Filed 4/25/22 In re S.J. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re S.J., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B312791

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. CK86980A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TAMARA J.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Martha Matthews, Judge. Affirmed.

Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

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

Assistant County Counsel and Brian Mahler, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________

After Tamara J. failed to resolve the issues that led the 

juvenile court to assume dependency jurisdiction over her 

daughter, now 14-year-old S.J., the juvenile court terminated 

Tamara’s family reunification services, appointed a legal 

guardian for S.J. and terminated dependency jurisdiction. 

Eighteen months later Tamara petitioned the court under 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 3881 to reinstate family 

reunification services with the ultimate goal of returning S.J. to 

Tamara’s custody. The court denied the petition, concluding 

Tamara had not demonstrated modification of the court’s prior 

order was in S.J.’s best interests. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. The Section 300 Petition

In March 2016 the juvenile court sustained an amended 

section 300 petition, finding Tamara had a history of engaging in 

domestic violence and had failed to take medication prescribed 

for her diagnosed bipolar disorder.2 In July 2016 the court 

1 Statutory references are to this code unless otherwise 

stated.

2 The facts underlying S.J.’s detention and the termination of 

family reunification services are more fully set forth in our 

previous opinions. (See In re S.J. (Aug. 14, 2017, B277525) 

[nonpub. opn.]; In re S.J. (Sept. 17, 2018, B285770) [nonpub. 

opn.]; Tamara J. v. Superior Court (Sept. 17, 2018, B286979 

[nonpub. opn.]; In re S.J. (Feb. 13, 2019, B291242) [nonpub. 

opn.].) In addition, we take judicial notice pursuant to Evidence 
3

declared S.J. a dependent child of the juvenile court, removed her 

from Tamara’s custody and ordered family reunification services, 

including parenting classes, a domestic violence support group, 

individual counseling and psychiatric care with medication 

compliance. The court also ordered unmonitored visitation for 

Tamara.

2. The Status Review Hearings and Termination of Family 

Reunification Services

On June 20, 2017, after the combined six- and 12-month 

review hearings (§ 366.21, subds. (e) & (f)), the juvenile court 

found Tamara had made significant progress on her case plan. 

However, the court agreed with the assessment of the 

Department and S.J.’s counsel that Tamara’s recent emotional 

instability, including one incident that resulted in a physical 

altercation with S.J.’s father and the issuance of a temporary 

restraining order against her, combined with Tamara’s recent 

failure to attend therapy and address S.J.’s special needs,3

created a substantial risk of harm to S.J. if she were returned to 

Tamara’s custody at that time. The court found a substantial 

probability S.J. could be returned to Tamara’s custody after an 

additional six months of services and set the matter for an 18-

month permanency planning hearing (§ 366.22). We affirmed the 

Code sections 452, subdivision (d), and 459 of the record in 

Tamara’s most recent appeal (In re S.J., B298673), which was 

dismissed on November 1, 2019 after neither Tamara nor her 

appointed counsel was able to identify any arguable issues. 

(See In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 838.)

3 S.J. has been diagnosed with chromosomal deletion 

syndrome, learning disabilities, moderate intellectual disability 

and a history of seizures.
4

juvenile court’s findings as supported by substantial evidence. 

(See In re S.J. (Sept. 17, 2018, B285770) [nonpub. opn.].)

In an October 24, 2017 report prepared for the 18-month 

review hearing, the Department recommended adoption as S.J.’s 

permanent plan. The Department reported Tamara had begun

behaving erratically while S.J. had been with her on a two-month

extended visit. Tamara had stopped taking her prescribed 

medication for bipolar disorder and had not been regularly 

attending therapy appointments. She also filed a false police 

report accusing S.J.’s father of assaulting her in S.J.’s presence. 

After being told that S.J. and her father denied the incident, 

Tamara admitted she had lied. Multiple service providers 

reported Tamara had become increasingly erratic, angry, less 

compliant and appeared preoccupied with grievances concerning

S.J.’s father. In late October Tamara was involuntarily 

hospitalized on a 72-hour psychiatric hold. The contested 

18-month review hearing was held on November 29, 2017 after 

which the juvenile court took the matter under submission. On 

December 6, 2017 the court terminated reunification services, 

ordered monitored visitation for Tamara and set a selection and 

implementation hearing. We denied on the merits Tamara’s 

petition for extraordinary writ challenging the court’s order. 

