed circumstances. In re A.A. (2012) 

203 Cal.App.4th 597, 612 (A.A.), cited by mother, does not 

support her position. In A.A., an incarcerated mother’s 

completion of various services and programs in prison did not 

constitute changed circumstances sufficient to reverse the denial 

of a section 388 petition. The A.A. court noted that “[n]ot every 

change in circumstance can justify modification of a prior order. 

[Citation.]” (Ibid.) Instead, “the problem that initially brought

the child within the dependency system must be removed or 

ameliorated. [Citations.]” (Ibid.) Mother has not shown that the 
23

problem leading to juvenile court jurisdiction over Rose was

removed or ameliorated.

Cheryl P. v. Superior Court (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, also 

cited by mother, was an extraordinary writ proceeding involving 

the parents’ challenge to a trial court order denying them 

reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1) 

as to a child born during dependency proceedings involving an 

older child.3 In analyzing the language of that particular 

provision, the juvenile court determined that under that statute, 

“the ‘“reasonable effort to treat” standard . . . is not synonymous 

with “cure.” The mere fact that [mother] had not entirely 

abolished her drug problem would not preclude the court from 

determining that she had made reasonable efforts to treat it.’” 

(Id. at p. 97.) Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1) is not at issue in 

this case. Instead, mother was required to show changed 

circumstances such that the problems leading to removal had 

been removed or ameliorated. (A.A., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 

612.)

4

Mother argues that her living situation, with residential 

support to assist her in caring for Rose, constituted a changed 

circumstance. However, mother had been living with the 

____________________________________________________________

3 Section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) provides that 

reunification services need not be provided to a parent if (1) the 

court ordered termination of reunification services for any 

siblings of the child due to a failure to reunify with that sibling; 

and (2) the parent did not subsequently make a reasonable effort 

to treat the problems that led to the removal of the sibling.

4 K.C. v. Superior Court (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1388, also 

cited by mother, also involved section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), 

which is not relevant for the same reasons.
24

residential assistance of Glenda P. since May 2019, during her 

reunification period. Mother and Glenda disagreed as to the level 

of care Glenda would provide. While living with Glenda, mother 

continued to fail to meet very basic goals of cleanliness and 

independent living skills. She did not maintain her hygiene, 

participate in outside activities, or gain independent living skills. 

While living with Glenda, mother had lice for over a month, even 

though the condition prevented her from visiting Rose. Mother 

argues that by the time of the hearing on her section 388 petition, 

she had been living in residential assistance for seven months, 

and this stability in her living arrangement constituted a 

changed circumstance. However, the juvenile court was not 

focused on the stability of mother’s living situation, but on her 

ability to care for Rose. The evidence supported the juvenile 

court’s decision that mother’s ability to care for Rose had not 

improved, in spite of her living arrangements. Under the 

circumstances, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in 

determining that mother’s living situation was not a changed 

circumstance under section 388.

Mother argues that her compliance with services showed 

she was open to direction and guidance. Mother cites In re 

Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1215 for the proposition 

that the dependency statutes emphasize “‘“preservation of the 

family whenever possible.”’” Mother further argues that 

dependency proceedings are not “simply a conveyor belt leading 

to the termination of parental rights.” (In re Daijah T. (2000) 83 

Cal.App.4th 666, 676.) While these propositions are generally 

true, they do not bring to light any abuse of discretion in the 

juvenile court’s ruling on mother’s section 388 petition. The 
25

juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining mother 

failed to show changed circumstances.

III. Best interests of minor

Because mother failed to show changed circumstances, we 

need not address whether any change of order would be in the 

best interest of the child. However, we note that mother has also 

failed to show that her requested change of order would be in 

Rose’s best interest. Mother faced a heavy burden in showing 

that it would be in Rose’s best interest to reinstate reunification 

services. “After the termination of reunification services, 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., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.) A 

parent and child share an interest in reunifying “up to the point 

at which reunification efforts cease. [Citation.]” (In re J.C. 

(2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527.) By the time a permanency 

planning hearing has been set, “the interests of the parent and 

the child diverge.” This is true because the possibility of adoption 

“gives a child the best chance at a full emotional commitment 

from a responsible caretaker. [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

Mother’s section 388 petition was filed on the eve of the 

permanency planning hearing. Rose had been in the care of 

Sandra and Jorge since she was six weeks old. By the time 

mother filed her section 388 petition in December 2019, Rose had 

been living with Sandra and Jorge for 17 months. Rose had a 

loving bond with her caretakers, and was thriving in their care. 

In contrast, mother had never moved beyond monitored 

visitation, with the instruction of a parenting coach. Mother’s 

request for further reunification services conflicted with Rose’s 
26

need for permanence and stability. While mother claims that she 

had a positive relationship with Rose, this friendly relationship 

does not justify denying the child an adoptive home. (In re Angel 

B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 465 [where foster family provided 

child with “all the day-to-day, hour-by-hour care needed by a 

helpless infant and then growing toddler,” mother’s bond with 

child insufficient to show change of order reinstating 

reunification services was in the best interest of the child under 

section 388].)

Mother again invokes the purposes of reunification services 

-- to maintain the familial bond. Mother cites In re Kieshia E. 

(1993) 6 Cal.4th 68, 76 for the proposition that maintenance of 

the family bond between children and parents comports with our 

highest values. However, mother cites no authority that 

maintaining the family bond should prevail where maintenance 

of that bond conflicts with the child’s interest in a permanent, 

loving home.

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in 

determining that mother failed to show changed circumstances, 

or that her requested change of order was in Rose’s best interest.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________, J.

CHAVEZ

We concur:

__________________________, Acting P. J.

ASHMANN-GERST

__________________________, J.

HOFFSTADT