Filed 3/7/14 In re S.S. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re S

. S., a P erson Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B 248682 c/w B251629
(Los Angeles County

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

v.
DAVID S.,
Defendant and Respondent;

S

. S.,
Minor and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. CK80982 )

APPEAL from orders o f the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Marilyn Mordetzky, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed. John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor and Appellant. Daniel G. Rooney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

In this consolidated appeal, minor S

. S. (born February 2010) appeals from the juvenile court’s order granting a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section
388 1 filed by respondent David S. (father)
, returning S. to father’s custody , and according father family maintenance services

. S. also appeals from the order made at an August 26, 2013 section 364 review hearing continuing juvenile court jurisd iction and family maintenance services for an additional six months. We affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
BACKGROUND Detention and section 300 petition On March 18, 2010, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) recei ved a referral alleging that Nancy S. (mother) 2 had suffered a nervous breakdown following S. ’s birth and was on a psychiatric hold at the Antelope Valley Hospital in Lancaster. Mother had been diagnosed with schizophrenia several

years ago and was a Regional Center client

. After mother’s hospitalization, S. was cared for by her maternal gra ndmother

. The maternal grandmother told the Department’s social worker that mother came to her home to visit with S. on a daily basis since her release from the hospital and had one overnight visit with the child . During the overnight visit mother “hid the baby” while
the mat ernal grandmother was sleeping, and the maternal grandmother had to look around her apartment to lo cate the child.
The social work er visited mother’s home, where two Regional Center caretakers were present at mother’s request to watch over her and to assist her in caring for S. According to the caretakers, mother had been hospitalized twice since S. ’s birth

. One hospital ization followed an incident in which mother slapped a caregiver, prompting law
enforcement intervention. The caretakers reported that father , who was also a Regional
Center client
, visited with mother and S. on a daily basis, but they did not know w here he
lived

.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 Mother is not a party to this appeal.3

The Department filed a section 300 petition on S. ’s behalf alleging that mother had engaged in a violent altercation during which she slapped an unrelated adult female in
S. ’s presence, necessitating law enforcement intervention; that mother had mental and emotional problems, including schizophrenia, which rendered her incapable of providing regular care and supervision for S. ; that father had failed to provide S. with the necessities of life; and that father had limited ability to provide for S. Both parents were present and were appointed counsel at the March 25, 2010 detention hearing . M other’s counsel was also appointed as her guardian ad litem. The juvenile court found father to be S. ’s presumed father a nd ordered S. detai ned from both parents’ custody.
Jurisdiction and d isposition In April 2010, the Department reported that father was mildly mentally retarded and living in a boarding care facility. He had maintained a relationship with mother and had provided clothes and baby supplies for S. On April 26, 2010, father submitted a waiver of rights admitting the allegations of the section 300 petition. The juvenile court ordered a psychological evaluation pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 for both parents. In July 2010, the Department filed a supplemental report that included psychological evaluations of mother and father. The psychologist , Dr. Michael P. Ward,
found that father had an IQ of 72 and that mother had an IQ of 64. Dr. Ward f urther found that father’s overall functioning was in the mildly retarded range, but that he had
some skills above that level. With regard to whether father was capable of eventually caring for S. , Dr. Ward opined that father “ seems to have a little more ability or potential than [mother] ” and that “ he might be a little more equipped to eventually have full independent care and custody of his daughter, although only with

. . . continued supervision and support .” Dr. Ward further opined that father “ d efinitely does have the capacity to learn and so he should be able to benefit from appropriately tailored parenting classes, along with any in

- home type supportive services regarding the proper care of a child.”4

The juvenile court ordered both parents to attend interactive parenting education classes, to participate in Regional Center services, and to take all prescribed medications. The court also ordered mother to participate in mental hea l th treatment and psychiatric monitoring. In September 2010, the Department reported that both parents had been visiting S.
twice a week for a total of three hours. Mother had difficulty staying awake and would often sleep through the visits. Father was present at every monitored visit with mother
and remained a lert and awake to ensure S. ’s safety. The juvenile court accorded father
10 hours of unmonitored visits per week and allowed him to monitor mother’s visits

. In October 2010, the Department reported that mother was still having difficulty staying awa ke during visits. The juvenile court ordered an additional 10 hours per week visitation for father so that he could monitor mother’s visits.
Six

