1

Filed 4/19/16 In re Am. G. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Shasta)

----

In re AM. G. et al., Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

C080243

SHASTA COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

AMANDA W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. Nos. 

13JVSQ2971901, 

14JVSQ3000401)

Amanda W., mother of the minors, appeals from orders of the juvenile court 

denying her petition for modification and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. 

Code,1 §§ 366.26, 388, 395.) Mother contends the juvenile court erred in denying her 

 

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2

petition for modification because she showed both changed circumstances and that the 

proposed modification would be in the minors’ best interests. Mother argues that, due to 

the error, the order terminating her parental rights should be reversed and the minors 

returned to her care. We affirm.

FACTS

The case began in Placer County in February 2013 with a petition alleging that 

one-month-old Am. G. was at risk because mother had a 12-year history of 

methamphetamine abuse and Am. G. tested positive for methamphetamine at birth. The 

juvenile court in Placer County sustained the petition without removing Am. G. and 

transferred the case to Shasta County for disposition. A subsequent (§ 342) petition in 

July 2013 alleged that both parents tested positive for methamphetamine and the Shasta 

County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) recommended removing Am. G.

from parental custody. Am. G. was detained in July 2013. The juvenile court sustained 

the subsequent petition, ordered reunification services for the parents, and set a six-month 

review hearing. 

The review report in January 2014 recommended extending services to mother,

who had been in inpatient treatment since October 2013, and whose overall compliance 

with the reunification plan was improving. Mother had admitted daily use of 

methamphetamine from the time Am. G. was removed until mother entered residential 

treatment. Although the court had concerns, it adopted the Agency’s recommendation. 

In February 2014, mother gave birth to Aa. G. The Agency filed a nondetaining 

petition alleging mother’s prior drug use and recommended that Aa. G. remain with 

mother in the residential drug treatment program. In May 2014, the court sustained the 

petition and ordered family maintenance services for mother. Mother was excluded from 

the program for rule breaking but the court declined to detain Aa. G. The Agency 

recommended continuing family maintenance services. 
3

In June 2014, Am. G. was placed with mother and Aa. G. in a trial visit because 

mother continued to be successful in the residential drug treatment program. However, 

Am. G. was returned to her original placement when mother was excluded from the 

program. 

In August 2014 the Agency continued to recommend family maintenance services 

for both minors although mother was not in the structured program she needed and had a 

history of periods of sobriety followed by relapses. Mother was transient and not 

following through with her program but continued to test negative. At Am. G.’s status 

review hearing, the juvenile court gave the Agency discretion for renewed trial home 

visits since mother represented she was in a sober living program. By September 2014 

both minors were placed with mother in the sober living facility under family 

maintenance. 

In October 2014, the Agency filed a supplemental (§ 387) petition to remove both 

minors, now 21 months and seven months old, from mother’s custody because mother 

admitted she had relapsed into methamphetamine use, was not compliant with her case 

plan, and was not working with the Agency. Mother believed the minors were not at risk 

because she used methamphetamine after the minors went to school. The court ordered 

the minors detained.

The jurisdiction/disposition report in November 2014 recommended termination 

of family maintenance services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. The report reviewed 

the services and history of relapses that resulted in the minors’ removal in October 2014. 

To date, mother participated in two parenting classes, completed a drug treatment 

program at Progress House in 2013, did not comply with the Perinatal Program in 2013, 

was dismissed from the New Life Recovery Program in July 2014, participated in 

substance abuse counseling at House of Hope, was in a sober living facility from August 

to October of 2014, applied to Visions of the Cross in August 2014 but did not 

participate, began Empire Outpatient Treatment in August 2014 and restarted the 
4

program in September 2014. Mother also received counseling and completed two child 

safety plans in 2014 and began Safe Care in September 2014 to learn parent-child 

interaction and skills in home safety but evaded services and did not complete the 

program due to removal of the minors. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine 

twice in early October 2014. Aa. G. had a hair follicle test in October 2014 that tested 

positive for methamphetamine. The minors were placed together and appeared to have a 

strong sibling bond. The minors visited mother and enjoyed visits although Am. G.’s

tantrums were more severe after visits. 

At the November 2014 jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on the section 387 

petition, mother presented documents showing she had attended Narcotics Anonymous

from October 24, 2014 through November 23, 2014, and had continued outpatient 

services during that period. The hearing was continued to January 2015. 

The Agency addendum reports stated mother was continuing to test negative and 

participate in outpatient drug treatment. Mother visited regularly although there were 

concerns that she played roughly with the minors. The Agency was concerned because 

mother had done best in a structured environment but was now in an apartment with no 

restrictions. Mother came to visits without food or supplies and asked the foster parents 

to provide food. The visit supervisor has had to redirect mother during visits to safely 

care for the minors and mother, despite parenting classes, struggled to provide adequate 

care for the minors during visits. 

