Filed 1/25/ 16 In re C .B. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re C.B. , a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court L aw. 2d Juv. No. B 265473 (Super. Ct. No.1436081) (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD WELFARE SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
AMANDA V.,
Defendant and Appellant.

A. V. (m other) appeals from the juvenile court order den ying her Welfare
and Institutions Code section 388 1 petition to modify an order bypassing family
reunif ication services with her 21

- month

- old son, C.B. (§§ 300, subd. (b ); 361.5, subd. (b)(13). ) The court terminated the parental rights of mother and C.B. ' s father, M. B. , who is not a party to this appeal. ( § 366.26.) Mother contends that the trial court abuse d its discretion by denying her section 388 modification petition

. We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.2 FACTS 2 On July 7, 2014, Child Welfare Services (CWS) filed a petitio n alleging that mother and father failed to protect and support their infant son, C.B

. , who was born
in August 2013. (§ 300, subds. (b), (g).) C.B. had tested positive for opiates and morphine at birth, and suffered from rigidity , respiratory distress, a nd severe withdrawal symptoms which required his placement in a neonatal intensive care unit. The petition
fur ther alleged that mother and father suffered from substance abuse, and relapsed following treatment, and were unable to provide regular care for C.B. CWS detained C.B. on July 2, 2014, after mother was arrested for violating probation by testing positive for opiates

. On July 8, 2014, the juvenile court f ound that C.B. was a person described by section 300 and ordered his continued detention. O n August 28 , the court sustained the section 300 petition and scheduled a disposition hearing

. In its disposition report
, CWS asked the court to bypass s ervices for mother pursuant to section 361.5, subd ivision (b)(13) , based on her extensive, chronic sub stance abuse and history of resistance to

court

- ordered treatment

.

On Septem b er 11, 2014, the juvenile court denied reunification services for
mother , pursuant to sec tion 361.5, subdivision (b ) ( 13 ) , and granted her supervised visits

. The court ordered father to participate in reunification services and set a six

- month review hearing for March
, 2015. During the March 25 hearing, f ather testified that he
was activ ely using drugs. The court terminated his services and s et a section 366.26 permanency plan ning hearing for May 21

.

On March 25, 2015, m other filed a section 388 petition asking the court to change its order bypassing reunification services for her. Among other things, s he alleged she was employed, had completed her outpatient drug program a nd a parenting

program , and w as regularly testing clean. She also alleged t hat C.B. called her mother

2 We grant respondent ' s motion to augment the record on appeal with the documents attached t hereto. (Cal. Rules of Court, r ul e 8.155, subd. (a). )3

and became upset when he was separat ed from her. The court granted her a hearing and
sche duled it for April 23, 2015.

The juvenile court conducted th e section 388 hearing on April 23. Mother
testified that she was work ing for two employers, for a tot al of 50 to 55 hours a week.
She lived with C.B. ' s father in a rented room. She cared " for him deeply
, " and had " a hard time just kicking him out and le aving him homeless
, " as sh e w as " the only thing that
he " had

. She knew he had the ability to do " what needs to be done, " and they attend ed AA or NA meetings together

. She knew father had not relapsed since he completed a detoxification program on Mar ch 2 0th based on " his behavior, " and because he took a test at her expense on April 22

. Mother further testified that s he visited C.B. twice monthly. He was very engaged during their visits , took direction from her, and d i splayed
affection toward her.

Mat ernal grandmother testified th at C.B. has a bond with mother. He r uns
to greet her, view s her as his mom, and displays separat ion anxiety upon leaving her.
When asked how she felt about mother ' s continuing to live with father, maternal grandmother said s he didn ' t " have any contact with " him but felt that " there [was] a long way to go for the . . . father if he wa nt[ed] to make a difference. "

Cathleen Rafferty was mother ' s counselor at the treatment program which mother completed on March 10, 2015

. Raf ferty testified that mother aggress ively worked on her recovery in the program, and continued to do so after completing it by frequently attending group meetings and consistently passing required tests.

