Filed 3/16/ 21 In re L.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 L

. G

. et al.

, Person s Coming Under the Juvenile Cou rt Law. B 305 503 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 1 7 CCJP 02118 A

- C )

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SANDRA A

. ,
Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Su perior Court of
Los Angeles County. Kim L. Nguyen , Judge. Dismissed in part
and a ffirmed in part

.

Jesse McGowan , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.2 Rodrigo A. Castro

- Silva

, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy , Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey Dodds

, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Sandra A . ( mother ) challenges the juvenile court ’s order
made at the 12

- month review hearing concerning her three children, L. G. ( minor , born May 2009), David G. , Jr. (David, born Sept. 2010), and J

. G. (born Feb. 2013)

. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f) .) 1 Specifically, s he contends that insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that returning minor to mother would create a substantial risk of
detriment to minor

. We dismiss that portion of mother’s appeal concerning David and J.G. as mother did not raise any arguments in her opening brief regarding those two children. W e affirm the juvenile court’s order concerning minor

. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Section 300 Petition On November 29, 2017, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition on behalf of the three children pursuant to section 300

, alleg ing t hat the children needed the protection of the juvenile court because of

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.3

domestic violence between mother and David G., Sr. (father)

. 2
DCFS had obtained a r emoval o rder that allowed it to detain the
children from f

ather. Arraignment and Detention Hearing The parties appeared for an arraignment and detention hearing on November 3 0, 2017. The juvenile court found
continuance in father’s home was contrary to the children’s welfare, that substantial danger existed to the physical health of the children, and there were no reasonable means by which the children could be protected without removing the children from
f ather’s custody. The juvenile court ordered that the children
remain with m other on the condition that she not drive the
children while under the i nfluence of marijuana. It also ordered

m other not to discuss the dependency case with the children. Jurisdictional Disposition Hearing On February 2, 2018, t he juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition, declar ing minor and her siblings to be dep endents of the court, and placed them in m other’s home.
DCFS was ordered to provide family maintenance services to

m other. Mother was granted a permanent restraining order protecting her from f

ather.
Six

- month review hearing
For the six

- month review he aring, DCFS reported that

m other had made a family plan for the two older children to reside with a relative while she kept the youngest child with her. Mother told the social worker that she kept in constant contact
with the older children and had enroll ed herself and the children

2 Father is not a party to this appeal

.4

in counseling at their school. Mother’s counselor verified working with the family weekly. DCFS recommended continued family
maintenance services. On August 10, 2018, the juvenile court found that continued jurisdiction was necessary, and continued the matter with orders for continued family maintenance.
Section 342 Petition On October 14, 2018, the children were detained from

m other. On that date, the social worker received a referral alleging physical abuse by mother of David. The social worker went to the paternal grandmother’s home to investigate the referral. The paternal grandmother said that
she was the monitor for f ather’s visits. She and m other exchanged the children at the Temple City Sheriff Station. During the last exchange, the paternal grandmother
noticed dried blood on David’s nose. When the paternal grandmother asked him what had happened, David said that

m other had slapped him o n the face twice for misbehaving. The paternal grandmother went into the police station to report the
incident.
The social worker then interviewed minor privately. She was reluctant to disclose that she or her siblings were physically abused by m other. Once the children were taken into protective custody, minor disclosed th at m other hits David with a “chancla” (sandal) on his back and bottom when he misbehaves at school.
She denied that m other hit her or her sister.
Minor was extremely tearful and visibly upset as she
recounted the moment m other was taken into police cust ody. She said, “ ‘ It’s David’s fault that my mom got arrested. ’ ” The social
worker told minor that it was not the children’s fault that m other5

was arrested. Minor informed the social worker that m other always told them that if they said anything to the p olice and social workers, they would have to live in a foster home.
The social worker also interviewed David. He first stated
that m other only hit him with a sandal on his lower back and
buttocks. After several hours, David told the social worker that

m o ther hits him in the face when he gets in trouble at school. On that day, he said a “ ‘ bad word ’ ” and when m other heard him, she slapped him in the face twice, causing his nose to bleed. David
said m other threw a tissue at him and told him to wipe up the
blood. The social worker saw dried blood inside of the child’s left
nostril. The social worker also spoke to Deputy Gonzale z at the Temple City Sheriff Station. Deputy Gonzales stated that the paternal grandmother brought the children to the Las Tunas Station to report that m other had physically abused David that day

