Filed 1/4/22 V.R. v. Superior Court CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

V.R.,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY,

Respondent;

______________________________

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

 B311660

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP03467A)

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for extraordinary 

writ. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Daniel Zeke Zeidler, 

Judge. Petition denied.

Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc., Law Office of 

Martin Lee, Bernadette Reyes and David Paul for Petitioner.
2

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest Los Angeles 

County Department of Children and Family Services.

Children’s Law Center and Stanley Wu for Real 

Party in Interest N.R.

* * * * * * * * * * *

Petitioner V.R. is the mother of now 10-year-old N.R. and 

four-year-old R.L., both dependents of the juvenile court. R.L. is 

not at issue in this proceeding, and has been returned to mother’s 

care. On March 26, 2021, the juvenile court terminated 

reunification services and set a selection and implementation 

hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 for 

N.R.

1 Mother filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to 

rule 8.452 of the California Rules of Court challenging the order, 

arguing there was no substantial evidence it would be 

detrimental to return N.R. to her care. We deny the petition, 

finding substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order. 

The September 15, 2021 order staying the section 366.26 hearing 

is hereby lifted.

FACTUALAND PROCEDURALBACKGROUND

This family came to the attention of the Los Angeles 

County Department of Children and Family Services

(Department) over a period of several months beginning in

February 2018, following a series of referrals that mother was 

physically and emotionally abusing N.R., abusing drugs, 

prostituting herself, and exposing her children to dangerous 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code. 
3

adults. When the Department investigated the initial February 

referral, N.R. had a black eye and small blood clots on her temple 

and cheek. 

Mother is a Regional Center client, and was diagnosed with 

mild to moderate intellectual disability. She has a parent life 

coach through the Regional Center, who has worked with mother

for many years and visits her home every other day to help with 

daily tasks and errands. 

Mother denied the allegations and reported that N.R. was 

bullied by neighborhood children. N.R. also denied any abuse 

and said her injuries were caused by other children. 

When the social worker first visited the family home in 

February 2018, there were six or seven unrelated adults inside, 

and 10 people outside of the home, who were mother’s friends and 

friends of a neighbor with whom mother was arguing. 

When the Department visited the family home in May 

2018, a man was passed out in mother’s doorway. Mother told 

the Department she had some friends over for the weekend, and 

when she asked them to leave, they became upset, vandalized her 

home, and beat her up. N.R. admitted she saw mother get “beat 

up.” Mother and the children went to a neighbor’s house and 

called police. 

N.R.’s school called the Department later that month to 

report that N.R. had a black eye, and N.R. told a school staff 

member that mother punched her three times with a closed fist. 

N.R. told the Department that mother slapped her because she 

did not want to go to school. N.R. denied that mother had ever 

hit her before. Mother denied hitting N.R. but admitted that 

N.R. had thrown a severe tantrum that morning because she did 

not want to go to school. 
4

Mother’s Regional Center coach did not suspect any abuse 

or neglect, and reported that N.R. often acts out and sometimes 

says things that are not true. 

The family has an extensive history of referrals to the 

Department, with 16 referrals between 2012 and 2018 for 

physical abuse and neglect, including that mother abused drugs,

would leave N.R. with “random” people, including a registered 

sex offender (R.L.’s father), and that N.R. reported mother was 

hitting her. Mother received voluntary family maintenance 

services from August 2015 until March 2016. 

R.L.’s father has an extensive criminal history, including a 

2005 conviction for four counts of committing lewd and lascivious 

acts with a child under the age of 14 against two victims, for 

which he was sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was then on 

parole, and he and mother were no longer in a relationship. 

A nondetained petition was filed with allegations under 

section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (d), and (j) that mother 

physically abused N.R. by giving her a black eye, and that R.L.’s 

father is a convicted sex offender which places R.L. at risk. At 

the June 1, 2018 detention hearing, the court allowed the 

children to remain with mother under the supervision of the 

Department, and ordered mother to participate in a mental 

health evaluation, cooperate with all Regional Center services, 

and submit to on-demand drug testing. 

According to the July 2018 jurisdiction/disposition report, 

mother has a history of acting out aggressively toward others in 

front of the children. N.R. had started to have severe tantrums

and was acting out aggressively as well. 

