Filed 9/27/21 In re A.M. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re A.M., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B309090

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

 17CCJP01782C)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

AMANDA M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Akemi Arakaki, Judge. Affirmed.
2

Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

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

Assistant County Counsel, Tracey Dodds, Principal Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION

Amanda M., mother of now two-year-old A.M., appeals from 

the juvenile court’s order denying her reunification services with 

the child.

1 We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Mother’s Failure to Reunify with Child’s Half Siblings

On November 14, 2017, the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed 

a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3002 petition alleging 

mother had physically abused the child’s older half siblings M.S. 

and A.M.-S. by striking them with a belt and brush and 

threatening to smash their heads against a wall. Mother also 

struck M.S.’s stomach and arm with her fist. The petition further 

alleged mother had mental and emotional problems, failed to 

1 The child’s father, R.B., is not a party to this appeal.

2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
3

take her psychiatric medication as prescribed, and had been 

involuntarily hospitalized on three occasions for the evaluation 

and treatment of her psychiatric condition. The juvenile court 

sustained the petition.

At the February 22, 2018, disposition hearing, the juvenile 

court ordered the Department to provide mother with 

reunification services including individual counseling that 

addressed “‘mother’s lengthy and unresolved history of resistance 

to consistent mental health and psychiatric and therapeutic 

treatments[,]’ . . . participating in current psychiatric treatment[,]

and compliance with [a] prescribed psychotropic medication 

regimen.”

For the 12-month review hearing on January 9, 2019, the 

Department reported that mother had been referred to all courtordered services. She had not, however, been able to stabilize her 

mental health. Between March and May 2018, she had several 

psychiatric hospitalizations. She had not complied with her 

mental health services and refused to cooperate with her regional 

center services. On February 20, 2019, the juvenile court 

terminated mother’s family reunification services due to her 

noncompliance with her case plan.

On or about June 4, 2019, the Department received a fiveday referral stating that mother had failed to reunify with two 

children and had just given birth to the child. Mother had 

received limited prenatal care during her pregnancy. She 

reported that she was homeless and had given up her apartment 

because she wanted a place safe from father with whom she had 

a history of domestic violence.
4

B. Dependency Proceedings

After the child was born, she was placed on respiratory 

support in the neonatal intensive care unit at the hospital. On 

June 5, 2019, the child’s doctor informed a social worker that 

mother had been aggressive, argumentative, and accusatory with 

the hospital staff. Mother was placed on a section 5150 hold due 

to her aggressive behavior. Mother insisted that she be allowed 

to take the child “‘home’” that day despite being told that the 

child was not medically ready for discharge. The doctor indicated 

that mother and the child might be released from the hospital the 

next day. On June 6, 2019, the Department detained the child.

Mother was released from the section 5150 hold on 

June 8, 2019. Mother’s behavioral discharge summary stated 

that she “‘was very delusional, and was thinking that people were 

trying to steal [the child]. She made some bizarre comment about 

how the [l]abor and delivery nurses were molesting [the child]. 

She is no longer psychotic and has cleared up drastically with her 

Thorazine and Haldol that she received.’” Mother was diagnosed 

with schizoaffective disorder and discharged with no medication.

On June 10, 2019, the Department filed a section 300 

petition alleging the child was at risk of harm because mother 

had physically abused the child’s half siblings. The half siblings

were receiving permanent placement services. The petition 

further alleged that mother had a history of mental and 

emotional problems that included a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, 

schizoaffective disorder, borderline intellectual functioning, 

depression, psychosis and suicidal ideation, delusional thoughts, 

paranoid behavior, and being a danger to others. On five 

occasions, mother had been hospitalized for the evaluation and 
5

treatment of her psychiatric condition, including shortly after the 

child’s birth. Mother failed to take her psychotropic medication 

as prescribed or to participate regularly in mental health 

counseling.

At the June 11, 2019, detention hearing, the juvenile court 

found there were no reasonable means to protect the child 

without removing her from the parents’ physical custody.

In its July 12, 2019, Jurisdiction/Disposition Report, the 

Department recommended, pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision 

(b)(10), that mother not receive reunification services.

On July 24, 2019, the Department filed a first amended 

section 300 petition that included a new count alleging the child 

was at risk due to father’s history of mental and emotional health 

problems and a new count alleging mother’s and father’s history 

of domestic violence placed the child at risk.