- m onth r eview p roceedings In February 2011, the Department reported that S. was developmentally on track
and was bonded with her foster family. B oth mother and father were participating in interactive parent education provided by the Regional Center, but the parents did not want to have the educators p resent during S. ’s visits. In May 2011, the Departm ent reported that both parents continued to participate in interactive parent education services provided by the Regional Center but were refusing
to allow the instructors to observe their interaction with S. Father’s Regional Center parenting inst ructor submitted a letter on his behalf stating that since November 2010, father had been having unmonitored visits with S. for 10 hours a week and that the visits increased to 20 hours a week in February 2011. The instructor expressed the belief tha t father “would continue to grow as a parent with continued and consistent visits and parenting support.” The instructor qualified his remarks, however, by noting that it was difficult to assess father’s parenting skills in day

- to

- day situations because h is visits with
S. did not occur daily. The instructor opined that “continued support is needed to provide [father] with the skills for his cur rent situation and his future.”5

In June 2011, father discussed moving into his own apartment because he
und erstood that S. could not live with him in his current group home. In July 2011, the Department received a suspected sexual abuse referral for S. when the foster parents reported redness in the child’s vaginal area after S. returned from an extended visit with the parents. The child’s condition was subsequentl y determined to be diaper rash.
Twelve

- m onth r eview p roceedings In November 2011, father was still living in a group home but was saving money to obtain his own apartment. Mother was living in the maternal grandmother’s home. Both parents continued to receive Regional Center services but were no longer participating in any parenting program.
S. remained placed with her foster parents, who were interested in pursuing an open ado ption so that the child could continue to have a relationship with mother and
father. The juvenile court found father to be in compliance with his case plan and mother to be in partial compliance. The court terminated reunification services, ordered an

a doption home study
, and set a permanency planning hearing.
Section 366.26 p roceedings In March 2012, the Department reported that S. ’s foster parents had an open referral alleging general neglect and physical and emotional abuse by foster mother of

a nother child that had recently been replaced from the ir home. In light of the open referral, t he foster parents said they wished to pursue legal guardianship over S. and to consider adoption at a later date. In May 2012, the Department reported that the foster parents were again being investigated for child abuse, this time with respect to S. , whom they had allegedly slapped across the face on several occasions. The juvenile court continued the matter pending c onclusion of the investigation.
I n June 2012, the Department informed father that his visits with S. would be monitored on a going forward basis because he was allowing negative contact between
mother and S. Mother was using inappropriate language around S. , and allegedly slapping the child. The Department reported that the referral regarding alleged physical6

abuse of S. by her foster parents had been closed as inconclusive. The Department recommended adoption by the foster parents as the permanent plan for S. On September 27, 2012, the Department received a referral alleging that S. was a victim of emotional abuse by father. The report ing party alleged that she overheard mother and father arguing while she was on the phone with mother and that the polic e were contacted. Mother told the social worker that father had always been verbally and physically abusive toward her and that he had hit her when she was pregnant and caused
her to lose a tooth. Father denied ever physically abusing mother. He said th at the incident during which mother lost a tooth occurred while mother was having a nervous breakdown and was hitting him with her head, which caused her to lose a tooth. The
social worker informed father that he could continue to have unmonitored visits with S. but that he would no longer be allo wed to monitor mother’s visits. In October 2012, the social worker interviewed mother’s Regional Center counselor, Wendy Rasky, regarding domestic violence between the parents. According to Rasky, mother ha d a history of violence and her disability did not prevent her from
bec oming aggressive toward others.
In November 2012
, the Department reported on an unannounced visit to assess father’s home. The social worker found the home to be appropriately furnish ed with working utilities, and was clean, neat, and devoid of safety hazards. Mother was present in the home but claimed she was there to visit father, not S. The social worker admonished both parents that in light of the domestic violence allegati ons, they could not visit S. together. S. ’s foster mother expressed concerns that father could not protect S.
from mother. She reaffirmed her willingness to adopt S. On December 21, 2012, the Department informed the juvenile court t hat an adoption home study had been approved for S. ’s foster parents and recommended
termination of parental rights. In January 2013, the Department reported that father was employed at Target and was working 25 hours per week. Father wanted S. returned to his care and told the social worker about his childcare plans for S. while he was at work. He planned to put S. in a7

daycare center near his apartment when he worked during the week . On weekend days
when father had to work his sist er wou ld care for S. Father said his goal was to reunite
with mother so that S. could live with both of her parents as a family. T he Department expressed concern about father’s a bility to protect S. from mother

. The Department also repor ted on its investigation into the additional Regional
Center services father would be eligible to receive if S. were returned to his care. According to Donna Re n t s ch (Rentsch) , father’s Regional Center coordinator, the Regional Center staff would und ertake a needs assessment when S. was returned to father to determine the types and quantity of services father would be eligible to receive. Because Regional Center services are voluntary, f ather would then decide wh ich services he wished to accept

