Filed 1/ 15 /16 In re Mohammed A . CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re M OHAMMED A. , a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B 263286
(Los Angeles County

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

THERESA A. , Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. DK04171 )

APPEAL from order s of the Superior Court of L os Angeles County,
Debra Losnick, Commissioner

. Affirmed.
Roni Keller , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, Jessica S. Mitchell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________2

One

- year

- old Mohammed A. was removed from Theresa A.’s (mother) care after
she threatened to commit suicide. Mohammed was subsequently declared a juvenile

court dependent and placed in the custody of Ali M. (father) . At the six

- month review hearing, the trial court terminated jurisdiction and entered a family law order providing father physical and legal custody of Mohammed. No visits were ordered for mother. Mother app eals. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1

. The Petition On March 11, 2014, the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) received a referral alleging that Mohammed was in police custody. Mother
had thrown father out of the ho use and then threatened to kill herself. The police had
detained Mohammed
, and mother was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold. The Department filed a petition alleging that mother “has mental and emotional problems including suicidal and homicidal ideation, which renders [her] unable to provide regular care of the child.” The Department later amended the petition to add an allegation that mother “has an extensive criminal history including five felony an d four
misdemeanor convictions” for vandalism , burglary, grand theft and solicitation for
murder , among other crimes

. “ S uch extensive criminal history

. . . endangers the child’s physical health and safety and places [him] at risk of physical harm, damage, [and] danger.” At the detention hearing on March 18, 2014, the court released Mohammed to
father and ordered monitored visits for mother.
2. The Jurisdictional and Dispositional Hearing After several continuances, t he jurisdictional and disp ositional hearing was held on September 15, 2014. T he court sustained the petition’s allegations against mother and
ordered family reunification services for her and maintenance services for father

. 1 Mother was also ordered to participate in counseling and allowed monitored visitation

. 2

1 “[F]amily reunification services are activities designed to provide time

- limited foster care services to prevent or remedy neglect, abuse, or exploitation, when the child cannot safely remain at home, and needs temporary foster care, while services are3

3. The Welfare and Institutions Co de Section 388 Petitions In December 2014, the Department reported that social workers had “witnessed several emotional outbursts from [mother] . . . .” Father had failed to make Mohammed
available for two visits and arrived late to a third, and on each occasion mother “was extremely angry,” “ma[de] incessant telephone calls to the [social workers]

. . . [and] engaged in angry yelling . . . .” The directors of a program where mother attended parenting classes also reported that mother was “confrontational, inappropriate and illogical.” In January 2015 , the Department filed a section 388 petition 3 asking the court to terminate mother’s visitation on the ground that mother “ha[d] consistently demonstrated unsafe behavior during monitore d visits.” The petition alleged that mother had repeate dly ignored traffic signals while carrying Mohammed across the street and had “yell[ed], argu[ed], and harangu[ed] [ during many] visits in front of [Mohammed].” The petition further alleged that moth er repeatedly threatened the monitors during her visits
with Mohammed

. Maternal grandmother , who had been acting as a monitor, said mother
had threatened to kill her. At a monitored visit at a police station, mother told the social workers present that s he was “ going to post [their] pictures so that everyone will know
that you are bad people ! ” Two other social workers reported that mother had “threatened

provided to reunite the family.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 16501, subd. (h).) “[F]amily maintenance services are activities designed to provide in

- home protective services to prevent or remedy neg lect, abuse, or exploitation, for the purposes of preventing separation of children from their families.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 16501, subd. (g).) All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code

.
2 Mother appealed the jurisdic tional and dispositional orders
, and her counsel filed a brief under In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835 that raised no issues. We dismissed the appeal by order dated June 4, 2015.