(See Tamara J. v. Superior Court (Sept. 17, 2018, B286979 

[nonpub. opn.].)

3. Tamara’s First Section 388 Petition and the Selection 

and Implementation Hearing

On April 3, 2018 Tamara filed a section 388 petition, 

requesting S.J. be returned to her custody with a home-of-parent 

order or, in the alternative, that reunification services be 
5

reinstated. Tamara asserted she had been attending monthly 

therapy sessions and had been taking her prescribed medication. 

In reports prepared for the selection and implementation 

hearing and in response to the petition, the Department 

recommended the petition be denied and legal guardianship be 

identified as S.J.’s permanent plan. In support of its position the 

Department explained that Tamara’s therapy sessions had been

infrequent, she had appeared lethargic during recent visits with 

S.J. and she had made inappropriate statements to S.J. 

regarding her finances. Tamara had also recently tested positive 

for opiates after a Department social worker suspected she was 

under the influence of drugs and directed her to report for an ondemand test. Tamara’s therapist stated she had concerns about 

Tamara’s medication compliance and her ability to handle stress. 

The hearing on the petition and the selection and 

implementation hearing was held on July 9 and 10, 2018. The 

juvenile court denied Tamara’s petition for the reasons cited by 

the Department, and we affirmed the juvenile court’s order. 

(See In re S.J. (Feb. 13, 2019, B291242) [nonpub. opn.].) The 

court identified legal guardianship with nonrelated extended 

family member Lakeisha M. as S.J.’s permanent plan.

4. Appointment of Legal Guardian and Termination of 

Dependency Jurisdiction

In reports prepared for the January 31, 2019 permanency 

planning review hearing the Department stated S.J. was thriving 

in Lakeisha’s home, where she had been living since July 2018. 

She was enrolled in afterschool activities, including dance and 

basketball. S.J. told a Department social worker, “I am very 

happy living with [Lakeisha]. I don’t worry anymore.” She also 

said she enjoyed her weekly visits with Tamara.
6

In May 2019 Tamara filed a second 388 petition seeking 

unmonitored visitation with S.J. Tamara asserted she had 

continued to attend therapy sessions and was compliant with her 

medication. The Department recommended the juvenile court 

deny the petition. In its response the Department summarized a 

recent meeting with Tamara during which she again appeared 

preoccupied by her grievances concerning S.J.’s father. The 

Department reported Tamara “appears to be under the false 

belief that [S.J.’s] father is the source of all of her problems.” 

Tamara also told the social worker that “all everybody talks 

about is what is in [S.J.’s] best interests but nobody ever 

considers what is in [my] best interest.” Tamara denied there 

had ever been concerns about S.J.’s safety based on her own 

behavior.

A second permanency planning review hearing was held on 

June 6, 2019, at which Tamara withdrew her 388 petition, 

stating she wished the legal guardianship to move forward. The 

juvenile court appointed Lakeisha as legal guardian, ordered 

monitored visitation for Tamara and terminated dependency 

jurisdiction. We dismissed Tamara’s appeal of the court’s order 

pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 838. (See

In re S.J. (Nov. 1, 2019, B298673).)

5. Tamara’s Third Section 388 Petition

On January 27, 2021 Tamara, representing herself, filed a 

third section 388 petition requesting the court return S.J. to her 

custody. Tamara claimed she had been working to be a better 

mother and had been continuing to attend therapy. She stated

she and S.J. had been traumatized by their situation and S.J. 

would be most at ease living with her biological mother. In a 

letter accompanying her petition Tamara wrote she had been 
7

depressed living alone during the pandemic, she asserted S.J.’s 

father had lied to the court in 2017, and she stated she no longer 

trusted anyone. Attached to the petition was an August 10, 2020 

letter from Tamara’s therapist stating Tamara had been 

diagnosed with major depressive disorder and was stable and 

compliant with her prescribed medication. A subsequently 

submitted letter from the therapist dated March 24, 2021 

repeated the information in the prior letter and also stated 

Tamara “exhibits heightened reactions of anger and irritability” 

and “demonstrates awareness around her heightened reactions 

and is working to integrate grounding techniques.” 

In its May 20, 2021 written response the Department 

reported that S.J. had recently told the Department social worker 

she was more comfortable with Lakeisha and did not want to live 

with Tamara. S.J. said Tamara often became angry for no 

reason, both with S.J. and others. Tamara also said negative 

things to S.J. about S.J.’s father, which made S.J. “upset inside.” 