. A Regional Center staff member would then visit father’s home twice a week to provide the services . Rentsch emphasized that Regional Center staff would visit the home to assist father in caring for S. , but not for the purpose of monitoring S. ’ s safety. Section 388 petition s On October 26, 2012, father filed a section 388 petition requesting return of S. to his custody or alternatively, reinstatement of family reunification services and unmonitored visits, including overnight visits. In s upport of his petition, father stated he had complied with his case plan by participating in all Regional Center services and by taking his prescribed medication, and that he had obtained a two

- bedroom apartment and lived independently. Father’s petition further stated he had substantial unmonitored visits
with S. , with whom he shared a significant bond, and that he would receive additional Regional Center services when S. was returned to his care. Mother filed a section 388 petition on December 21, 2012 , seeking reinstatement of family reunification services and unmonitored visits with S. In support of her petition, mother provided written confirmation that she had attended 14 parent education and anger management classes , as well as a p arenting support group. Mother further stated
she had visited S. on a weekly basis for 10 h ours.8

The juvenile court granted both parents a hearing on their respective section 388 petition s

. Section 388 hearing
Father testified at the January 23, 20 13 hearing on his section 388 petition that he participated in Regional Center services one day a week for four hours. Father further stated that he would continue to work with the Regional Center and would participate in any additional services he became eligible for once S. was placed in his care. Father
described his unmonitored visits , which took place at his apartment once a week for 10
hours

. He and S. watch ed television and ate meals he prepared for them. They also went

out to restauran ts, visited family members, and went shopping together. Father said he disciplined S. by sending her to her room, but that he did not use any physical discipline.
He described the visits he monitored for mother and said that on occasion he had to

co rrect mother when she used inappropriate language in S. ’s presence. Father denied ever striking mother , but admitted that he and mother had argued in the past when S. was not present. Father said he had been living alone in a two

- bedroom apartm ent since July 2012 and that he worked 25 hours per week. While he was at work during the week , father planned to have S. attend a daycare center across the street from his apartment . On weekend days when he had to work, he planned to have his siste r care for S. Rentsch, father’s Regional Services coordinator, testified that if S. were placed in father’s care, father would be assessed for additional services

. Father would then be
allocated additional service hours based on his needs. Re ntsch further testified that parenting training services provided by the Regional Center were individualized and
would t ake place in the home with S. present. The Department’s social worker testified that the Department was opposed to
father’s sectio n 388 petition because of concerns regarding the allegations of domestic violence between the parents and father’s limited ability to protect S. from mother.9

Mother testified and admitted arguing with father in the past but denied any
incidents of do mestic violence. M other stated she would comply with any visitation order applicable to her if S. were placed in father’s care. On January 31, 2013, the juvenile court further liberalized father’s visitation, according him weekend and overnight visi ts from Friday to Sunday
, and calendared another hearing date for its ruling.
Juvenile c ourt r uling s and the i nstant a ppeal On February 25, 2013, t he juvenile court granted father’s section 388 petition.
The court concluded that father had demonstrated a change in circumstances. The court noted that at the outset of the case, father lived in a group home and was incapable of caring for S. , but that since then, he had completed a hands

- on parenting class and moved into a stable home that was clean, s afe, and appropriate for a child. The juvenile court further found that continued stability was possible because father received supportive services from the Regional Center. Finally the court concluded that S. ’s best interests would be served by re turning her to the care and custody of her biological father, as long as that situation was safe, and there was no evidence that it was not.
The juvenile court found that father was in full compliance with court orders, that he had established through his unmonitored overnight and weekend visits that he did not present a risk to the child
, and that returning S. to his care and custody would not create a substantial detriment to the safety and physical well

- being of the child. Over the Department’s ob

jection, the juvenile court ordered S. to be released to father. The court
further ordered that mother was not to reside in father’s home and not to have overnight visits in the home without prior court approval. The juvenile court denied mother’s

p etition seeking unmonitored visitation but allowed father to monitor mother’s visits. The court accorded family preservation services for both parents
, denied the Department’s request for a stay of order, and set the matter for a progress hearing