N.R. denied that R.L.’s father ever touched her 

inappropriately. She could not recall if she had ever been alone 
5

with him. Mother denied leaving the children alone with R.L.’s 

father; paternal relatives supervised his visits with R.L. 

At the July 26, 2018 adjudication and disposition hearing, 

the juvenile court sustained “inappropriate discipline” allegations 

under section 300, subdivision (b) pursuant to mother’s no contest 

plea. The children were permitted to remain in mother’s care. 

Mother was ordered to participate in parenting classes, family 

preservation services, and counseling, and she was to continue to 

receive services through the Regional Center. 

On October 12, 2018, subsequent and supplemental 

petitions under sections 342 and 387 were filed, alleging that 

mother suffered from emotional problems that placed her 

children at risk of harm. Mother had made threats to her 

Regional Center case worker, and she allowed maternal uncle, 

who had molested maternal aunt as a child, to have unlimited 

access to the children. Mother was not complying with court 

orders, as she allowed R.L.’s father to have access to the children. 

The children were detained from mother and placed in foster 

care. 

According to the October 2018 detention report, the 

Department received new referrals after an incident where 

maternal uncle was stabbed at mother’s home, in front of the 

children. N.R. was hurt when she tried to intervene, and mother 

was also beaten up. Mother did not call law enforcement or seek 

medical treatment for N.R. or maternal uncle. 

According to the Regional Center director, mother is gangaffiliated, and the attack was in retaliation for mother stealing 

drugs from gang members. Mother threatened to “shoot” a 

Regional Center worker, and made multiple threats while the 
6

children were present. Also, years earlier, a Regional Center

worker was shot by gang members allegedly sent by mother. 

N.R. refused to speak with the social worker about the 

incident, as mother had told her she would be “taken away” if she 

spoke with the Department. N.R. eventually confirmed she was 

present during the referral incident, and had spent time alone 

with maternal uncle. The social worker could see a scratch on 

N.R.’s arm, which N.R. attributed to the incident. N.R. reported 

that she was injured while “socking” people to protect maternal

uncle. 

According to the November 2018 jurisdiction/disposition 

report,the children had adjusted well in foster care. N.R. had

some behavioral issues, but her episodes were sporadic, and she 

generally followed directions well. 

According to the Regional Center, workers assisting mother

often requested reassignment due to mother’s aggression, mood 

swings, and threats, including death threats. Her new service 

provider, Sylvia Schneider, reported that mother was 

participating in anger management and parenting classes, and 

Ms. Schneider supervised mother’s visits with the children. She 

reported that the visits went well and that mother was 

affectionate and attentive to her children. 

On November 26, 2018, the juvenile court sustained the 

allegations in the subsequent and supplemental petitions. 

Mother was ordered to receive monitored visitation, and to 

participate in services. 

According to the Department’s July 25, 2019 status review 

report, N.R. was hospitalized for suicidal ideation in May 2019. 

She and her sister were placed with maternal great-aunt

following N.R.’s release from the hospital. It was N.R.’s fourth
7

placement since she was detained from mother. She was 

hospitalized again later that month and again in June 2019, after 

she complained of auditory hallucinations that were telling her to 

kill her younger sister. Maternal great-aunt was struggling to 

care for N.R. and sometimes required police intervention to deal 

with her behaviors. N.R. had been diagnosed with depression, 

aggression, and suicidal thoughts. In July 2019, maternal greataunt asked for the children to be removed from her home. 

Mother had moved into temporary housing provided by the 

Regional Center, and she was working at a toy factory. Mother 

had completed her parenting, counseling, and anger management 

programs but chose to continue participating in the programs. 

She was actively participating in her services and receiving 

substantial support from the Regional Center to help with her 

parenting skills, chores, hygiene, and money management. 

Mother consistently visited the children. The visits 

generally went well, except that mother had a difficult time 

managing N.R.’s behaviors. The social worker noted that mother 

“is a trigger” for N.R. During N.R.’s psychiatric hospitalizations, 

mother frequently made her upset. Mother also allowed N.R. to 

have a video call with R.L.’s father, even though he was not 

supposed to have any contact with her. 

