Filed 11/8/21 In re A.O. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.O. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B313351

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. Nos.

 CK65234E–G)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

G.G.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County. Pete R. Navarro, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.
2

William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Principal

Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________________

In this juvenile dependency appeal, G.G. (mother) 

challenges the juvenile court’s order summarily denying her 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition for 

modification. Mother argues she presented sufficient evidence 

warranting a hearing on her petition. We disagree and affirm.

BACKGROUND

1. The Family

Mother has six children with E.O. (father). Although in 

late 2016 when the underlying proceedings began, all six children 

were involved in the case, this appeal involves only the three 

youngest children—two sons, one of whom was 10 years old when

the case began (older son) while the other was eight years old

(youngest son), and one daughter, who was nine years old when 

the case began (daughter).

2. Previous Dependency Proceedings

The family is no stranger to the dependency system. Prior 

to the current proceedings, and dating back to 2004, over 50

referrals regarding the family had been made to the Los Angeles 

County Department of Children and Family Services 

(Department). During that time,the juvenile court sustained two 

separate Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petitions
3

involving the family.

1 In 2006, the juvenile court sustained a

section 300 petition as to the children’s half sister (finding

mother had physically abused her) but dismissed the petition as 

to mother and father’s four oldest children (their younger 

children had not yet been born). The family received 

reunification services and although mother and father eventually 

reunited with their children, mother did not reunite with her 

daughter, the children’s half sister. The juvenile court granted 

sole physical and legal custody of the half sister to her father.

In 2009, the juvenile court sustained a second section 300 

petition, finding mother and father engaged in domestic violence, 

father physically abused the two oldest sons, and mother failed to 

protect the two oldest sons. The juvenile court removed the 

children from their parents’ custody and ordered family 

reunification services. After one year, the juvenile court 

terminated reunification services and ordered the children’s 

placements be kept confidential from their parents. Nonetheless, 

seven months later, the juvenile court granted mother’s and 

father’s separately filed section 388 petitions and reinstated

reunification services for the family. Mother’s services included 

individual therapy, couples therapy, and family therapy. The

family reunited and, in late 2012, the juvenile court terminated 

its jurisdiction.

3. Current Proceedings

In March 2017, the Department filed another section 300 

petition on behalf of the children, which petition the Department 

amended in September 2017 (petition). On November 20, 2017, 

the juvenile court sustained the petition as amended and 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
4

declared the children dependents of the court. The sustained 

allegations of the petition stated the children were at risk of 

serious physical harm due to the parents’ inability to care for the 

mental and emotional health of the three oldest children, 

domestic violence between the parents, and failure to protect the 

oldest daughter from sexual abuse by an uncle. The juvenile 

court ordered family reunification services for the parents. 

Mother was ordered to participate in a domestic violence support 

group for victims, parenting classes, and individual counseling. 

She was granted monitored visits with the children.

a. Termination of Reunification Services

One year later, the juvenile court found mother’s 

compliance with her case plan had been insufficient. On 

December 3, 2018, the court terminated mother’s reunification 

services. In May 2019, the juvenile court also terminated father’s 

reunification services and set the case for a permanency planning 

hearing. Mother continued to have monitored visits with the 

children.

b. Post-Reunification Period

By the end of 2019, mother’s visits with the children had 

been inconsistent. Mother did not visit the children between the 

end of April and beginning of August 2019. The parents told the 

children the Department was denying them visits when in fact 

the parents refused to visit unless all the children were 

transported together to the Department’s Torrance office (the 

children’s placements were not in the Torrance area). In 

addition, mother’s behavior during visits was inappropriate. For 

example, she asked why the children did not want to call her on a 

regular basis. At times, daughter avoided mother during visits

and sometimes the youngest son’s behavior deteriorated after 
5

visits. Also, at some point, the parents bought cell phones for the 

children through which the parents contacted the children and 

discussed the dependency case, all of which violated court orders.

In November 2019, the Department reported the children 

were doing well in their respective foster placements. Daughter 

and the two younger sons each had been assigned a courtappointed special advocate (CASA), who met with their assigned 

minor monthly and helped to facilitate sibling visits. 

Nonetheless, the Department noted the “parents continue to ask 

that the children be moved [to different placements] even though

the children are safe and thriving in their current placements.”

In January 2020, the CASA for daughter and the CASA for 

youngest son each submitted a report for the court. Daughter’s 

CASA reported daughter (then 12 years old) recently had stated 

she wished “to remain in foster placement rather than go home to 

her Mother.” Although previously daughter had indicated she 

wanted to return to mother’s care, daughter stated she 

“ ‘understands now’ that her parents don’t always do the right 

thing and that she should stay where she is doing the best.” She 

said she was “happy and feels stable and well taken care of in her 

foster placement . . . she does not want to go home.” Daughter 

used her pocket money to buy gifts for her foster mother. The 

CASA for the youngest son reported the child (then 11 years old) 

was doing very well in his foster placement. However, his visits 

with mother had been inconsistent and “led to confusion and

outbursts . . . as they have not been positive experiences.”