Lakeisha also said Tamara got angry with S.J. and pressured S.J.

not to have contact with her father. According to Lakeisha, S.J.’s 

counselor had considered limiting S.J.’s contact with Tamara 

because the visits upset her. 

Tamara told the Department social worker that she wanted 

to reestablish reunification services with the goal of S.J. 

returning to her custody. Tamara again stated she did not trust 

anyone and asserted S.J.’s father had lied to the court in 2017. 

She said she was still in therapy due to previous abuse by S.J.’s 

father. Tamara was aware that S.J. did not want to live with 

her, but Tamara believed it was a result of negative things 

Lakeisha told S.J. and because S.J. wanted to have a continued 

relationship with her father, which Tamara would not have 
8

allowed. Tamara also told the social worker that, if the court 

denied her petition, she would leave California.

The Department recommended the court deny Tamara’s 

petition based on Tamara’s limited insight into her role in the 

events leading to dependency jurisdiction and guardianship and 

her continued belief S.J.’s father was the source of her problems, 

including that S.J. had not been returned to her custody. S.J.’s 

counsel also opposed Tamara’s petition.

At the hearing on May 25, 2021 Tamara testified she was 

taking her prescribed medication, was going to therapy twice a 

month and was working on managing her anger and frustration. 

She acknowledged her anger upset S.J. Tamara described her 

visits with S.J., saying they talked about S.J.’s school and her 

friends.

After argument the juvenile court denied Tamara’s 

petition. The court stated, “Mother is actually working on the 

case issues and is at least shown changing, if not changed, 

circumstances.” However, the court observed Tamara was “still 

blaming other people” for her situation and “it just really doesn’t 

seem that mother is yet able to have empathy and insight for 

what this whole experience has been like for [S.J.] and [S.J.’s] 

needs as opposed to mother’s needs.” Ultimately, the court found 

it was not in S.J.’s best interests to reinstate services or return 

S.J. to Tamara’s custody, stating, “[S.J. has] been in this 

guardianship for several years now. She’s settled. She has a 

permanent home. . . . It simply would not be in the child’s best 

interest to disrupt her life again in order to allow mother another 

chance to reunify with her.” 

Tamara filed a timely notice of appeal.
9

DISCUSSION

1. Governing Law and Standard of Review

A request to modify, replace or terminate a guardianship 

established by the juvenile court pursuant to section 360 or 

366.26—a dependency guardianship—is governed by the 

procedures provided in section 388 for modification of court 

orders. (B.B. v. Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 563, 569; 

In re Priscilla D. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1207, 1217-1218; In re 

Carlos E. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1408, 1417; see Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 5.740(d) [“[a] petition to terminate a guardianship 

established by the juvenile court, to appoint a successor 

guardian, or to modify or supplement orders concerning a 

guardianship must be filed in the juvenile court” using Judicial 

Council form JV-180 applicable to section 388 petitions].)

Section 388 provides for modification of juvenile court 

orders when the moving party (1) presents new evidence or a 

change of circumstance and (2) demonstrates modification of the 

previous order is in the child’s best interest. (In re Jasmon O. 

(1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415; In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 

295, 317; In re Y.M. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 892, 919; see Cal. 

Rules of Court, rule 5.570(e); see also In re Zacharia D. (1993) 

6 Cal.4th 435, 455 [“‘[s]ection 388 provides the “escape 

mechanism” that . . . must be built into the process to allow the 

court to consider new information’”].)

When, as here, a section 388 petition is filed after family 

reunification services have been terminated, the juvenile court’s 

overriding concern is the child’s best interest. (In re 

Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.) The parent’s interests 

in the care, custody and companionship of the child are no longer 

paramount; and the focus shifts to the needs of the child for 
10

permanency and stability. (Ibid.; In re Malick T. (2022) 

73 Cal.App.5th 1109, 1123.) “[B]est interests is a complex idea” 

that requires consideration of a variety of factors. (In re 

Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 531; see In re Jacob P.

(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 819, 832-833.) In determining whether a 

section 388 petitioner has made the requisite showing, the 

juvenile court may consider the entire factual and procedural 

history of the case, including factors such as the seriousness of 

the reason leading to the child’s removal, the reason the problem 

was not resolved, the passage of time since the child’s removal, 

the relative strength of the bonds with the child, the nature of the 

change of circumstance, and the reason the change was not made 

sooner. (In re Mickel O. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 586, 616; In re 

Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 446-447; In re Justice P.

