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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 P erson Coming Under the Juvenile Co urt 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,
A ssistant 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 Insti tutions 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 becaus e 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.
I n 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 th e 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 pare nts joint legal and physical custody of Aaliyah
with mother’s re sidence 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 ret ardation. 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 were4

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 l egal 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 reporte d 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 w as constantly crying.
The social worker who went to the family home immediately noted that mo ther 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 eigh t 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 s ocial 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 “looked5

annoyed” and said sh e 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
informat ion. 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
ha d spoken with the social worker. For this reason m other
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 chil d 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 so cial 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 t o 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 J orge and Sandra E. Section 300 petition and detention On June 28, 201 8 , DCFS filed a petit ion 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 dis abilities 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 i nability to provide parental care and supervision place d the child at risk of ser ious harm and damage. At the June 29, 201 8 detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered Rose detained from parental custody. Mother was permitted six hours of monitored vi sitation 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 fo r 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, m other admitted to having a diagnosis of mild mental retardation. However, she stated th at 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

aga inst her regarding Aaliyah w ere 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 initiall y 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 fat her 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’s8

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

a nd the case re

- opened. On July 18, 2018, mother repor ted 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 mon ey for transportation.
In a last

- minute information for the court, DCFS reported that the parents had a visit on September 21, 2018. Though t he
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 , f ather 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 seeme d 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 oversle pt. 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. T he 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 p rovide her
address. The parents last visited Rose on October 11, 2018. The
visit lasted three hours. Though m other 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 di d not know how she was going to ta ke 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 that10

mother visited more frequently when court dat es were approaching. On October 9, 2018, DCFS filed a first

- amended petition adding an allegation that mother and father had a history of

engag ing in violent altercations. Jurisdiction/dispo sition 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 di sabilities.
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 developmental ly 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 b ecause 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 cont inued 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 repor ted that mother slapped him during a November 2018 argument, h owever, the parents
minimized the situation. DCFS assessed that mother became11

frustrated easily due to her inability to express herself. Since

m other 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. P arenting responsibilities however, would need to be as sumed 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
addit ional 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 way s 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 m other 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 complained12

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 m other did not ask about medical updates or Rose ’ s preferences. However, m other asked for guidance in feeding R ose 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 abil ity 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 h ad head lice , and13

m other’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 m other’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 b e 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.
St atus 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 an d
father were less hostile with each other when the y 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 her14

a bility 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 alo ng 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 , m other declined. The social worker reviewed the procedures for dr ug 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 fi led 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 , Kevi n, 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 o ne . Mother argued with15

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 test ed 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 hear ing, 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 mothe r overcome her inability to care for Rose. Rose’s counsel noted that mother had not been able to progress
even in her new assis ted 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 commence ment 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 weeks16

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 w illing to remain in a relationship with mother and father if they adopted the child, but they did not w ant to enter an adoption contract. Rose’s younger sibling, Kevin, had also been placed with Sandra and Jorge. Mother had informed the social
worker tha t 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
inf ormed, and Sandra rushed to the hospital. Kevin stopped crying when he heard Sandra’s voice. At that, m other 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 a gain. 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 the17

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 be st interests of the child because mother continued to establish a bond with Rose and it would be in Rose’s best interest if they continu ed the relationship. The juvenile court set a hearing on mother’s section 388 petition f

or January 14, 2020. DCFS fi led 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 m other 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 inabilit y 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 wor ker’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 , h owever, i t 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 scheduled18

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 pro gress 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 p laced 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 appointme nts, 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 u sed drugs in her home.
The social worker testified that m other was supposed to have visits with Rose on Wednesdays, and makeup visits on Fridays with Kevin. Mother’s paren ting 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. M other generally had good19

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 accidentall y dropped a cup on Kevin and m other got upset, yelled at Rose, and screamed so loudly that the parent coach, who was in the bathroo m, ran back
into the room.
The social worker said that often during visits the parent
coach would have to take one of the c hildren 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 m other’s parenting instructor recommended an other age

appropriate 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 a nother parenting program. Mother’s and father’s counsel s argued that mother should be granted further reunification services. Rose’s counsel argued that mother’s section 388 petition should be denied as m ot her had failed to demonstrate changed circumstances. Mother had20

not retain ed 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

, a nd 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
bur den 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 t o 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
manageme nt 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.
Sect ion 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 interes t 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,
cha nged circumstance or new evidence and that the modification would promote the child’s best interests. [Citations

. ]” ( In re
Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4 th 681, 685.) Section 388 permits a parent facing the loss of parental rights to seek additional

reun ification 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.4 th 519, 528.) A parent petit ioning 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.4 th 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.4 th 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 c hanged
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 reaso nable 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, m other 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 mothe r ’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. c ourt 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 the23

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 proceeding s 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 re quired 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 wi th 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 f or 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 arrang ement 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 f or 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 f urther 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. The25

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 c hanged 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 hea vy 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.4 th 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 chan ce 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 t he 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
vis itation, with the instruction of a parenting coach. Mother’s request for further reunification services conflicted with Rose’s26

need for permanence and stability. While mother claims that she had a positive relationship with Rose, this friendly relationsh ip 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 wit h 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
maintaini ng 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