A few months later, the Department confirmed that the 

oldest daughter—who was at the time almost 18 years old and 

had eluded the Department for months—was in fact staying with 

mother and having unmonitored visits with father, all against 
6

court orders. The Department noted this demonstrated the 

parents had “very little regard for [the] court’s orders and the 

well-being of their children.”

In May 2020, the Department submitted a report for the 

court. The Department reported that although mother recently 

had been visiting consistently with the children, the onset of the 

pandemic and California’s “Safer at Home” regulations required 

mother’s visits to transition to video calls. In addition, it was 

reported daughter had become resistant to visiting with mother 

and often refused to attend the video calls. Mother believed a 

Department social worker and daughter’s foster mother were 

“ ‘brainwashing’ ” daughter or intentionally hiding something 

from mother. The Department also reported the children did not 

always want to have telephone calls with their parents, stating,

“Throughout the entirety of this open case, the foster parents 

have all reported difficulty in having the children make regular 

phone calls with their parents. [Mother] files complaints with 

the Board of Supervisors or the [Department social worker] about 

these calls not being made enough. Despite constant efforts by 

the [social worker] and the foster parents to encourage the 

children to call their mother on a regular basis, the foster parents 

continue to report that phone calls are a challenge.”

The Department also reported the children were doing well 

in their foster placements and had “formed healthy attachments 

to the caregivers and their families.” Although the children 

stated they were happy and well cared for in their placements, 

their parents “continue[d] to ask that the children be moved” and 

“when the children voice[d]their feelings to their parents, the 

parents accuse[d] the children of being brainwashed and 

ungrateful.” Daughter’s foster mother indicated she would 
7

consider legal guardianship for daughter but the parents’ visits 

were “an impediment to the family considering whether to 

provide permanency.” The youngest son’s foster mother reported 

she continued to see a decline in the child’s behavior after he 

visited with his parents. The Department noted, “Despite the 

length of this open case, the parents have not been able to take 

any accountability for actions and how these actions impact their 

children.”

c. Reduction in Mother’s Visitation

In late 2020, the Department sought to reduce mother’s 

court-ordered visitation with the children. The Department filed 

an ex parte application and section 388 petition asking the 

juvenile court to change its visitation order for mother from two 

visits a week for two hours to two visits a month for two hours.

The Department explained that for approximately five months in 

mid-2020 mother did not visit with her youngest son or daughter, 

sometimes because mother did not request a visit and other times

because daughter and the youngest son did not want to 

participate in a visit with mother.

2 During that time, daughter 

and the youngest son “focused on their services and treatment 

and appeared to be stabilized despite the pandemic’s 

restrictions.” The Department stated, “It appears that distance 

between visits and contact with their mother helped stabilize

their routine and deterred the mother from having as much [of]

an emotional impact on the children as she usually has.”

Beginning in September 2020, however, mother began 

visiting in person with the children again and the Department 

2 The Department’s application does not discuss the older 

son. It is unclear whether mother visited him during the same 

time period.
8

and the children’s foster families began to see negative changes

in the children’s behavior. For example, daughter expressed 

suicidal thoughts and was briefly hospitalized, both daughter and 

the youngest son cursed at a Department social worker (which 

reportedly was out of character for them), and daughter refused 

both therapeutic services and meetings with her therapist and 

psychiatrist. The Department reported that, during visits, the 

children appeared more interested in receiving money from 

mother than visiting with her, and mother showed a disregard for 

court orders, rules and guidelines by, for example, discussing the 

case with the children. In late October 2020, daughter’s therapist 

identified “ ‘contact with family’ ” as a stressor for daughter. The 

youngest son’s foster mother reported “notable changes in [the 

child’s] behavior since in person visits with Mother . . . resumed.”

The Department also reported the children’s contact with 

mother disrupted their foster placements. Daughter’s foster 

mother stated after daughter restarted communication with 

mother and the oldest daughter (now an adult), daughter began 

making false accusations against the foster mother. As a result, 

daughter’s foster mother requested a change of placement for 

daughter and daughter was removed from her foster home. The 

Department noted this was the third time a foster parent had 

wanted “to keep [daughter], but could no longer due to the 

mother’s interference.” Previously, daughter “admitted to 

purposefully sabotaging [an earlier] placement after being 

encouraged by her mother to make false accusations.” After 

being moved a third time, daughter expressed anger with 

“mother and her sister for putting her in this situation.” 