N.R.’s behaviors continued to be problematic, and she had 

to be re-placed multiple times over a period of several months. In 

September 2019, N.R. was placed with a highly trained caregiver

though the Intensive Services Foster Care program. This was 

her 11th placement. Because of the high level of care required for

N.R., she and her sister could not be placed together. N.R.’s 

behaviors continued to be a problem, and she had to be 
8

transitioned to another Intensive Services Foster Care placement 

within the month. 

The Department’s November 2019 status review report 

noted that N.R. had not expressed any suicidal ideation, but did 

express “homicidal ideation when she is upset.” N.R.’s therapist 

was working to help N.R. decrease her tantrums and her head 

banging. N.R.’s tantrums made it difficult to take her out in the 

community and created safety risks for N.R. and others. 

Mother had fully complied with most aspects of her case 

plan. However, the Department did not recommend that the 

children be returned to mother, as mother “triggered” N.R., and 

did not seem to understand the extent of her significant needs. 

N.R. had another psychiatric hospitalization in November 

2019, after she was suspended from school for taunting and 

screaming at other children, and she had a severe tantrum and 

could not be calmed. She was diagnosed with bipolar affective 

disorder. 

N.R. was hospitalized again in late November 2019, after 

assaulting her foster sibling, punching holes in the wall of her 

foster home, and assaulting her in-home counselor. She was 

hospitalized again in late December 2019. 

According to N.R.’s therapist, N.R. has daily verbal 

outbursts, physical aggression, and makes threats to others. She 

was not responding well to therapy, or using the skills she 

learned there. N.R. was triggered by visits with mother. N.R.’s 

therapist did not believe that beginning conjoint therapy with 

mother would benefit N.R. until she was more stable. 

As of January 2020, mother was still living in the Regional 

Center facility, which did not allow overnight visitation with the 
9

children or for the children to reside with her. She was still 

looking for appropriate housing. 

N.R.’s foster mother reported that N.R.’s behaviors 

escalated after visits with mother. Mother did not appear to 

understand the severity of N.R.’s issues. She was often unable to 

manage N.R.’s behaviors during visits. According to N.R.’s foster 

mother, N.R. continued to have daily tantrums that posed a 

safety risk to herself and others. The foster mother frequently 

had to contact the Intensive Services Foster Care team for 

assistance with N.R.’s severe tantrums. The team was providing 

substantial services to N.R., including five meetings per week 

with her in-home counselors, two therapy sessions per week, and 

twice monthly visits with her psychiatrist. N.R. was failing all of 

her classes at school. 

N.R. was hospitalized again in early January 2020. Her 

caregiver was reluctant to take N.R. back into her home following 

the January hospitalization due to N.R.’s instability and 

aggression. Later that month, the caregiver gave a 14-day notice 

to have N.R. removed from her home. N.R. was initially placed in 

shelter care, because the Department could not find an available 

placement. She was placed with a new caregiver at the end of

January. N.R. continued to have aggressive tantrums and 

physical confrontations with her caregiver and other children. 

As of the Department’s April 2020 report, mother had still 

not secured housing where the children could be placed with her. 

Mother continued to participate in programs and was still 

employed. Mother had fully complied with her case plan and was 

making “some progress” with achieving treatment goals in 

individual therapy. However, mother still struggled to control 

N.R.’s aggressive behaviors during visits, and mother “continues 
10

to need assistance . . . managing the children and ensuring their 

safety.” 

The Department remained concerned about mother’s ability 

to safely parent her children. Mother believed that N.R. would 

not exhibit the same behaviors at home with her. The 

Department had recently learned that mother continued to be in 

contact with R.L.’s father, despite his status as a registered sex 

offender and his failure to engage in any services over the course 

of the dependency case. The Department recommended that 

reunification services be terminated. 

The review hearing was continued due to the COVID-19 

emergency. 

According to the Department’s August 2020 supplemental 

report, N.R. was struggling with virtual learning. N.R. had 

broken the caregiver’s glass coffee table and washing machine, 

and she made a hole in the wall. N.R.’s therapist reported that 

N.R. had great difficulty coping with her negative emotions, and 

the therapist was worried N.R. would regress significantly if 

reunified with mother. Mother was still looking for housing. Her 

virtual visits were not going well; mother often called at random 

times instead of the scheduled time. 

A court-appointed special advocate (CASA) was appointed 

for N.R. in July 2020. The CASA’s August 2020 report noted that 

N.R. was happy in her current placement. N.R.’s principal at her 

new school reported that N.R. is a “good girl with good potential.” 