. David said that mother had slapped him in the face two times for misbehaving. The second slap caused the child’s nose to
bleed. Deputy Gonzalez observed that the child had dried blood on his nose and a bruise on his left nostril. He stated that Deputy
Rivera had detained m other in the back seat of the patrol car. As

m other was being detained, she turned to David and shouted,

“ ‘ You f *** ing did this! Now because of you, you and your si sters are going to a foster home! ’ ” On October 16, 2018, DCFS filed a petition pursuant to section 342 alleging that the children needed the protection of the juvenile court because of m o ther’s physical abuse of David.
Both m other and f

ather appeared for an arraignment and detention hearing held the following day. At that hearing,6

m other requested that the girls (minor and J.G.) be released into her care, as they were differently situated from David. The juvenile court denied her request, and detained a ll three children.
The juvenile court granted DCFS discretion to release the children to any appropriate relative and set a jurisdict ional hearing in December 2018. Jurisdiction/Disposition Report
T he November 29, 2018, jurisdiction/disposition report on the section 342 petition reiterated what mother had done and
said to David. Mother refused to provide law enforcement with her home
address. The children had been placed wi th a maternal step

grandmother.
The children were interviewed in the home of their maternal step

- grandmother. Minor told the social worker, “ ‘ I’m worried about my brother because he’s really not behaving or listening to anyone. ’ ” She also stated, “ ‘ When we were going to visit with our dad, we were getting ready and he [David] was
watch ing TV. My mom told him to get ready and he wasn’t listening at first. We were at the car and when my brother opened the trunk he said a bad word and my mom told him to get in the car and she went to smack him in the mouth, but she
missed and hit his nos e. She didn’t mean to scratch his nose; it’s just cause she has long nails. ’ ”
The social worker asked minor if she had ever seen m other hit David before and she said, “ ‘ No. ’ ” The social worker then
asked what m other did to discipline David when he did no t behave and minor said, “ ‘ She would put him on time out or send
him to his bed. ’ ” Minor denied that m ot her ever hit her or her
sister.7 When the social worker interviewed David, he denied that

m other had slapped him. He said that m other made his nose
ble ed, but he forgot how. He admitted that someone told him not
to talk about how m other made his nose bleed, but when asked who told him, he again said he forgot.
Five

- year

- old J.G. was also interviewed. She said, “ ‘ I worry about my brother cause sometimes he’s bad. ’ ” She disclosed that

m other “ always ” hit s him, som etimes with her hand or a belt. Mother was also interviewed for the report. She described David as always being in trouble, and stated that his behavior
was worse when he visited with f ather.
M other explained what had happened on the day the
children were detained. She said that on Saturday

, she went to get each of them their own pumpkins so they could carve them. David was poking his sisters with the pumpkin knife so she took it away and told him he could not carve anymore. Mother’s sister had baked cookies for everyone, but David had woke n up early the next morning and ate all th e cookies. Mother said that later that day she herded the children
into the car to visit with f ather. When David got to the car, he got his car seat from the trunk. He let go of the car trunk and said, “ ‘ Oh shit. ’ ” Mother said she did not hear what David said so she asked him, but he would not tell her. Instead, h e just
smirked. He just kept smirking

, so m other s macked him in the mouth, but when she did, he put up his arms to block the blow,
and she ended up hit ting his nose.
DCFS recommended that the children remain in placement, and the parents receive reunification services.8

Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing
O n December 6, 2018, m other pled no contest to an amended section 342 petition. 3 The juvenile court then proceeded into the dispositional phase of the matter. The children’s attorney agree d with a suitable placement order for the children

