Filed 11/22/23 In re J.M. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re J.M., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

 D082385

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH 

AND HUMAN SERVICES 

AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

P.M. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 (Super. Ct. No. J521176)

APPEALS from the orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Marissa A. Bejarano, Judge. Affirmed. 

Suzanne M. Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant P.M. 

Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant J.M. 
2

Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy

County Counsel, and Eliza Molk, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent. 

P.M. (Mother) and her son, J.M., appeal from the juvenile court’s 

findings and orders made at the Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 361

dispositional hearing. On appeal, Mother and J.M. argue that the juvenile 

court abused its discretion in placing J.M. in Arizona with the maternal aunt 

pursuant to section 361.3, the relative placement statute. We disagree and 

affirm the trial court. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Abuse Incident Leads to Agency Referral 

In January 2023, bystanders physically detained Mother after they saw

her hit her then two-year-old-son J.M. in the face multiple times. A 

bystander took J.M. from Mother while other individuals called police. 

Mother was intoxicated and attempting to leave when she encountered 

another bystander, whom she punched in the face and knocked to the ground. 

Upon arriving at the scene, an emergency response worker saw an open 

bottle of liquor, readily accessible to J.M., next to Mother’s belongings.

Emergency responders took J.M. and Mother to separate hospitals. 

A doctor examined J.M., finding a swollen upper lip and a reddened

cheek with linear marks. The doctor opined that the injuries were diagnostic 

of physical abuse. Upon receiving a call from law enforcement about the 

incident, J.M.’s maternal great-uncle attended to J.M. at the hospital and 

signed a caregiver affidavit. 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code. 
3

B. The Agency’s Initial Investigation

The great-uncle told the social worker that he did not get along with 

Mother because she acted verbally and physically aggressive toward J.M. He 

already adopted J.M.’s older sister due to Mother’s drug use and domestic 

violence. The night prior to this incident, J.M. spent the night at the greatuncle’s house. When the great-uncle returned J.M. to Mother, J.M. clung to 

him, not wanting to go. The great-uncle said he was “done with” Mother, 

emphasized her aggressive nature, expressed concern for J.M.’s safety while 

in her care, and described her as a “ticking time bomb” with “no care for

[J.M.].” The great-uncle said that Mother fails to keep J.M. clean and sells 

J.M.’s shoes, clothing, and toys for money to buy drugs. Hospital staff and 

the emergency response worker observed J.M. to be bonded and affectionate 

with the great-uncle. 

Mother told the social worker that, prior to the incident, she took J.M. 

with her to get liquor, drinking two shots of liquor once outside the store. 

She explained that she suffered from schizophrenia, could not decipher her 

surroundings and experienced “ ‘blacking in and out. I don’t know what was 

real or what wasn’t real.’ ” However, she admitted she yelled and cursed at 

J.M. and may have accidentally hit him. The Agency previously opened a 

voluntary case for Mother because she used heroin, methamphetamine, and 

marijuana while pregnant with J.M. She took illicit drugs during her first 

trimester, but ceased use after learning of her pregnancy. Mother reported

avoiding controlled substances since 2021 but drank alcohol on and off every 

few months. In addition to schizophrenia, Mother suffers from bipolar 

disorder. She stopped taking psychotropic medication a few years earlier and 

did not participate in mental health services. 
4

The social worker also spoke with J.M.’s maternal aunt (Aunt), who

reported that Mother cared for J.M.’s basic needs but yelled at him due to 

frustration. Aunt was concerned about Mother’s substance abuse and mental 

health. She believed Mother failed to place J.M. on an appropriate sleep 

schedule. Aunt observed J.M. exhibiting some of Mother’s negative habits, 

like her short temper. Aunt and the maternal family attempted to correct

those behaviors in J.M. She and the maternal family agreed the great-uncle 

would make the best immediate custody placement for J.M. because the 

great-uncle lived in San Diego. Aunt lived in Arizona but expressed her 

desire to provide J.M. long-term care.

C. The Agency’s Petition and the Detention Hearing

In early February 2023, soon after the January 2023 incident, the 

Agency filed a petition on J.M.’s behalf because of Mother’s untreated mental 

health issues. Mother agreed to allow the great-uncle to care for J.M. as part 

of a safety plan. The Agency received a criminal protective order prohibiting 

contact between J.M. and Mother until 2026. The juvenile court appointed 

counsel for Mother and for J.M. while detaining J.M. in the great-uncle’s 

home. To align the criminal court order with juvenile orders, the criminal 

court modified its protective order to allow Mother supervised visits. 