He believed her disruptive behavior was attention seeking, but 

acknowledged that she needed day-to-day support. N.R.’s 

therapist reported that N.R. was dealing with a lot of trauma. 

The therapist was concerned that N.R.’s tantrums would 
11

continue because N.R. was unable to process the negative 

emotions that caused the tantrums. 

At the August 24, 2020 review hearing, the court continued 

mother’s reunification services and set the matter for a 

section 366.25 subsequent review hearing on February 23, 2021. 

According to the Department’s November 2020 report, 

N.R.’s caregiver asked that she be removed from her home in 

October 2020, after N.R. was kicked out of her daycare program

due to her daily disruptive behavior. N.R. was transitioned back 

to her maternal great-aunt’s home, where her little sister was 

also placed. This was N.R.’s 13th placement. Maternal greataunt reported that N.R. was doing well in her home. 

Mother had moved into her own apartment in late October 

2020. Mother was receiving parenting instruction, and the 

Regional Center parenting coordinator gave mother assistance 

with parenting 24 hours a day. The Department recommended 

that the children remain with maternal great-aunt, with the goal 

of gradually transitioning them back to mother’s care. 

According to N.R.’s CASA, maternal great-aunt reported 

that N.R. was generally doing well in her care, but her behaviors 

regressed after visiting with mother. N.R. wanted to stay with 

maternal great-aunt. The CASA believed the current placement 

was appropriate for N.R. 

According to the Regional Center, mother was living in an

apartment, and continued to be employed, although she was not 

currently working because of the COVID-19 emergency. Mother 

was receiving 75 hours per month of parenting services through 

Lead the Way, LLC. If overnight visits were approved, the 

Regional Center would provide funding for mother to receive 

“24 hour service 7 days a week.” 
12

In November 2020, mother started to have overnight 

weekend visits with the children. Regional Center staff were

present to assist mother for the duration of the visits. Mother’s 

parenting partner reported that the visits generally went well. 

However, on several occasions, N.R. refused to visit or did not 

want to stay overnight. Also, according to N.R., mother tried to 

force N.R. to speak with R.L.’s father on the phone, even though 

N.R. did not want to. 

N.R. told the social worker she did not want to live with 

mother. She wanted to be adopted by maternal great-aunt. She 

did not like it that mother tried to make her speak with R.L.’s 

father. According to N.R.’s therapist, N.R. experienced 

regressions in her behavior after visits with mother. N.R. 

became upset when anyone tried to discuss living with mother. 

N.R. also refused to participate in conjoint counseling with 

mother. 

Mother still lacked insight about N.R.’s needs. She 

attributed N.R.’s behavioral problems to “guilt that [N.R.] feels 

for being the reason that the children were removed from 

[mother’s] care.” Nevertheless, the Department recommended 

that the children be returned to mother. 

N.R.’s CASA reported that N.R. was doing very well in 

maternal great-aunt’s care. Her tantrums had subsided, and her 

behavior was greatly improved. N.R. consistently told the CASA 

that she wanted to remain placed with maternal great-aunt and 

did not want to be returned to mother. N.R. did not feel 

“comfortable” with mother, and N.R. was worried that mother 

was not ready to care for her. N.R. reported that mother was 

speaking with R.L.’s father, and she was worried “her life will go 

back to ‘the way it was’ with her mother prior to her removal.” 
13

Maternal great-aunt also told the CASA that N.R. was 

resistant to contact with mother, and that she would have 

tantrums to avoid visitation. Recently, when mother and her 

parent partner came to maternal great-aunt’s home to pick up 

N.R. for a visit, N.R. refused to go. Mother yelled at maternal 

great-aunt and used profane and threatening language, blaming 

her for N.R.’s refusal to see mother. Mother’s parent partner had 

to intervene to prevent mother from attacking maternal greataunt after the two exchanged heated words. 

According to mother’s Regional Center worker, when N.R. 

did spend the night with mother, there was very little interaction 

between mother and N.R., and N.R. spent most of the time in her 

room on her phone. Mother’s parenting coordinator reported that 

visits between mother and N.R. were “difficult.” 