In a Supplemental Report filed on July 26, 2019, a social 

worker reported that mother denied that she had a history of 

mental and emotional problems, had been diagnosed with several 

mental health conditions, or had been hospitalized. As to the 

allegations in the petition, mother stated, “‘Not true. None of it. 

I have proof on paper. I have a doctor’s note showing I don’t need 

medication.’”

The social worker asked mother about her recent 

psychiatric hospitalization. Mother responded, “‘My mom didn’t 

want nothing to do with me and she said to go the police and tell 

them to take care of you, so I did that. My mom disowned me, 

and now doesn’t want nothing to do with me. That tells you what 

kind of person she is.’”

In an August 16, 2019, Last Minute Information for the 

Court, the Department reported that during an August 12, 2019, 
6

visit with the child mother “appeared paranoid and seemed to be 

talking to people that were not there, and cussing and yelling at 

some imaginary people.” The visitation monitor was able to calm 

down mother, “who then began singing a song to the [child].”

In a December 6, 2019, Last Minute Information for the 

Court, the Department reported that mother had completed the 

Skillful Parenting course at El Monte-Rosemead Adult School on 

October 8, 2019. A dependency investigator contacted the school 

to determine the nature of the program. According to the 

receptionist, the program was self-directed and not teacherdirected. The Department did not consider the Skillful Parenting 

course an appropriate parenting instruction course. Because of 

mother’s significant mental illness, she required a parenting 

class that included both facilitator-led instruction and group 

discussion.

On December 3, 2019, mother informed the social worker 

that she was not attending individual therapy. When the social 

worker asked mother about her medication compliance, mother 

stated that she was taking Abilify as her psychiatrist prescribed. 

The social worker asked to see mother’s medication. Mother 

produced an empty prescription bottle for an Abilify generic that 

had no lid. The social worker asked why the bottle was empty 

and mother did not have an answer. The medication was issued 

on October 23, 2019. The social worker opined that if mother 

were medication compliant and given a 30-day supply, mother 

would have run out of medication on or about November 23, 2019.

On December 5, 2019, the social worker spoke with 

mother’s visitation monitor. Among other things, the monitor 

reported that mother talked to the child “obsessively” during 

visits—“‘She doesn’t stop. Her mind wanders. Sometimes she 
7

doesn’t make sense or says something that she contradicts in the 

next sentence. She told me she couldn’t stay because she is very 

busy, then she said she has nothing to do. I’m not a doctor, and I 

don’t know if she’s been diagnosed, but she does have some kind 

of mental illness, in my opinion.’” The monitor opined, “‘She 

really does love the [child], but she is not capable of caring for 

her.’”

In a January 17, 2020, Last Minute Information for the 

Court, the Department reported that the social worker provided 

mother with new parenting class referrals on December 3, 2019. 

When the social worker asked mother about individual therapy, 

mother stated she would continue to go at the place where she 

got her medication. To date, mother had not provided evidence 

that she had participated in individual counseling or appropriate 

parenting classes.

At the January 17, 2020, adjudication hearing, the juvenile 

court sustained the first amended petition as alleged.

In a Last Minute Information for the Court dated 

February 7, 2020, the Department reported that mother was not 

compliant with the case plan. On February 5, 2020, mother 

informed the dependency investigator that she had not started a 

new parenting class, was not attending individual therapy, and

was not taking any medication.

On February 5, 2020, the social worker spoke with mother’s 

visitation monitor. She reported that mother visited the child 

consistently and was loving and caring toward the child but was

not “‘cognitively . . . there.’” The monitor had “great concerns” 

about mother’s mental health. During visits, mother displayed 

“sudden mood changes, impulsivity, paranoia, explosive outbursts

of anger directed at . . . father, perserveration, and incessant 
8

speech that [was] most often incoherent and tangential.” 

Although mother had never hurt the child, she occasionally 

displayed age-inappropriate expectations of the child and her 

development. For example, although the child was not ready for 

solid food, mother talked about feeding her hamburgers.

In a March 30, 2020, Last Minute Information for the 

Court, the Department reported that the social worker referred 

mother to Akoko Nan parenting classes. The social worker had 

asked mother about her medication and therapy, but mother did 

not respond. The social worker scheduled two meetings with 

mother to see her medications, but mother did not show up for 

the meetings.