D. The Agency’s February 2023 Jurisdiction and Disposition 

Report

As part of its responsibilities, the Agency prepared a jurisdiction and 

disposition report. It reflected Mother reported using alcohol and marijuana

starting at age eight, cocaine in junior high school, and “crack” after leaving 

high school. Although she experienced periods of sobriety lasting up to five 

years, she also began using methamphetamine and heroin. She suffers from 

bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, was prescribed medication, but 

inconsistently complied with treatment. Mother recently received new 
5

prescriptions and began taking her medication because of this case. In early 

February 2023, Mother tested negative for all substances. Mother initially 

expressed wanting J.M. placed with the great-uncle, Aunt, or any maternal 

family member. 

The Agency report reflects that the great-uncle once again expressed 

fear for J.M.’s safety if Mother regained custody. He identified several 

individuals to testify against J.M.’s return to Mother’s care. The great-uncle

did not think Mother should ever regain custody of J.M. or that they should 

have any contact. When the social worker brought up visitation between 

Mother and J.M., he responded, “ ‘I will not allow that to happen’ ” and “ ‘I 

am going to stop that.’ ” The social worker informed him that he cannot 

make decisions regarding visitation, that all parties must abide by the court’s 

orders, and that he should be more neutral with the court process and in his 

role as J.M.’s caregiver. 

Aunt noted that Mother did not express gratitude to the maternal 

family for their care of her older children. Mother could be manipulative, 

mean, and loving all at the same time. As one example, Aunt recounted how 

Mother and J.M. stayed with her for Thanksgiving. Even though Aunt 

requested that while staying at her house, Mother not abuse any substances, 

Mother got drunk and high, yelling in the streets at 1:00 a.m. Police 

responded after receiving a complaint call. However, given the great-uncle’s 

and other relatives’ advancing ages, and that these people already spent time 

caring for Mother’s children, Aunt felt it was her turn to take care of J.M. 

Aunt asked the Agency to submit an Interstate Compact on Placement 

of Children (ICPC) assessment for her because she wanted J.M.’s long-term 

placement. She agreed to supervise Mother’s visits, although she preferred 

that visits take place outside her home due to Mother’s behavior at 
6

Thanksgiving. When asked about the relationship between the great-uncle

and Mother, Aunt expressed that she tries to remain neutral. She 

encouraged Mother to show respect to the great-uncle. 

The social worker held a child and family team meeting with the 

maternal family members. Although the great-uncle showed a willingness to 

work with the Agency, he did not want to communicate with Mother by 

telephone. The social worker explained that caregivers generally cannot 

decline to communicate with a parent. The social worker noted the Agency 

would consider an alternate placement if the great-uncle continued to refuse 

engaging in the court process. 

In its report the Agency recommended the juvenile court find J.M.’s 

petition true. It also urged the court to remove J.M. from Mother’s care, 

place him with a relative, and bypass section 361.5 reunification services for 

Mother. (§ 361.5, subdivision (b)(11).) 

E. The Jurisdiction Hearing

Mother and J.M. agreed to bifurcate jurisdiction and disposition, since 

the juvenile court could not order a placement assessment for Aunt until it 

found jurisdiction. At the March 2023 contested hearing, the court found 

J.M.’s petition true. It authorized the great-uncle to use the Agency as an 

intermediary to provide Mother with updates about J.M. 

Following the Agency’s request, and Mother’s agreement, the court 

ordered Aunt’s assessment to prepare for J.M.’s placement with her in 

Arizona. Mother also agreed with the court authorizing J.M. and the greatuncle to stay with Aunt in Arizona for a weekend. 

F. The Agency’s May 2023 Report

Between February and April 2023, Mother experienced multiple drug 

use relapses interspersed with negative tests for illegal substances. She
7

reported experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations. In or around April

2023, Mother moved into an inpatient treatment program. 

J.M. remained placed with great-uncle and became attached to him. 

J.M. underwent a developmental screening because he screamed and cried at 

night, he struggled to share, and he hit others when he was upset. Following

multiple sessions with a specialist, J.M. met his goals of decreased hitting 

and he learned to share with others. 

J.M.’s teacher also reported improvements. When he started class in 

February 2023, he was afraid to interact with others, refused to participate in 

classroom activities, and was slightly aggressive in play. By March 2023, he 

interacted with everyone, exhibited confidence, was engaged, and 

transitioned from the great-uncle without issue. 

The social worker spoke to two other maternal great-uncles. One 

opined that J.M. should be placed with Aunt since her home was stable, her 

daughter attended a top school, and this presented the only chance for J.M. to 

live in a secure environment. The other maternal great-uncle confirmed

Aunt could provide support and care for J.M. 

In March 2023, Mother participated in her first visit with J.M. J.M. 

requested the great-uncle several times during the visit. The great-uncle

reported J.M.’s behavior regressed afterwards, with J.M. appearing more 

fearful and with increased crying episodes. Mother visited with J.M. two 

additional times in April. 