, even though the
children wished to return to m other’s home. C ounsel also requested mor e intensive services for David. Mother requested that the children be returned to her care. She objected to DCFS ’s request that she participate in a psychological evaluation, and the j uvenile court determined that

m other’s mental health needs could best be addressed in individual counseling.
The juvenile court ordered the children removed from
mother’s custody and suitably placed. It ordered m other to complete a parenting course for ch ildren with special needs, and participate in counse ling with a licensed therapist.
Status Review Report On May 22, 2019, DCFS submitted its six

- month review report to the juvenile court for the section 366.21, subdivision (e), hearing

. Mother reported th at she was in counseling at Arroyo Vista Family Health, but did not provide DCFS with the name of her therapist until late April 2019. She also reported that she

3 As amended, the sustained section 342 petition provides that on October 14, 2018, mother slapped David’s face, inflicting bruising and bleeding to his left nostril. “Such physical discipline was excessive and caused the child unreasonable pain and suffering. The mother ’s physical discipline of the child endangers the child’s physical health and safety, placing” all three children at risk of su ffering serious physical harm.9

was receiving mental health services at Via Care. She began counseling there on March 8, 201 9, but her therapist’s last day working in that facility was on March 22, 2019. Although the social worker called numerous times, she was not able to
determine if m other had been assigned another therapist. Mother said that she was an outpatient with the Department of Mental Health, and had been diagnosed with “‘ Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent E pisode, Moderate. ’” She met with a
licensed clinical social worker once a month. Unfortunately, the
licensed clinical social worker would not share informat ion about

m other’s treatment beyond the dates that she received treatment. According to the DCFS social worker, m other was
combative during most contacts with the social worker, and contacts usually ended with m other yelling and screaming and causing the office security to request she leave the office. During a discussion in late April 2019, the social worker asked m other about her housing , but m other was unwilling to confirm her current housing or address. Last Minute Information Report
On July 16, 2019

, DCFS reported that f ather was
concerned with the maternal grandmother’s ability to monitor
mother’s visits. According to f ather, the maternal grandmother was frightened of m other and did not want any problems with
her. The maternal grandmother had text ed f ather and stated that she hated monitoring the visits. In addition, there was an incident during a visit where m other’s boyfriend became angry with the maternal aunt, and m other slapped him and told him to
leave. The children were upset, and J .G. was crying. David told
f ather that he was afraid something would happ en to the maternal grandmother.10

Section 366.21 , Subdivision (e), Hearing
A t the July 16 , 2019 hearing, DCFS moved to admit its reports into evidence.
Mother then introduced her documentatio n, including a letter from Arroyo Vista indicat ing that m other had received therapy from April 3, 2018

, through August 20, 2018. Mother had been diagnosed with “ Major Depressive Disorder and Anxiety
Disorder. ” The letter concluded by stating that m other would benefit from regular ongoing therapy to address her symptoms and needed to continue to work on her therapeutic goals. Mother
also moved into evidence several letters from Via Care, summarizing efforts for her therapy, including a statement that
moth er had completed her therapy assessment on May 24, 2019, and was participating in weekly one

- hour individual sessions. In addition, mother offered an April 22, 2019

, letter from
the Los Angeles County Department of Mental H ealth , which provided that m other had been diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder, and was receiving treatment. Her next scheduled

ap pointment was for June 6, 2019. Last, m other produced a letter from Barrio Action dated May 29, 2019, stating that she had enrolled in a 12

- week parentin g program, and had thus far attended seven sessions. She received a certificate of completion of pare nting class dated July 2, 2019. Mother’s counsel informed the juvenile court that m other was seeking a home of parent order, or in the alternative,
unmoni tored visitation with the children. Mother th en testified
on her own behalf.
Mother testified that she understood her case was in dependency court because she hit her son, causing him to bleed.11

She was in counseling, and had been diagnosed with depressio n and anxiety. She had been seeing one of her therapists for a
month. Her other therapist she saw once every two months. She had been dealing with past trauma in therapy, and learned that
she need ed to spend more time outdoors.
Mother stated that at her visits she went to the park,
Chuck E. Cheese ’s , and the movies with the children, as well as
other activities. She also took them to the library so that they could improve their reading skills. In addition, m other testified that she had been a stay