In a Last Minute Information for the Court for the 

continued disposition hearing on September 17, 2020, the 

Department reported that mother told the social worker that she 

had finished parenting classes with Vicky Gonzalez at the El 

Monte Adult School. She was waiting to take additional 

parenting classes, but everything was closed due to COVID-19. 

Mother received mental health treatment at the Antelope Valley 

Mental Health Clinic. Mother stated that she talked to a 

therapist every month. Mother had an appointment with her 

psychiatrist in November.

According to the child’s caregiver, there had not been a 

scheduled visit in over a year. Mother occasionally saw the child 

when the child visited her grandmother and other relatives.

Mother had a baby sometime between June 2019 and 

September 2020. The social worker spoke with the baby’s 

caregiver. Asked if mother spoke about her mental health or 

medication, the baby’s caregiver responded, “‘She says she won’t 

take any medication. She says, “They think I’m crazy, but I’m 
9

not crazy. There’s nothing wrong with me.” She talks about the

government and the rules they want her to abide by—why does 

the system take away children when the parents haven’t done 

anything wrong. She thinks she hasn’t done anything wrong—

with any of her kids that have been taken away.’”

In a Last Minute Information for the Court filed 

September 23, 2020, the Department reported that a dependency 

investigator had spoken with Ms. Gonzalez who confirmed 

mother’s completion of the Skillful Parenting course at the El 

Monte-Rosemead Adult School on October 8, 2019. Asked how 

mother had done in the program, Ms. Gonzalez replied, “‘She 

struggled a lot. A lot, a lot. I spent a lot of time with her. Other 

students would come in and pick up the material and leave. 

[Mother] came and stayed there to work on the material with me. 

Her scores were low, so I would read it to her and explain things 

to her. I think she struggled with the academic part. She had a 

lot of re-doing to do. Sometimes she lost a packet. Sometimes 

she would write on the packets—you’re not supposed to write on 

the packet. She had trouble transferring her answers to the 

answer sheet, so I just told her to go ahead and write the answers 

on the packet.’”

The social worker asked Ms. Gonzalez if she had observed 

any mental health issues. She responded, “‘I know, I know. Her 

mental health issues are obvious.’”

At the September 25, 2020, disposition hearing, mother told 

the juvenile court she could not help that her children had been 

taken, but she had focused on herself and her children. She had 

done everything the court asked her to do—she had taken a 

parenting class, she went to therapy, and she was willing to 

follow the court’s order concerning medication.
10

The juvenile court declared the child to be a dependent of 

the court and ordered that mother would not receive reunification 

services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and 

(b)(11). It stated, “I appreciate some efforts that are being made 

by [mother]. I recognize that. I recognize that there are some 

efforts being made, but I also recognize the statements of the 

collaterals with regard to the current circumstance, the ongoing 

issues, and the fact that they have yet to be appropriately 

addressed.”

III. DISCUSSION

A. Section 361.5, Subdivision (b)

Mother contends the juvenile court did not expressly find 

that clear and convincing evidence supported bypass of 

reunification services under section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) 

and (b)(11) and substantial evidence did not support an implied 

bypass finding. Substantial evidence supported the court’s 

implied finding.

1. Standard of Review

“When reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by 

clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate 

court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial 

evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it 

highly probable that the fact was true. In conducting its review, 

the court must view the record in the light most favorable to the 

prevailing party below and give appropriate deference to how the 
11

trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, 

resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable 

inferences from the evidence.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 

Cal.5th 989, 1011–1012.)

2. Analysis

“Reunification services must be provided to the mother and 

statutorily presumed father of children who have been removed 

from their parents’ custody, unless a statutory exception applies. 

(. . . § 361.5, subd. (a).) The statutory exceptions are contained in 

subdivision (b) of section 361.5, which provides that 

‘[r]eunification services need not be provided’ if the court finds ‘by 

clear and convincing evidence’ that any of 17 enumerated bypass 

provisions apply. [Citation.]” (In re A.E. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 

1124, 1141.)