(2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 188-189.)

If the juvenile court has ruled the parent failed to carry his 

or her initial burden to demonstrate new evidence or changed 

circumstances, the first step of the analysis, the question for the 

reviewing court is whether that finding is erroneous as a matter 

of law. (See Almanor Lakeside Villas Owners Assn. v. Carson

(2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 761, 769 [where the issue on appeal turns 

on a failure of proof at trial, “the question for a reviewing court 

[becomes] ‘“whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the 

appellant as a matter of law”’”]; In re Aurora P. (2015) 

241 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1156 [same].) We review the court’s best 

interest finding for abuse of discretion and may disturb the 

exercise of that discretion only in the rare case when the court 

has made an arbitrary or irrational determination. (In re 

Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 318-319.) We do not inquire 

whether substantial evidence would have supported a different 
11

order, nor do we reweigh the evidence and substitute our 

judgment for that of the juvenile court. (Ibid.) 

2. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying 

Tamara’s Section 388 Petition

Tamara asserts her continued therapy, medication 

compliance and recognition of her anger management issues 

presented a change of circumstances and merited, if not 

immediate return of S.J. to her custody, at least additional 

reunification services with the goal of S.J.’s return to her custody. 

While Tamara’s efforts certainly constituted “new evidence” 

within the meaning of the first prong of section 388, 

notwithstanding the juvenile court’s suggestion they showed 

“changing,” rather than “changed,” circumstances, Tamara’s 

failure to significantly address her stress and anger management 

issues was the appropriate focus of the second prong of the 

analysis. (See In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527 [a 

parent’s petition to reopen reunification efforts “must establish 

how such a change will advance the child’s need for permanency 

and stability”]; see also In re Ernesto R. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 

219, 225 [“a section 388 order for reunification services at this 

late date would deprive [the child] of a permanent, stable home in 

exchange for an uncertain future”].) In this regard, Tamara’s 

evidence fell far short of demonstrating that granting her petition 

would be in S.J.’s best interests.

S.J. and her guardian both told the social worker that 

Tamara still had episodes of unprovoked anger directed at S.J. 

and others. Tamara had also failed to take any responsibility for 

her role in S.J.’s removal, primarily blaming S.J.’s father for her 

situation and continued need for therapy. This lack of insight 

into her own behavior weighs heavily against any modification of 
12

the court’s prior order. (See In re Mickel O., supra, 

197 Cal.App.4th at p. 615 [the change in circumstances must be 

sufficiently significant that it “‘requires a setting aside or 

modification of the challenged prior order’”]; see also In re 

Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“[o]ne cannot correct 

a problem one fails to acknowledge”]; In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 

11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1044 [same].)

Tamara argues it is in S.J.’s best interests, and S.J. will be 

most at ease, living with her biological mother. However, shared 

genetics alone are not sufficient to satisfy the best-interests 

prong; if they were, no parent seeking modification of a court 

order under section 388 would need to show the proposed 

modification actually benefited the dependent child. (See In re 

J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 527 [genetic relationship alone 

was insufficient to demonstrate modification of the court’s order 

would promote the child’s interest in permanency and stability].) 

Tamara’s argument also disregards S.J.’s unequivocal preference 

for staying in the home she has known for almost four years. 

While a child’s placement preference is not dispositive, Tamara’s 

failure to acknowledge her daughter’s feelings and her statement 

she would leave the state if her petition were not granted 

underscore the court’s finding Tamara is currently unable to put 

S.J.’s needs above her own. (Cf. In re Aljamie D. (2000) 

84 Cal.App.4th 424, 432 [“[w]hile a child’s wishes are not 

determinative of her best interests, the child’s testimony that she 

wants to live with her mother constitutes powerful demonstrative 

evidence that it would be in her best interest to allow her to do 

so”].) In addition, both S.J.’s guardian and her therapist 

expressed concern that visits with Tamara upset S.J. 

Conversely, S.J. was stable and thriving in the custody of her 
13

legal guardian, with whom she felt safe and secure. The court’s 

denial of Tamara’s petition under these circumstances was a 

proper exercise of its discretion. (See In re J.C., at p. 527.)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s May 25, 2021 order denying Tamara’s 

section 388 petition is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.