- at

ho me mother for 10 years, and her children were everything to
her. She promised that she would not repeat her mistake. Mother testified that the paternal grandmother would say anything to get what she wanted, and she lied when she said the
children told h er that m other’s boyfriend was present during the
visits. Mother testified that she would not give the social worker her address because the social worker had threatened her prior roommate, and had given her address to f ather.
On cross

- examination, m other was questioned about an
incident when security had to be called to remove her from the
D CFS office. Mother explained that she had complained that the social worker was not helping her. According to mother, the dispute with the social worker at the D CFS office was centered around the social worker not providing m other a receipt for a
document m other gave to the social worker. Then, according to

m other, the social worker told her that she was not going to do anything for m other, including approving funds for transportation. Mother began to raise her voice. She contended
that she was in control, and that she was only raising her voice to12

get someone’s attention so that she could get a new social worker. Security w as called because she was loud.
After ent ertaining closing argument, the juvenile court granted m other continued family reunification services and
unmonitored visitation i n a public setting. Status Review Report
O n December 24, 2019 , DCFS reported that David had had ongoing issues with hitting ot her children and not following
instructions at school. In September 2019, the social worker attended a

w raparound meeting with the service providers for David. Present at the meeting were m other, the caregiver, the three children, the maternal aunt, mothe r’s p arent p artner, 4 and a

c hild and f

amily s pecialist. The team members stated that David was doing well at home and at school. As the meeting continued, the social worker asked if the team would be able to provide bunk
beds and car seats for the childr en as the children were currently sleeping on mattresses on the floor. The p arent p artner stated that she would make a request for the bunk beds and car seats

, but sh e could not guarantee anything. Mother then stated that the request for the bunk beds and car seats had been pending for months. The social worker

4 “Parent Partners have successfully navigated the [dependency] system and now work in partnershi p with DCFS to provide support, information and mentorship to parents who have recently lost custody of their children

. ” ( < https://dcfs.lacounty.gov/parents/parent

- resources/dcfs

- parent

services/parents

- in

- partnership/ > [as of Mar. 9, 2021], archived at

< https://perma.cc/BPN4

- 4TEC > )13

explained that DCFS had to exhaust resources to see if the bunk
beds and car seats could be obtained via a donation. Mother appeared angry, and accused the caregiver and social worker of lying. T he social worker asked m other if a meeting could be scheduled to address her concerns rather than discussing th em in
front of the children. Mother told the caregiver, “ ‘ You lie and [ the social worker] lies

. . . to me so who is telling the truth, ’ ” and th e caregiver began to cry and sa id , “ ‘ I am trying to help you, I don’t lie to you. ’ ” The social worker asked m other to leave the meeting as the caregiver was crying and the children were present. Mother refused to leave, so the social worker asked that th e children go to their bedroom. Finally, m other left the meeting with her p arent p artner. The caregiver then told the social worker that m other had been upset since Friday when she went to the school for an event for
David and the school refused to allow m other inside the school
until it obtained approval from DCFS

. The school contacted
DCFS , wh ich gave permission for m other to be present. The caregiver’s adult daughter stated that while at the school event,

m other became angry with the caregiver because she had not purchased the school tickets for the children’s pizza and yelled at the caregiver while i n the presence of the children.
The p arent p artner returned to the meeting without

m other, and told the team that m other appeared to be bullying the careg iver. The caregiver cried and stated that m other blamed her for things; she tried her best to stay quiet, followed through on the visits, and allowed m other to take the children to the
doctor. The caregiver stated, “ ‘ The mother tells me I have my parenta l rights and I can take them to the doctor and that is the way she is, she is angry and upset and wants things her way, like14

the bunk beds and the car seats. I told her I would buy the car seats at Walmart and she said no, [ she did not ] want car seats fro m Walmart and that is the way she is, she has to have things her way or she gets mad