In April 2015, CWS submitted addendum reports for the section 388 hearing and recommended that the court deny mother ' s petition for r eunification services.
In one report, CWS advised the c ourt that in early April
, Raff erty told a CWS social
worker that " as long as . . . mother continues to keep her found ation then her only concern [was] the father. " Rafferty " f irmly believe[d] " that if father were in recovery, participated in treatment programs, and proved to be " just as diligent as mother, then their relationship would be less of a concern. " Rafferty a lso told the social worker that

" mother should decide between the father " and C.B

. CWS further reported that " father4

and mother are living together [although] father . . . testified on March 25, 2015, that he

w as actively using. "

CWS acknowledged mothe r ' s successful completion of her most recent substance abuse program but remained concerned about her demonstrated " history of chronic, abusive, and extensive drug use. " It described the many programs mother had attended, and her repeated relapses. Despi te having attended " an inpatient treatment program from January 2012 through January 2013, " she relapsed before she gav e birth to
C.B. in August 2013. S hortly after his birth, a criminal court ordered mother to complete
a six

- mont h residential treatment p rogram because she received another positive drug test
result. C.B. lived with her in that program following hi s release from the hospital. In early September, CWS opened a volu ntary family maintenance case and provided mother
and father with sobriety, p arenting and housing support services

. Mother relapsed
i mmediately after completing the court

- ordered program

. Between April 25 and May 24, 2014, she tested positive for opiates six times ; tested positive for heroin once; and failed to submit to testing on five consecutive d ays. On May 14, mother " nodded out " in her car, and drove away with C.B. in his car seat. On May 19, she tested positive for opiates and drove away with C.B. in the car

. A few days later, mother and father signed a safety plan, whic h provided that the maternal grandparents would supervise all contact between
C.B. and mother and father

. Meanwhile, mother was excluded from a required after

- care drug program because of her poor performance. She o btained a referral to another

program, but tested positive for opiates on June 6, 2014. She successfully completed a detoxification program on June 11 but again tested positive for opiates on June 25
, and was arrested for violating probation. Following her June 25 , 2014 arrest, mother attende d
another treatment program , which she completed on March 10, 2015.

During the section 388 hearing, m other ' s counsel argued that s he was

" doing all of the things [she should and ] staying sober " without the structure of

re sidential trea tment. Counsel fo r C.B. argued that granting the petiti on was not in his best interests, and stressed mother ' s substance abuse history with repeated relapses, and
her ongoing relationship with father, an admitted substance abuser. The court found that5

mother failed to mee t her burden of showing it would be in C.B. ' s best interest s to grant her reunification services , and it denied her section 388 petition

.

On June 18 , 2015, the juvenile court terminated mother ' s and father ' s parental rights.
DISCUSSION

Mother contend s that the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her section 388 petition for a modification of the order that bypassed reunification services
for her

. We disagree

. 3

A parent may file a petition to modify an order of the juvenile court. (§ 38 8.) But a modification will not be granted unless the " proposed change is in the best
interests of the child. " ( Id ., subd. (a)(2).) " The petition is addressed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the
absence of a clear abuse of discretion. " ( In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415.)

" The denial of a section 388 motion rarely merits reversa l as an abuse of discretion. " ( In
re Amber M . (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 685

- 686.)

Here the juvenil e court found that mother failed to demonstrate that granting reunification services to her would be in C.B. ' s best interest s . The record supports its findings

. The evidence established that m othe r has a history of substance abuse, completion of multiple structured t reatment programs , and relapses, as described
above. She completed her most recent structured treatment program less than two months before the court heard the section 388 petiti on. CWS expressed concern about
mother ' s abil ity to maintain so briety while she associated with father. Father had been
involved with mother for years while she abused substances , completed structured treatment programs , and relapsed. Her drug treatment counselor recognized the risk of

t he i r ongoing association, and stated that mother should choose betwe en C.B. and father. On March 25, 2015, father te stified that he was using dr ugs

. On April 23, m other

3 Mother also contends that the order terminating her parental rights must be reversed if

we reverse the order denying her section 388 petition. Having decided to affirm the section 388 ruling, we will affirm the order terminating her parental rights.6

testified that she was living with father. T he court could reasonably find m other had not
shown it would be in C. B. ' s best inte rest s to provide mother reunification services.
DISPOSITION The order denying mother ' s section 388 petition , and the order terminating her parental rights, are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.Arthur A. Garcia, Judge Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

______________________________

Ernesto Paz Rey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.

Mich ael C. Ghizzoni, County Counsel, and Toni Lorien, S r. Deputy, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.