3 Section 388 provides that “[a]ny parent or other person having an int erest in a child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court

. . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court

. . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of cour t previously made

. . . . ”4

to publish negative things about them

. ” Th ose individuals had subsequently found extensive complaint s posted about them online, accusing them of child abuse. One social
worker received a text message from mother asking her “if [the social worker] knew what [mother] ha[d] done to the other workers” and saying “mother is capable of do ing thi ngs to her.” Mother also threatened her attorney
, “saying she knew where he lived, among other things, causing him to call 911 for his own safety.”
On January 16, 2015, Mohammed “ap peared frightened when he saw

. . . mot her and was crying hysterically

. ” During the vi sit, which took place at the Department’s office, mother “yell[ed], scream[ed] and ma[d]e threats in the presen[ce] of the child. ”
Mother also told clients and children waiting in the lobby to “look up online for things she posted about [the social worker s].” In anticipation of the court’s decision terminating her visitation, m other filed a
section 388 petition asking the court to continu e to allow her monitored visits

. The court set a hearing on both section 388 petitions and suspended mother’s visits w ith Mohammed pending the hearing.
4. The Review Hearing
O n March 2 4 , 2015 , the court heard the section 388 petitions and held a six

- month review hearing pursuant to section 364

. 4 The court received several of mother’s exhibits
into evidence but decline d to review videos of two 2014 visits between mother and Mohammed on the ground “they [we]re too remote in time . . . .” Mother’s psychologist testified, stating that mother “exhibited no risk factors” during psychotherapy sessions. However, the psycholo gist also stated she would not be surprised to learn that other professionals had described mother as “aggressive, threatening
, and inappropriate.”
After considering the testimony, documentary evidence
, and argument , the court granted the Department’s s ection 388 petition terminating mother’s visitation and denied mother’s section 388 petition. The court concluded “there is no longer a ne ed for me to

4 Section 364 provides that if an order is made placing a child under the supervision of the juvenile court pursuant to section 300 and the child is not removed from the physical custody of the parent, the court shall hold a review hearing in six months.5

supervise this case ” and terminated jurisdiction , issuing a family law order providing father full physi cal and legal custody of Mohammed . No visits were ordered for mother. Mother timely appealed.
CONTENTIONS

Mother contends the court erred in (1) declining to admit into evidence the videos of mother’s 2014 visits with Mohammed, (2) applying the wrong le gal standard at the
six

- month review hearing, (3) failing to make a finding as to whether mother was offered reasonable services, and ( 4 ) denying mother visitation

. 5
DISCUSSIO N
1

. Applicable Law The parties agree that section 361.2 applies here. Section 361.2 provides: “When a court orders removal of a child pursuant to Section 361, the court shall first determine whether there is a parent of the child, with whom the child was not residing at the time that the events or conditions arose that brought the child within the provisions of Section 300, who desires to assume custody of the child. If that parent requests custody, the court shall place the child with the parent unless it finds that placement with that parent would be detrimental to the safety, p rotection, or physical or emotional we ll

- being of the child.”

“ Once the juvenile court places a minor with a previously noncustodial parent i n accordance with [section 361.2]

. . . it may order that the previously noncustodial parent ‘assume custody’ of the minor subject to the supervision of the juvenile court. (§ 361.2, subd. (b)(3).) I f the court [does so] , it ‘may order that

. . . services be provided to both parents, in which case the court shall determine, at review hearings held pursuant
to Secti on 366, which parent, if either, shall have custody of the child.’ (§ 361.2,
subd. (b)(3).) ” ( In re Jaden E. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1281

- 1282 , fn. omitted ( Jaden E. ) .)

5 Mother’ s brief also contains one sentence arguing that her constitutional rights were violated “when [she] was not afforded a hearing on her section 388 petition.” However, the court did hold a hearing on mother’s section 388 petition and allowed mother to prese nt evidence and argument at that hearing

.6

2

. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Declining to Admit the Videos Into Evidence

“ The trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence. [Citations.] ‘ “ [T]he court’ s ruling will be upset only if there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.” ’ [Citation.] ‘ “ ‘ The approp riate test for abuse of
discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. ’ ” ’ [Citation.]” ( In re Jordan R. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 111, 121.) Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in excluding the videos of
her 201 4 visits with Mohammed. We do not agree. T he court’s decision was based on the “remote” nature of those videos, which had been taken a year before the section 388 hearing . The videos’ relevan ce was lim ited by the events that followed, namely mother’s