Similarly, the youngest son’s caregivers, with whom he had lived 

for three years, indicated they were not interested in adoption in 
9

part because of mother’s “pattern of behavior in reporting on the 

caregivers’ allegations of abuse that were unfounded.” “[T]he 

possibility of visits being decreased or terminated have helped 

Foster Parent . . . reconsider having the [youngest son] remain 

under her care and custody.”

The Department believed the children’s contact with 

mother and their oldest sister was “having a negative impact on 

the children’s safety and stability, specifically with [daughter].” 

The Department claimed “the frequent contact that the children 

have with their mother on a weekly basis is detrimental to their 

stability and emotional well-being as the children struggle 

between choosing their mother’s or their caregiver’s sides.” 

Daughter’s CASA similarly reported she had “long felt 

[daughter’s] Mother has interfered with her permanent stability” 

and “there is nothing of value being added to [daughter’s] life 

through contact with her Mother.” The youngest son’s CASA 

asked that visits with mother be temporarily suspended until his 

placement was stabilized.

On January 4, 2021, after holding a hearing on the 

Department’s request to decrease mother’s visitation, the juvenile 

court granted the Department’s section 388 petition. The court 

reduced mother’s visits to “phone contact every other week for 30 

minutes per visit.”

d. Mother’s Section 388 Petition

Two months later, on March 5, 2021, Mother filed a section 

388 petition, asking the juvenile court to modify its December 

2018 order terminating her reunification services. Specifically, 

mother sought “in-person visit[s] and more family reunification 

services.” In her petition, mother stated she completed her case 
10

plan and continued “to make progress with my therapist on case 

issues.” She also stated she had a stable job and housing.

Mother included with her petition a January 29, 2021 letter

from her therapist. In his letter, the therapist noted he had met 

with mother 25 times since May 2019 and mother had never 

missed an appointment with him. He stated mother had 

completed her treatment goals, which he listed as resolving 

issues related to anxiety and having her children in foster care, 

developing “effective interactional skills with her children and

heal[ing] fractures in those relationships,” providing a stable 

living environment for her and her children, learning “boundarysetting techniques,” and further understanding domestic violence 

and how to protect her children from it. The therapist explained 

mother had maintained both consistent employment for no less 

than two years as well as a stable home environment. He said 

mother’s “parental strengths have increased” and she was 

“excited about the possibility of resuming her parental role and is 

only experiencing a little anxiety about the return of her 

children.” Mother’s therapist recommended that mother “begin a 

reunification process with her children and . . . have a designated 

number of family sessions with them while in foster care to 

strengthen the bond between herself and the children. 

Coparenting sessions might also be a consideration.”

The Department urged the juvenile court to deny mother’s 

section 388 petition. The Department stated mother had “yet to 

alleviate the issues that brought her and her family to the 

attention of the Department.” Among other things, the 

Department noted, “During in-person visits, Mother would 

negatively influence [the children] to lie about their caregivers 

causing the children to be replaced from foster home to foster 
11

home. Mother having in-person visits prevents the children from 

reaching permanency. For example, [the older son] stated, 

‘What? That my mom is a bad influence? That she would tell 

[the youngest son] to say things that weren’t really happening? 

Yeah, she did all that.’ ” The Department also explained

daughter and the youngest son “no longer want to participate in 

visits with [mother]. Children have expressed they do not want 

to see Mother. [The youngest son] has been able to express that 

visits negatively affect his mood.” The youngest son’s CASA also 

reported, since mother’s visitation had been reduced, the 

youngest son often declined to participate in phone visits with 

her and “[b]oth his behavior and his relationship with [his foster 

mom] and family [have] improved.”

On March 22, 2021, the juvenile court held a hearing to

determine whether mother’s section 388 petition warranted a 

hearing on the merits. At the hearing, counsel for mother stated 

mother had “been working on her issues in individual counseling” 

and argued it would be “in the best interest of [the children] to 

reunify with their family.” On the other hand, counsel for the 

children argued mother’s section 388 petition failed to present 

prima facie evidence warranting a hearing on the merits. 

Counsel stated,“Mother’s circumstances are changing at best” 

and claimed the requested modification would not be in the 

children’s best interests. Counsel for the children noted the 

children did “not want to visit their mother and they are 

ambivalent about seeing her at best.” Counsel for the 

Department also argued mother failed to present prima facie 

evidence warranting a hearing on the merits. In addition, the

Department noted the proceedings were “far past reunification” 

and the proper focus was the children’s permanence. Finally, the 
12

children’s CASA’s believed it was not in the children’s best 

interests to resume reunification services with mother or to 

disrupt the relative stability they were experiencing.

After hearing counsels’ statements, the court denied 

mother’s section 388 petition without a hearing on the merits, 

finding both that mother had not internalized or benefited from 

therapeutic tools she had learned during therapy and it was not 

in the children’s best interests to grant a hearing on the petition.