. ’”
The w raparound members suggested that the caregiver not
monitor visits for m other and m other’s visits should not take place in the caregiver’s home. After speaking with the team and the caregiver, the social worker spoke to the children. The children were upset

, and
minor and J .G. asked when they were going to see mother. The
social wor ker apologized to the children.
DCFS reported that m other received mental health ser vices from January through December 2019 at Northeast Mental Health and met monthly with a psychiatric social worker. Her last therapy session took place on December 9, 2019. On
December 12 , 2019, the c linical s upervisor said that m other had
informed the clinic that she would no lo nger be attending their
clinic. In January 2019, m other had a psychiatric consultation, and the psychiatrist recommended psychiatric medication for her

. Mother declined and no further appointments with the psychiatrist were sch eduled. Mother received individual therapy with Via Care from May 2019 through August 2019. According to t he therapist ’s progress letter, mother had been participating in weekly individual therapy sessions consistently and was on track to complete the ser vices. During her time in therapy, her goal had
been to increas e her coping skills to regulate her mood. She also received psycho education regarding trauma, healthy relationships, and generational patterns of abuse. The therapist15

recommended that mother continue behavioral health therapy to continue to engage in healthy coping and cognitive behavioral therapy. Mother then attended individual therapy at Hillsides Baldwin Park office, and signed a release of information so that the social worker could spea k with the clinic. The c linical

s upervisor stated that the therapy notes indicate d that the therapist and m other were workin g on issues related to anxiety.
DCFS opined that m other still did not understand that her
behavior was the reason her children were removed from her

care. After all, i n July 2019, m other stated she had hit David and, “ ‘ as a scolding, ’ ” she had to attend parenting classes. When asked what she would do differently other than hitting David,

m other stated, “ ‘ He was hitting the girls, he was fighting, you don’t want me to punish him. I was trying to discipline him and nothing worked. I ran out of options. I would do the same thing as before even though I got arrested. ’ ” And, d uring a meeting with the social worker and her supervisor i n mid

- December 2019,

m other stated, “ ‘ The father is the one at fault for all of this case and that is the reason why we are all f *** ed up. ’ ”
DCFS recommended that m other participate in a psychological evaluation to assess what services and intervention mig ht be best for the parents. Section 366.21, S ubdivision (f), Hearing At the January 14, 2020

, 12

- month review hearing, m other requested that her visitation with the children revert to
unmonitored. The children’s counsel recommended that
visitation remain monitored. The juvenile court ordered that

m other have monitored visitation, and continued the matter for an evidentiary hearing.16

Last Minute Information for the Court
On March 12, 2020, DCFS reported that, i n general, the
monitored visits between m other and the children went well. The children enjoyed their visits with m other. However, there was an
incident at minor ’s school on January 25, 2020.
Minor had won second place at a science fair, and her

s chool was holding an event to hand out prizes. The so cial
worker contacted the school and informed it that m other could attend the ceremony. According to the caregiver and f ather, while at the school, the children had run to m other and had
unmonitored contact with her. Father said that during the
unmonitor ed visitation, m other interrogated the children and
told them that f

ather had cheated on her.
The social worker talked to m other’s current therapist. When the social worker asked the therapist if they had addressed

m other’s conduct at the team meeting con cerning the children, the therapist stated, “ ‘We talked about it but I cannot disclose any information to you. ’ ” When the social worker asked if anxiety was a trigger for m other’s anger, the therapist reiterated that she could not disclose any information

. Contested Section 366.21, Subdivision (f), Hearing
On March 12, 2020, DCFS and mother moved various reports and documents into evidence

. Mother then called the maternal aunt as her first witness. She testified that it had been years since she had seen m other and the children together. She also stated that if the children
were returned to m other, she would be able to offer m other any
assistance she need ed

. Mother testified next

. She said she understood that the case was in dependency court because she h ad hit her son, and17

she understood that that was the wrong thing to do. She had attended parenting classes and participated in therapy. She had also attended counseling sessions with three different therapists.
The first time she switched counselors was because the sessions were too infrequent. Then she participated in a 12