N.R. refused to speak about mother during her therapy 

sessions. Whenever the therapist tried to discuss mother, N.R. 

would shut down. Mother and N.R. had two conjoint therapy 

sessions, and mother appeared irritable and did not respect 

N.R.’s boundaries. 

N.R.’s CASA opined it would not be in N.R.’s best interests,

and that N.R. would “suffer” if returned to mother. The CASA 

recommended termination of mother’s reunification services, and 

that N.R. remain placed with maternal great-aunt, where she 

was thriving. 

In a last minute information for the court, the social worker 

noted that mother continued to be rude and inappropriate with 

social workers, the caregiver, and Regional Center staff “on 

numerous occasions.” N.R. still did not want to return to 

mother’s care, and threatened to run away if she were returned 

to mother. 
14

A February 23, 2021 letter from the Regional Center noted 

that mother was receiving 1,084 hours of services each month 

and has demonstrated that she is motivated to regain custody of 

her children. 

The section 366.25 permanency review hearing was held on 

March 26, 2021. N.R. told the court she wanted to stay placed 

with maternal great-aunt, even if her little sister were returned 

to mother’s care. 

The court terminated reunification services, and set a 

section 366.26 permanency planning hearing, finding it would be 

detrimental to N.R. to be returned to mother’s care. The court 

acknowledged that it was “very torn” because of mother’s 

“tremendous growth” but that the court was concerned about 

mother’s continued contact with R.L.’s father and the trauma to 

N.R. of being returned to mother’s care. 

Mother filed a timely notice of intent to file a writ petition, 

and the present petition for extraordinary relief followed. 

DISCUSSION

When a child over the age of three years is removed from a 

parent, the child and parent are typically entitled to 12 months of 

reunification, which may be extended to 18 months. (§ 361.5, 

subd. (a)(1)(A) & (3)(A).) Pursuant to section 366.22, within 

18 months after a dependent child is removed from the physical 

custody of his or her parent, a permanency review hearing must 

occur to review the child’s status. (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1); see also 

§ 366.25, subd. (a)(1) [addressing subsequent permanency review 

hearings, as was held here, which must occur within 24 months 

of removal].)

At the hearing, the juvenile court “shall order the return of 

the child to the physical custody of his or her parent or legal 
15

guardian unless the court finds, by a preponderance of the 

evidence, that the return of the child to his or her parent or legal 

guardian would create a substantial risk of detriment to the 

safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the 

child.” (§§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1), 366.25, subd. (a)(1).)

We review the juvenile court’s detriment finding for 

substantial evidence. (Jennifer A. v. Superior Court (2004)

117 Cal.App.4th 1322, 1341.) We construe the evidence and 

resolve all evidentiary conflicts in the light most favorable to the 

juvenile court’s determination. (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 

633; In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1633.) 

A parent’s compliance with the case plan is not the only 

factor the juvenile court must consider in deciding whether to 

return a child to the parent’s care. (Constance K. v. Superior 

Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 704; In re Dustin R. (1997) 

54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1139–1140.) Where the parent has 

complied with their case plan, the question is not whether the 

parent has participated in services, but whether the parent has 

benefited from those services. (Blanca P. v. Superior Court

(1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1748.) Moreover, the court may not 

simply defer to a child’s placement preference when making its 

detriment finding. (Rita L. v. Superior Court (2005) 

128 Cal.App.4th 495, 507; see also In re Patrick S. (2013) 

218 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1265.)

 Mother contends “there was not substantial evidence [N.R.]

would not be safe in [mother’s] care nor that she would suffer 

emotional detriment if she returned to her care.” We find

substantial evidence, described in detail above, and which does

not require repetition, supports the juvenile court’s detriment

finding. This is not a case where the court simply deferred to
16

N.R.’s placement preference. There was extensive, substantial

evidence of the detriment to N.R. if she were to be returned to

mother’s care. (Cf. Georgeanne G. v. Superior Court (2020)

53 Cal.App.5th 856, 868 [finding no substantial evidence

supported the finding of detriment to child if he were returned to

mother’s custody].)

DISPOSITION

The petition is denied. This opinion is final forthwith as to 

this court pursuant to rule 8.490(b)(2)(A) of the California Rules 

of Court. The September 15, 2021 order staying the 

section 366.26 hearing is hereby lifted.

GRIMES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STRATTON, J. 

WILEY, J.