Under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), reunification 

services need not be provided when the juvenile court finds by 

clear and convincing evidence: “That the court ordered 

termination of reunification services for any siblings or half 

siblings of the child because the parent or guardian failed to 

reunify with the sibling or half sibling after the sibling or half 

sibling had been removed from that parent or guardian pursuant 

to [s]ection 361 and that parent or guardian is the same parent or 

guardian described in subdivision (a) and that, according to the 

findings of the court, this parent or guardian has not 

subsequently made a reasonable effort to treat the problems that 

led to removal of the sibling or half sibling of that child from that 

parent or guardian.”
12

Under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(11), reunification 

services need not be provided when the juvenile court finds by 

clear and convincing evidence: “That the parental rights of a 

parent over any sibling or half sibling of the child had been 

permanently severed, and this parent is the same parent 

described in subdivision (a), and that, according to the findings of 

the court, this parent has not subsequently made a reasonable 

effort to treat the problems that led to removal of the sibling or 

half sibling of that child from the parent.”

“[S]ection 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) has two prongs or 

requirements: (1) the parent previously failed to reunify with a 

sibling of the child; and (2) the parent failed to make reasonable 

efforts to correct the problem that led to the sibling being 

removed from the parent’s custody.” (Cheryl P. v. Superior Court

(2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 87, 96.) Similarly, section 361.5, 

subdivision (b)(11) has two prongs: (1) parental rights were 

severed as to the child’s sibling or half sibling; and (2) the parent 

failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the problem that led 

to removal of the sibling or half sibling from the parent’s custody. 

(§ 361.5, subd. (b)(11).)

“The reasonable effort requirement focuses on the extent of 

a parent’s efforts, not whether he or she has attained ‘a certain 

level of progress.’ [Citation.] ‘To be reasonable, the parent’s 

efforts must be more than “lackadaisical or half-hearted.”’ 

[Citations.] However, ‘[t]he “reasonable effort to treat” standard 

“is not synonymous with ‘cure.’”’ [Citation.] [¶] We do not read 

the ‘reasonable effort’ language in the bypass provisions to mean 

that any effort by a parent, even if clearly genuine, to address the 

problems leading to removal will constitute a reasonable effort 

and as such render these provisions inapplicable. It is certainly 
13

appropriate for the juvenile court to consider the duration, extent 

and context of the parent’s efforts, as well as any other factors 

relating to the quality and quantity of those efforts, when 

evaluating the effort for reasonableness. And while the degree of 

progress is not the focus of the inquiry, a parent’s progress, or 

lack of progress, both in the short and long term, may be 

considered to the extent it bears on the reasonableness of the 

effort made. [¶] Simply stated, although success alone is not the 

sole measure of reasonableness, the measure of success achieved 

is properly considered a factor in the juvenile court’s 

determination of whether an effort qualifies as reasonable.” (R.T. 

v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 908, 914–915 (R.T.)

Mother concedes the Department established the first 

prongs of section 361.5, subdivisions (d)(10) and (d)(11)—i.e., that 

the juvenile court previously terminated reunification services as 

to the child’s half siblings and terminated mother’s parental 

rights to them. She argues instead that the Department failed to 

establish the second prong—i.e., that she failed to make 

reasonable efforts to treat the problems that led to the removal of 

the half siblings. There was substantial evidence that mother did 

not make reasonable efforts to treat her mental and emotional 

problems.

3

Mother’s problems that led to the removal of the child’s half 

siblings in 2017 included her mental and emotional problems, 

3 Because we hold that substantial evidence supported the 

court’s implicit finding that mother did not make reasonable 

efforts to treat the mental and emotional health problems that 

led to the removal of the half siblings, we do not address its 

implicit finding that mother did not make reasonable efforts to 

address her physical abuse of the half siblings.
14

failure to take her psychiatric medication as prescribed, and 

involuntarily hospitalizations for the evaluation and treatment of 

her psychiatric condition. As part of its disposition order, the 

juvenile court ordered the Department to provide mother with 

reunification services including individual counseling that 

addressed “‘mother’s lengthy and unresolved history of resistance 

to consistent mental health and psychiatric and therapeutic 

treatments[,]’ . . . participating in current psychiatric treatment[,] 

and compliance with [a] prescribed psychotropic medication 

regimen.”

The Department reported for the 12-month review hearing

for the child’s half siblings, on January 9, 2019, that mother had 

been referred to all court-ordered services, but had been unable 

to stabilize her mental health. Between March and May 2018, 

she had several psychiatric hospitalizations, had not complied 

with her mental health services, and refused to cooperate with 

her regional center services.