. The De partment filed a writ petition on March 4, 2013
, seeking a stay of the juvenile court’s home of parent order on the ground that release to father placed S. at serious risk of harm. The petition was supported by a letter brief submitted by counsel10

rep resenting S. This court initially stayed the release order but subsequently denied the Department’s writ petition and lifted the stay on March 26, 2013.
S. and the Department appealed from the order granting father’s section 388 petition. The Department subsequently abandoned its appeal. In August 2013, the Department reported that S. had been continuously residing in father’s home since March 28, 2013. Father was receiving both parenting and independent living services through the Regi onal Center . M other also participated in some parenting classes. Both parents were participating in family maintenance services. Although mother was not living in father’s home, father stated he wanted mother to mov e in with him once the case was closed

. The Departm ent found S. to be well cared for by
father and recommended termination of juvenile court jurisdiction.
At the August 26, 2013 review hearing, the juvenile court declined to t erminate jurisdiction, and ordered the Department to provide father with an additional six months of family maintenance services. On Septem b er 4, 2013, S. appeal e d from the juvenile court’s August 26, 2013 order.
DISCUSSION Under section 388, a party may petition the juvenile court to change, modify, or

set a side any previously made order. The petitioning party has the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) there are changed circumstances or new evidence, and (2) the proposed modification is in the child ’ s best interests. (§ 388; In re Jas mon O

. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 39 8, 415

- 416.) The decision to grant the proposed change of order is within the sound discretion of the juvenile court. ( In re Stephanie M . (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318; In re Michael B. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1698, 1704.) We will not disturb the juvenile court’ s order unless it has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd determination. ( Stephanie M., supra , at p. 318, citing In re Geoffrey G . (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 421.) When t wo or more inferences can be made reasonably from the facts, we have no authority to substitute our decision for that of the juvenile court. ( Stephanie M.
, at pp. 318

- 319 .)11

S. contends the order granting father’s section 388 petition was an abuse of
discretion “ [ b ] ecause there was no evidence presented concerning
, precisely
, what services would be in place for father” upon her return to his custody. 3 T here is substantial evidence in the record concerning additional Regional Center services that
woul d be available to father upon S. ’s return to his custody. Father’s Regional Center coordinator, Rentsch, testified that father would become eligible for additional services

once S. was placed with him. Rentsch explained that a Regional Center r epresentative
would conduct an in

- home assessment to determine the type and quantity of services father would need, including individualized, in

- home parent training with S. The Department’s dependency investigator, Marion Robinson, testified about her investigation into the services father would receive if S. were returned to him. Robinson confirmed that the Regional Center would complete an assessment to determine whether father needed additional services to help him care for S. and that the Regional Center staff would consult with father about their recommendations to see if he would be willing to accept those services. Father testified that he would participate in all services made available to him that would help him keep S. in h is care.
S. claims the juvenile court relied on its personal experience, rather than the evidence presented in court, as the basis for concluding that Regional Center services would be provided to father upon her return t o father’s c ustody . She cite s the following remarks made by the juvenile co urt as support for this claim:

“[Father] has regional services that can be a supportive system that was provided in the 730 report as being important. There is a supportive system

. . . . There’s a Regional C enter than can provide services to this father if the child were returned to his care and custody

. . . . Well, I can’t think of a more supportive system than Regional Center. I have mother and father both having the services of Regional Center. And it’s been my experience that Regional Center will provide those services once a child has been released to that home with services in place.”

3 S. does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the juvenile court’s finding that father met h is burden of establishing a change of circumstances, or that granting father’s section 388 petition was in S. ’s best interests. Substantial evidence supports these findings, in any event.12

S. ’s argument is premised on isolated remarks by the juvenile court at the
conclusion of the section 388 hearin g and ignores the substantial evidence presented at the hearing that father would be eligible for additional Regional Center services if S. were returned to his care, that he would be evaluated to determine the type and quantity of services needed, th at those services could include in

- home, ind ividualized parent training with S. , and that father agreed to participate in all services that would help him to retain custody of S. The record does not support S. ’s claim that the juvenile cou rt relied solely on its personal experience as the basis for concluding that Regional Center services would be provided to father after he was granted custody. The record discloses no abuse of discretion by the juvenile court.
The sole basis for S. ’ s challen ge to the juvenile court’s August 26, 2013 order declining to terminate jurisdiction and continuing family maintenance is that the order granting father’s section 3 88 petition was in error, and the August 26, 2013 order was accordingly invalid. B ecause the order granting father’s section 388 petition was not

erroneous, S. has failed to establish any basis for reversing the juvenile court’s August 26, 2013 order.13 DISPOSITION
The February 25, 2013 order granting father’s section 388 petition i s affirmed, as
is the August 26, 2013 order continuing jurisdiction and family maintenance services

. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

.

____________________________, J. CHAVEZ

We concur:

__________________________, P. J. BORE N

__________________________, J.* FERNS

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