co nduct during more recent visits . Therefore, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit the videos into evidence.
Mother has also not shown that the court’s decision constituted a miscarriage of justice warran ting reversal of the court’s visitation order . ( In re Nickolas T. (2013)
217 Cal.App.4th 1492.) Here, there was an abundance of evidence supporting the court’s
decision to terminate mother’s visitation. Even if the court had reviewed the subject videos showing “the positive nature of [mother ’s] visitation with [Mohammed],” given the events following those visits

 including mother’s yelling, screaming and threatening others in front of Mohammed, mother’s violent threats to others, and Mohammed’s frightened reaction to mother

 the r e is no reasonable possibility the court would have
reached a different decision . ( In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 59 [applying the “reasonable probability” harmless error test in assessing whether error in juvenile court proceeding constituted a re versible miscarriage of justice].)
3

. The Court’s Reference to Section 364 Was Harmless Error
Mother contends the court should have conducted the six

- month review hearing pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (e), instead of section 364. The Departmen t concedes that section 366.21 governed the review hearing, but contends that any error
was harmless.7

Section 364 governs the conduct of hearings when a dependent child remains placed with the custodial parent. It “is inapplicable when . . . a child ha s been removed from one parent and placed with the other under section 361.2, subdivision (a). [Citations.] [¶] . . . [S]ection 361.2, subdivision (b)(3) specifically directs that when a child is placed with a noncustodial parent and both parents are or dered to participate in services, review hearings must be ‘held pursuant to section 366.’ ” ( In re Maya L. (2014)
232 Cal.App.4th 81, 100 ( Maya L. ) .) Thus, when a child is removed from a custodial parent’s care, placed with a noncustodial parent under se ction 361.2
, and both parents are ordered to participate in services, section 366.21, subdivision (e) governs the six

- month review hearing. ( Maya L. , at p. 101. ) Here, it is undisputed that the court removed
Mo hammed from mother’s custody, placed him wit h father under section 361.2, and ordered both parents to participate in services. Therefore, section 366.21, subdivision (e)
, not section 364, governed the six

- month review hearing. Although the juvenile court erroneously referenced section 364 when mak ing its ruling at the six

- month review hearing, the court did in fact follow the standards set forth in sections 366.21, subdivision (e)
, and 361.2, subdivision (b)(1)

. Section 366.21, subdivision (e) provides, “[i]f the child ha[s] been placed under cour t supervision with a previously noncustodial parent pursuant to Section 361.2, the court shall determine whether supervision is still necessary. The court may terminate supervision and transfer permanent custody to that parent, as provided for by paragrap h (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 361.2.” Subdivision (b)(1) of section 361.2 provides that, if the court places a child with the previously noncustodial parent, the court may “[o]rder that the parent become legal and physical custodian of the child.” Here, after hearing the parties’ evidence, the court found that juvenile court supervision of Mohammed was no longer necessary and then entered a family law order providing father full physical and legal custody of the child. Because the court’s orders
de monstrate it applied the standards set forth in section s 366.21, subdivision (e) , and 361.2, subdivision (b)(1) , any error in referencing section 364 was harmless. (See Maya L. , supra , 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 101 [holding the juvenile court’s reference to8

s ection 364 at the six

- month review hearing to be harmless error where the court found there was no longer a need for supervision of the minor and entered a family law order providing the previously noncustodial parent with full custody].)
4

. The Court Was Not Required to Make a Finding About Whether Mother Was Provided With Reasonable Services
Mother contends the court erred in failing to make a finding as to whether she was provided reasonable services. Relying on In re Calvin P. (20 09) 178 Cal.App.4 th 958 ( Calvin P. ) , mother contends that when a juvenile court has exercised its discretion and ordered reunification services to the previously custodial parent while placing a minor with a noncustodial parent, the court must decide whether the Department compl ied with that order. However, Calvin P. is inapposite because it involved an order for mandatory reunification services pursuant to section 361.5. 6

In Calvin P. , the minors were removed from father’s custody
, 7 and both parents were provided with re unification services pursuant to section 361.5. ( Calvin P.
, supra , 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 960 .) The court later placed the children with father with family maintenance services. ( Id. at p. 961 .) At the six

- month review hearing, the court
concluded that whether mother had received reasonable reunification services was a moot issue because the children had been placed with father. ( Ibid. ) Mother appealed and the
C ourt of A ppeal held that mother was entitled to reasonable reunification services. ( Id. at
p. 964 .)
U nlike in Calvin P. where reunification services were order ed under section 361.5
, here the court provided mother with reunification services pursuant to section 361.2
, subdivision (b)(3)

. “[C]hild welfare services provided herein pursuant to

s ubdivision (b)(3) of section 361.2 [a]re wholly discretionary and analytically distinct from the mandatory reunification efforts required by section 361.5. [Citations.]”