4. Appeal

Mother appealed the juvenile court’s March 22, 2021 order.

DISCUSSION

Mother argues the juvenile court erred when it summarily 

denied her section 388 petition without holding a hearing on the 

merits. Mother claims the court should have granted a hearing 

on her section 388 petition because she made a prima facie 

showing both of changed circumstances and that the requested 

modification would be in the children’s best interest. As 

discussed below, we find no error.

1. Applicable Law and Standard of Review

“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.’ ” 

(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) “ ‘The burden 

thereafter is on the parent to prove changed circumstances 

pursuant to section 388 to revive the reunification issue. Section 

388 provides the “escape mechanism” that . . . must be built into 

the process to allow the court to consider new information.’ ” (In 

re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 447.) “Even after the focus 

has shifted from reunification, the scheme provides a means for 
13

the court to address a legitimate change of circumstances while 

protecting the child’s need for prompt resolution of his custody 

status.” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) Thus, 

“after reunification services have terminated, a parent’s [section 

388] petition for either an order returning custody or reopening 

reunification efforts must establish how such a change will 

advance the child’s need for permanency and stability.” (In re 

J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527.) The parent’s best 

interests “are simply no longer the focus.” (Ibid.)

The juvenile court is not required to hold a full hearing on a 

section 388 petition. “The parent seeking modification must 

‘make a prima facie showing to trigger the right to proceed by 

way of a full hearing. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] There are two 

parts to the prima facie showing: The parent must demonstrate 

(1) a genuine change of circumstances or new evidence, and that 

(2) revoking the previous order would be in the best interests of 

the children. [Citation.] If the liberally construed allegations of 

the petition do not show changed circumstances such that the 

child’s best interests will be promoted by the proposed change of 

order, the dependency court need not order a hearing.” (In re 

Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250.)

“We review the juvenile court’s summary denial of a section 

388 petition for abuse of discretion.” (In re Anthony W., supra, 87 

Cal.App.4th at p. 250.) “ ‘ “The appropriate test for abuse of 

discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of 

reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced 

from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute 

its decision for that of the trial court.” ’ ” (In re Stephanie M., 

supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 318–319.)
14

2. No Abuse of Discretion

We conclude mother failed to make a prima facie showing 

of either changed circumstances or that the requested 

modification would be in the children’s best interests.

First, at best mother’s petition shows changing 

circumstances rather than a “genuine change” of circumstances. 

Certainly, mother took appropriate and laudable steps by 

meeting consistently with her therapist for close to two years. 

Nonetheless, mother’s conduct during that same time period 

belies her claim of changed circumstances and, in particular, her 

claim she gained “tremendous” and “significant insight into the 

family’s problems.” The record reveals mother did not use tools 

and strategies learned in therapy during visits—whether in 

person or otherwise—with her children. Despite years of 

therapy, mother continued negatively to influence her children

by, for example, pressuring them to make false accusations 

against, or otherwise behave poorly with, their foster families. 

As the juvenile court stated, mother had been unable “to benefit 

[from] or internalize any of [the] therapeutic tools” she learned.

Mother failed to present prima facie evidence of changed 

circumstances.

Second, mother failed to demonstrate her requested 

modification would be in the children’s best interests. Repeatedly 

over the course of these proceedings, including recently, the 

children suffered emotionally and their behavior deteriorated 

after visits with mother. Moreover, it is undisputed the 

children’s various foster parents were dissuaded from offering 

long-term stability to the children because of mother’s 

interference. Clearly, visits with mother interfered with the 

children’s stability and foster placement. Although mother 
15

claims that was “a previous version of” herself, we are not 

persuaded. As the juvenile court explained, “Finally, the kids are 

in a place where they’re stable, they’re not stressed out, they’re 

not in a place that causes them anxieties and uncertainties.” 

Although mother claims the children would derive “some benefit” 

from increased visits in a therapeutic setting, even if true, this is 

not prima facie evidence that the requested change would be in 

the children’s best interests.

The record does not support mother’s claims of either 

changed circumstances or best interests. A section 388 petition 

“which alleges merely changing circumstances and would mean 

delaying the selection of a permanent home for a child to see if a 

parent, who has repeatedly failed to reunify with the child, might 

be able to reunify at some future point, does not promote stability 

for the child or the child’s best interests.” (In re Casey D. (1999) 

70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47, disapproved on other grounds as stated in 

In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 636, fn. 5.) This case is 

distinguishable from those relied on by mother and, therefore, we 

are not persuaded by them. We conclude the juvenile court did 

not abuse its discretion in summarily denying mother’s section 

388 petition.
16

DISPOSITION

The March 22, 2021 order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, P. J.

We concur:

CHAVEZ, J.

HOFFSTADT, J.