- week program, and she started with ano ther therapist in October 2019.
Mother also stated that she enrolled in anger management. However, she had just enrolled, and had not actually attended any classe s as of the day of the hearing.
On cross

- examination, m other said that in her current therapy sessions she discussed missing her children and learning
to talk with out attitude and be friendlier.
At the conclusion of m other’s testimony, t he juvenile court entertained closing argument. Mother requested that the juvenile court find that DCFS had failed to make reasonable
efforts to assist her

. She also requested that the children be returned to her care, or, in the alternative, that her vi sitation
with the children be liberalized. Counsel for the children requested continued reunification services for m other and that

m other’s visitation with her children be liberalized after she completed a certain number of anger management classes.
Coun sel concluded with “I do believe the court can find by [a] preponderance of the evidence a substantial risk of detriment to the children if they were returned to mother’s care today.” DCFS argued that it had made reasonable efforts

, and agreed with the
ch ildren’s counsel that the children should not be returned to
mother at that time

. Ultimately, t he juvenile court found that DCFS had
demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that there wa s a risk of harm of returning the children to m other because18

m other had not yet learned to control her anger. In support, t he juvenile court referenced the incident at the team meeting when

m other lost control and accused the social worker and the children’s caregiver of lying while the children were present,

caus ing the caregiver to cry and upsetting the children. Additionally, m other’s parent partner was concerned that m other was bullying the caregiver. The juvenile court stated, “And I think this actually goes to the heart of what the court has
observed in cou rt, which is that whenever the mother

— when there are criticisms of the mother, the mother reacts and everyone is wrong, she is defensive, she engages in conduct that is not productive, and that she eff ectively bullies other people.” The juvenile court then adopted the suggestion of the children’s counsel, and liberalized m other’s visitation to unmonitored after she completed six anger management sessions.
DCFS was given discretion to limit m other’s visitation to monitored if there were any incidents of ina ppropriate discussions of the case with the children or incidents of anger by

m other. Appeal
Mother timely filed her n otice of a ppeal, challenging the juvenile court’s March 12, 2020, order concerning all three
children.
DISCUSSION
I. F orfeiture
Mother fi led a notice of appeal concerning all three children. However, her opening brief only discusses minor. In fact, mother specifically argues that only minor should be returned to her because she is in a different position than her siblings. Mother’s failu re to make an argument concerning David19

and J.G. forfeits any argument concerning them. ( In re Daniel M. (2003 ) 110 Cal.App.4th 703, 707, fn. 4.) It follows that mother’s appeal concerning these two children is dismissed.
II. Substantial evidence suppor ts the juvenile court’s determination that return of minor to mother created a substantial risk of detriment to minor
A

. Applicable law and standard of review
At the 12

- month review hearing, which is a permanency hearing, the juvenile court “ shall determi ne the permanent plan for the child, which shall include a determination of whether the
child will be returned to the child’s home and, if so, when

. . . . After considering the relevant and admissible evidence, the
court shall order the return of the ch ild to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal guardian unless the court it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety , protection, or physical or emotional well

being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment. ” (§ 366.21, subd. (f) (1) .)

“ ‘ At the dispositional hearing, and at each review hearing prior to permanency planning, th ere is a statutory presumption that the child will be returned to parental custody

. . . . At 6

– , 12

– , and 18

– month review hearings the juvenile court must return the child to the custody of the parent unless it determines, by a preponderance of the evide nce, that return of the child would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child’s physical or
emotional well

- being.’ [Citation.]” ( David B. v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 789 ( David B. ).) The “substantial risk of detriment” standar d “must be construed as a fairly high one. It cannot mean merely that the20

parent in question is less than ideal, did not benefit from the reunification services as much as we might have hoped, or seems less capable than an available foster parent or other family
member.” ( David B.