At the hearing on the section 387 petition in January 2015, mother presented 

evidence of her positive progress following removal of the minors. The court sustained 

the section 387 petition, terminated both reunification and family maintenance services, 

bypassed reunification services for Aa. G., ordered supervised visits to be provided a 

minimum of monthly, and set a section 366.26 hearing. 
5

In May 2015, mother requested a bonding assessment. Mother also filed a 

section 388 petition for modification seeking return of the minors under a family 

maintenance plan alleging she had continued to participate in an outpatient drug 

treatment program and random testing. She also alleged she was attending 12-step 

meetings and visited regularly. Mother attached various documents to her petition that

reflected her program participation from February to April 2015. 

The assessment for the section 366.26 hearing recommended termination of 

parental rights with a permanent plan of adoption. Neither minor had any characteristics 

that would make them difficult to place, their current caretakers were willing to adopt 

them and they were considered generally adoptable. Mother visited regularly and Am. G. 

occasionally had a negative response to visits. 

An addendum stated that mother continued to visit and reported that she was 

continuing in drug treatment. The Agency was concerned that mother had participated in 

over 18 months of services when she relapsed and Aa. G. had also tested positive for 

methamphetamine. Am. G. had been in foster care 20 of the 26 months the case had been 

pending. 

A second addendum filed in September 2015 provided a copy of mother’s bonding 

study. After observing the minors with the foster parents and with mother, Dr. J. Reid 

McKellar concluded the minors were clearly bonded to mother and the bond was positive 

and nurturing. However, the minors had been nurtured by others, had a strong capacity to 

attach and were well-equipped to handle the loss of an attachment figure. Because the 

minors were young and resilient and had a growing bond to the current caretakers, 

Dr. McKellar was of the opinion that each would be able to recover from the loss of the 

bond to mother without detrimental impact. 

At the combined hearing in September 2015 on mother’s petition for modification 

and the selection of a permanent plan, mother testified she continued to attend 12-step 

meetings with her sponsor but had not kept the sign-in cards from the meetings. Mother 
6

said she continued the outpatient treatment program because she needed to be held 

accountable. 

The court granted that there was, perhaps, some slight change in circumstances but 

the question was the extent of mother’s progress and, due to the lack of evidence, the 

court was unable to determine whether she had maintained her sobriety. The court 

observed that mother was a long-time drug user who was provided multiple services and 

had multiple relapses, including a relapse after the minors were in her care. The court 

concluded the minors deserved permanency and denied the petition for modification. 

The court adopted the Agency’s recommended findings and orders terminating parental 

rights and selecting a permanent plan of adoption for the minors. 

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the juvenile court erred in denying her petition for modification 

because she had shown both changed circumstances and that the modification was in the 

minors’ best interests. We disagree.

A parent may bring a petition for modification of any order of the juvenile court 

pursuant to section 388 based on new evidence or a showing of changed circumstances.2 

“The parent requesting the change of order has the burden of establishing that the change 

is justified. [Citation.] The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.” (In re

Michael B. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1698, 1703.) Determination of a petition to modify is 

 

2 Section 388 provides, in part: “Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of 

circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child 

was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, 

modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of 

the court.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The court must set a hearing if “it appears that the best 

interests of the child . . . may be promoted by the proposed change of order . . . .” (§ 388, 

subd. (d).)
7

committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court and, absent a showing of a clear 

abuse of discretion, the decision of the juvenile court must be upheld. (In re

Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319; In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 

1067.) The best interests of the child are of paramount consideration when the petition is 

brought after termination of reunification services. (In re Stephanie M., at p. 317.) In 

assessing the best interests of the child, the juvenile court looks not to the parent’s 

interests in reunification but to the needs of the child for permanence and stability. (Ibid.; 

In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.)

The juvenile court tepidly assumed for the purpose of ruling that mother had 

shown changed circumstances, although observing that the evidence of ongoing sobriety 

since the petition for modification was filed was only mother’s testimony unsupported by 

documentary evidence which she had thrown away. However, in viewing mother’s 

history of significant long-term methamphetamine use and her relapses, even when the 

minors were in her care, which ultimately resulted in the youngest child also testing 

positive for methamphetamine, the court could not find that granting the modification 

was in the minors’ best interests. 

All services, both reunification and family maintenance, had been terminated. The 

minors’ interests were in permanence and stability. While both minors evidently had a 

positive bond with mother, they were also young and able to attach to another caregiver. 

Mother had not, despite extensive services, been able to offer any real hope of 

permanency for the minors as she regularly relapsed into methamphetamine use and was 

demonstrably unable to assess the risk she posed to the physical health and well-being of 

the minors. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for 

modification.
8

DISPOSITION

The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.

/s/ 

Robie, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/ 

Mauro, J.

/s/ 

Duarte, J.