Some six months later, in June 2019, just after the child’s 

birth, mother was placed on a section 5150 psychiatric hold after 

she displayed delusional and aggressive behavior at the hospital.

About six weeks later, at the end of July 2019, mother 

denied to a social worker that she had a history of mental and 

emotional problems, had been diagnosed with several mental 

health conditions, or had been hospitalized. She stated the

allegations in the amended section 300 petition were “‘[n]ot true. 

None of it. I have proof on paper. I have a doctor’s note showing 

I don’t need medication.’” She claimed her section 5150 

psychiatric hospitalization after the child’s birth had something 

to do with her mother disowning her and telling her to have the 

police take care of her.
15

A few weeks later, during an August 12, 2019, visit with 

the child, mother “appeared paranoid and seemed to be talking to 

people that were not there, and cussing and yelling at some 

imaginary people.”

About four months later, on December 3, 2019, mother told 

the social worker that she was not attending individual therapy. 

Although mother claimed to be medication compliant, her 

prescription bottle was empty and she could not explain why.

As of February 5, 2020, two months later, mother was not 

case compliant. She had not started a new parenting class, was 

not attending individual therapy, and was not taking any 

medication.

In March 2020, the social worker scheduled two meetings 

with mother to check on her medications. Mother did not show 

up for either meeting.

As reported in the Department’s September 17, 2020, Last 

Minute Information for the Court, mother denied to her new 

baby’s caregiver that she had mental health problems and stated 

that she would not take any medication.

At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court admitted 

mother’s medication records from Antelope Valley Mental Health 

Clinic that showed prescriptions from August 17, 2016, to 

December 31, 2018, and a record from the Los Angeles County 

Department of Mental Health that showed appointments for 

unspecified reasons from March 11, 2020, to August 18, 2020. 

Although that evidence indicated some past and recent efforts to 

address mother’s mental and emotional problems, they were 

insufficient in the context of the other evidence presented to the 

juvenile court, to demonstrate reasonable efforts. (R.T., supra,

202 Cal.App.4th at pp. 914–915.)
16

B. Best Interest of the Child

Mother contends that if we hold the juvenile court properly 

found she did not make reasonable efforts to address the 

problems that led to the removal of the child’s half siblings, then 

the court abused its discretion in denying her reunification 

services as they were in the child’s best interest. We disagree.

1. Standard of Review

“‘“A juvenile court has broad discretion when determining 

whether . . . reunification services would be in the best interests 

of the child under section 361.5, subdivision (c). [Citation.] An 

appellate court will reverse that determination only if the 

juvenile court abuses its discretion.”’” (In re A.E., supra, 38 

Cal.App.5th at pp. 1140–1141.)

2. Analysis

If a juvenile court finds that a parent is described by a 

bypass provision in section 361.5, subdivision (b), it “shall not 

order reunification for a parent . . . unless the court finds, by 

clear and convincing evidence, that reunification is in the best 

interest of the child.” (§ 361.5, subd. (c)(2).) “Section 361.5, 

subdivision (c) enables a parent to obtain reunification services 

notwithstanding section 361.5[, subdivisions (b)(10) and (b)(11)] 

where the parent demonstrates reunification is in the child’s best 

interest by offering evidence of, among other things, his or her 

current ability to parent. To determine whether reunification is 

in the child’s best interest, the court considers the parent’s 
17

current efforts, fitness, and history; the seriousness of the 

problem that led to the dependency; the strength of the parentchild and caretaker-child bonds; and the child’s need for stability 

and continuity. [Citation.] A best interest finding requires a 

likelihood reunification services will succeed; in other words, 

‘some “reasonable basis to conclude” that reunification is possible 

. . . .’ [Citation.]” (In re Allison J. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1106, 

1116.)

The record does not contain substantial evidence that 

continued reunification services for mother were in the child’s

best interest. As set forth above, mother has significant longterm mental and emotional problems which she has, at times, 

denied. Consistent with her denials, mother has a continuing 

history of failing to take prescribed medications. The record does 

not suggest a “current ability to parent” or “a likelihood 

reunification services will succeed.” (In re Allison J., supra, 190 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1116.) Accordingly, the juvenile court’s implicit 

finding that continued reunification services for mother were not 

in the child’s best interest was not an abuse of discretion. (In re 

A.E., supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1140–1141.)
18

IV. DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

MOOR, J.