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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

,

P etitioner

,

v.

THE S UPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY

,

Respondent;

______________________________ LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES et al.

,

Real Part ies in Interest. B 311 660

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP 03467A )

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for extraordinary writ. ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Daniel Zeke Ze i dler

, 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

- ol d 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 orde r, 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 he reby lifted.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 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 D epartment 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 da y 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 s aid 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, w ho 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

u p.” 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 fis t

. 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 1 6 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 20 1 5 until March 2016.
R.L.’s father has an extensive criminal history, including a
2005 conviction for four counts of committ ing lewd and lascivious

act s 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 non detained petition was filed with allegations under section 300, subd ivisions (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 wit h 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 alone5

with him. Mother denied leaving the children alone with R.L.’s
father ; p aternal relatives supervised his visits with R.L.
At the July 26, 2018 a djudication 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, su bsequent and supplemental petition s under section s 342 and 387 were filed, alleging that mother suffered from emotional problems that placed her
ch ildren 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 . M other 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 fos ter

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

m edical treatment for N.R. or maternal uncle. According to the Regional Center director, mother is gang

affiliated, and the attack was in retaliation for mother stealing drugs from gang members. Mother threat en ed to “shoot” a Regional Center worker, and made multiple threats while the6

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 h er 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 a nd attentive to her children. On November 26, 2018, the juvenile court sustained the allegations in the subsequent and supplemental petition s

. Mother was ordered to receive monitored visitation, and to participate in services

. According to the Departm ent’s July 25, 2019 status review report, N.R. was hospitalized for sui cidal 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 fourth7

placement since she was detained f rom 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 great

aunt asked for the children to be removed fro m 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 con tinue 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 wel l, 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 2 019, 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 c ontinued to be a problem, and she had to be8

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 “trigger ed” N.R., and
did not seem to understand the exten t 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 a nd
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 tri ggered 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 the9

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 unabl e to manage N.R.’s behaviors during visits. According to N.R.’s foster mother, N.R. continued to have daily tantrums that pose d a safety risk to herself and others. The foster mother frequently
had to contact the I ntensive Services Foster Care team for

a ssistance 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. L ater 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 w ith 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.
M other continued to participate in programs and was still employed. Mother had fully complied with her case plan and was making “s ome progress ” with achieving treatment goals in individual therapy. However, mother still struggled to control N.R.’s aggressive behaviors during visits , and mother “continues10

to need assistance

. . . managing the children and ensuring their safety

. ” The Department remained concerned about mother’s ability
to safe l y parent her children. Mother believed that N.R. would
not exhibit the same behaviors at home with her

. T he 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 rep orted that
N.R. had great difficulty coping with her negative emotions , and
th e 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 curr ent 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 need ed 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 would11

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 re unification 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

, afte r 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 13 th placement. Maternal great

aunt reported that N.R. wa s doing well in her home. Mother had moved into her own apartment in late October
2020. M other 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, m aternal great

- aunt reported

t hat 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 , mothe r was living in an apartment, and continued to be employed

, altho ugh 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 approv ed, the Regional Center would provide funding for mother to receive “24 hour service 7 days a week.”12 In November 2020, m other started to have overnight
weekend visits with the children. Regional Center staff w ere 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 tr ied 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 ma ke 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 counse ling 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 retu r ned 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 tol d 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 . M other 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 great

aunt 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 appeare d 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 in appropriate 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 Regiona l 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.
Th e section 366.2 5 permanency review hearing was held on March 26, 2021

. N.R. told the court she wa nted 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 car e. 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 s ection 366.22

, within
18 months after a dependent child is removed from the physical custody of his or her parent, a p ermanency 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 hearing s , 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 legal15

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.) W e 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 th e 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
bene fited 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 findi ng. (

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 h er ca re.” 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 to16

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.5 th 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.