6 Section 361.5 provides for the provision of reunification services to the parents of dependent children.

7 The minors had previously been removed from mother’s custody in a separate

case

.9

( Jaden E. , supra , 229 Cal.App.4th at p. 1285.) “Unless an express exemption exists, reunification services provided pursuant to section 361.5 are mandatory, subject to strict timelines, and monitored through periodic court reviews at which parents are admonished that failure to participate successfully in reunification efforts could lead to the termination of their parental right s. (§§ 361.5, 366.21, 366.22.) [¶] . . . [Section 361.2], however, provides an alternate track for minors who are removed from a parent when a previously noncustodial parent is available and requests custody of the child. ” ( Id. at p. 1281 .) Contrary to mother’s assertion, “w here . . . a dependent minor is not removed from the custody of both parents at the dispositional hearing and services are provided pursuant to subdivision (b)(3) of section 361.2 . . . no reasonable services finding need be made at the periodic review hearings monitoring that placement. ” ( Jaden E.
, supra , 229 Cal.App.4th at p p . 1287

- 1288, fn. omitted .) Accordingly, here, because the court placed Mohammed with father and provided mother wi th services pursuant to section 361.2, the court was not required to make a finding at the six

- month review hearing that
mother had received reasonable reunification services. Furthermore, any failure to provide adequate reunification services to mother w ould not have prevent ed the court from terminating jurisdiction under section 361.2. (See In re Janee W. (2006)
140 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1455 [“the failure to provide adequate reunification services to the other parent does not prevent the court from termina ting jurisdiction under section
361.2 ” ] .)
5

. The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Terminating Mother’s Visitation
Mother contends the court abused its discretion in terminating her visitation
because she had participated in services, “successfully raised the minor for the first year of his life,” and had primarily positive visitation with him during the case

. Mother challenges both the court’s denial of her section 388 petition and the court’s exit order providing no visitation for her.
Section 3 88 provides that the dependency court may modify a court order if circumstances have changed such that it would be in the child ’ s best interests for a
modification to be made. “Whether a previously made order should be modified rests10

within the dependency court ’ s discretion, and its determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established.” ( In re Michael B. (1992)
8 Cal.App.4th 1698, 1704.) “ ‘The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the
trial cou rt 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.’ [Citations.]” ( In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318

- 319.) Here, mother’s section 388 petition did not seek to change a “previously made
order” ; it was filed in response to the Department’s petition seeking to terminate mother’s
visitation and asked the court to continue visitation. As mother’s petiti on indisputably did not show that any existing court order should be modified ( but rather only addressed an anticipated future court order) , the denial of the petition was not an abuse of
discretion. We also review the court’s order for no visitation unde r the abuse of discretion
standard

. ( In re R.R. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1284. ) When the court “terminates its jurisdiction,” it “may issue . . . an order determining the custody of, or visitation with,
the child .” (§ 362.4.) When fashioning “exit orders” under section 362.4
, the court must look to the child’s best interests

. ( In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App. 4th 961, 973.) Mother was allowed only monitored visitation during the pendency of this case. It was during these monitor ed visits that mot her yelled, screamed and threatened others
while Mohammed was present . The record also demonstrates t hat just before the court suspended mother’s visits, Mohammed appeared frightened of mother and cried hysterically when he saw her. It is also relevant t hat, outside of Mohammed’s presence, mother made violent threats to others, including her mother and her attorney. These
threats must be considered in the context of mother’s conviction of solicit ing murder. Given mother’s aggressive and violent behavior and Mohammed’s fearful reaction to her, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that it was in Mohammed’s best interests
that mother not have visits.11 D ISPOSITION
The order s are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

E DMON, P. J.

We concur:

LAVIN, J.

JONES, J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.