, supra , 123 Cal.App.4th at p. 789.) “In evaluating detriment, the juvenile court must consider the extent to which the parent participated in reunification
services. [Citations.] The court must also consider the efforts or

pro gress the parent has made toward eliminating the conditions
that led to the child’s out

- of

- home placement. [Citations.]” ( In re
Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400.) “We review the juvenile court’s finding of detriment for
substantial evidence. [ Citations.] Under that standard we inquire whether the evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports the court’s determination. We resolve all conflicts in support of the determination, indulge in all legitimate inferences to uphold the findings and may not substitute our deductions for those of the juvenile court. [Citations.] ” ( Georgeanne G. v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 856, 864

– 865.)
B. Analysis Applying these legal principles, we conclude that a mple evidence supports the juvenile c ourt’s finding that minor would
have be en at substantial risk of serious physical harm if returned
to mother. DCFS filed a section 300 petition at the onset of these proceedings because of domestic violence between mother and
father. During the pendency of these proceedings, the children were detained from mother because of her physical abuse of
David. While these proceedings were continuing, mother repeatedly demonstrated that she had not gained any insight into her anger management issues. She was rep eatedly combative with the DCFS social worker. The maternal grandmother was21

afraid of her. During a wraparound meeting, mother got angry and accused the caregiver and social worker of lying; in fact, mother’s parent partner believed that mother was bully ing the caregiver. In July 2019, mother still did not have a grasp on why her children had been detained from her. And, by the time of the March 12, 2020, hearing, although mother had enrolled in anger management, she had not actually attended any classe s. While we applaud mother’s efforts in therapy, we cannot agree that her
issues have been resolved such that minor could have been returned to her custody safely. On appeal, mother a grees that there was substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’ s continued removal of David and J.G. However, she claims that minor is differently situated from her younger siblings and could therefore be safely returned to mother’s custody. Specifically, she contends that any risk of physical abuse to minor is low because (1) she had never been the target of physical abuse, (2) she lacked the behavioral issues that contributed to David’s abuse, and (3) she was older and capable of reporting any abuse t o father or any other
relatives . We cannot agree. Even though mi nor may not have been the target of mother’s physical abuse, it is undisputed that mother physically
abused David. (See In re D.B. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 320, 330

– 331 [evidence that parents hit child with a belt four times a month, leaving him with wounds in different stages of healing, supported juvenile court’s finding that child’s sibling was at substantial risk of serious physical abuse].) And, there is ample evidence of mother displaying inappropriate angry behavior at persons other than David , whose “negative behavior,” according to mother, “was undeniably a contributing factor.” Mother22

displayed inappropriate behavior to the caregiver and the social worker. In addition, the children reported seeing mother strike her boyfriend during a monitored vis it. Under these circumstances, the fact that minor was articulate and could report any abuse should it occur is not grounds for reversal. ( In
re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 165 [juvenile court need not wait until a child is abused or injured before taking steps to protect the child].) In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139 does not compel a different result. In that case, after an infant presented with unexplained injuries, the juvenile court removed both the infant and his older sister from par ental custody. ( Id . at p. 145.) The appellate court reversed as to the older sister. After all, there
was no evidence that she was ever a victim of abuse in the parents’ home, she was articulate and attended school, and there
was “abundant evidence that [the parents] were good parents who enjoyed a healthy relationship.” ( Id . at p. 147.) In addition, there was no evidence of domestic violence between them; neither parent had substance abuse problems; and there was no evidence that either parent “suffer ed from mental health conditions, developmental delays or other social issues that often are at the root of dependency cases and might place children at continuing risk in the home.” ( Ibid .) Furthermore, the parents “started services at the earliest oppo rtunity, showed progress in the services and had meaningful and productive visits with the children.” ( Id . at pp. 147

– 148.) For the reasons set forth above, th e factual scenario in In re Hailey T. is a far cry from the situation in the instant case.23 DISP OSITION Mother’s appeal concerning David and J.G. is dismissed. In all other respects, t he juvenile court’s order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.

______________________________, J. ASHMANN

- GERST

We concur:

___ _ ___________________________, P. J. LUI

_______________________________, J.

CHAVEZ