In April 2023, the Agency learned that Arizona authorities approved 

the ICPC for J.M. to live with Aunt. The Agency asked the juvenile court for 

discretion to place J.M. there. Aunt was prepared for J.M. to live with her

and visited him while he resided in the great-uncle’s care. 
8

G. The Agency’s June 2023 Report

In its June 5, 2023 addendum report, the Agency described that the 

great-uncle reported J.M. did well at daycare and improved in various areas. 

J.M. also became attached to one sister, video chatted with another sister in 

Arizona, and did not ask for Mother. The great-uncle noted that he spent a 

significant amount of time stabilizing J.M. due to the abuse and trauma J.M.

suffered in Mother’s care. The great-uncle again reported J.M. exhibited 

negative behaviors after visits with Mother. 

The Agency also noted Aunt remained in regular contact with Mother. 

Aunt and Mother discussed allowing the maternal family to care for J.M. so 

he could enjoy stability while Mother worked on her protective issues. If the 

court placed J.M. in her care, Aunt would both allow Mother to visit J.M. in 

Arizona and facilitate frequent Facetime visits. Aunt also expressed 

willingness to travel to San Diego monthly so J.M. might visit with Mother. 

Aunt reported that Mother wanted custody of J.M. to receive government 

benefits and, invoke sympathy with the criminal court.2 Further, Mother 

expressed a preference to putting J.M. in foster care because she “does not 

want to work with the family.”

Aunt wrote a letter to the court requesting immediate and long-term 

placement of J.M. She loved and cared for J.M., video chatting with him 

almost daily. Aunt already selected a preschool for J.M.; she is excited to 

enroll him in activities and enrichment resources. Aunt felt ready to receive 

J.M. into her home.

2 The January 27, 2023 event, in which bystanders restrained mother 

from hitting J.M., resulted in Coronado Police Department officers 

responding to the scene. Officers arrested Mother. The Office of the San 

Diego County District Attorney filed a felony child abuse charge and a 

misdemeanor child charge against Mother.
9

Mother initially wanted J.M. placed with Aunt, although she implied it 

would be easier to reunify with J.M. if he remained in San Diego. However, if 

the court bypassed her reunification services Mother wanted J.M. placed with 

Aunt. Mother felt the great-uncle was tired and needed a break from caring 

for J.M., especially because he also cared for her oldest daughter. 

The Agency report also reflects that the maternal grandmother 

reported that Mother wished to relinquish her parental rights. The amount 

of psychotropic medication Mother required rendered her unable to care for 

J.M. Mother similarly expressed concern about caring for J.M. in her current 

mental state, saying, “ ‘I don’t think I can take care of him with my diagnosis, 

I cannot.’ ” When Mother reported she wanted J.M. adopted and placed in a 

stable home, the social worker encouraged her to speak with her attorney. 

Mother’s attorney later sent an email to the Agency, which stated that the 

maternal family had been “pressuring her immensely to agree to have [J.M.] 

adopted by [Aunt].”

During this reporting period Mother completed four visits with J.M.

Social workers observed Mother acted appropriately with J.M., and the two 

shared positive interactions. She also maintained her sobriety and 

participated in voluntary services including substance abuse and mental 

health treatment, parenting class, and a child abuse group. Because it

seemed Mother wanted to reunify with J.M., the Agency recommended 

reunification services for her. The Agency’s proposed case plan included 

Mother’s participation in a child abuse group, a parenting service, and an 

inpatient substance abuse treatment program. It also mandated that she

work with a mental health provider and comply with a psychiatric medication 

regimen. 
10

Regarding an interim placement, the Agency assessed the section 361.3

factors concluding they weighed in favor of J.M.’s placement with Aunt. She 

was aware of J.M.’s needs, prepared her home for him, and researched 

schools and activities on his behalf. The maternal grandmother and the 

great-uncle also wanted J.M. to be placed with Aunt. Although Mother

initially agreed with this approach, and did throughout most of the case, she

at times implied she wanted J.M. to remain in San Diego for reunification 

purposes.

Regarding reunification, Aunt was willing to follow all related court 

orders. She was also willing to facilitate visitation between J.M. and Mother, 

as well as visits between J.M. and his sisters. Aunt was willing to provide 

J.M. with permanency if reunification efforts failed, and she found daycare

providers and/or preschools for J.M.

The Agency report observed that the great-uncle expressed a

willingness to provide temporary care of J.M. The maternal family believed

the great-uncle grew tired of caring for Mother’s children. The great-uncle

hesitated to state these feelings because he did not want J.M. in foster care. 

Moreover, the great-uncle and Mother had a strained relationship. The 

Agency opined this could adversely affect reunification, which required 

communication between the caregiver and the parent.

H. The Contested Disposition Hearing

At the June 2023 contested disposition hearing, the juvenile court 

received the Agency’s reports into evidence without objection. 

The social worker testified that the Agency would fund Mother’s visits 

to Arizona if J.M. moved there, including her travel and accommodations. 

The Agency would also arrange accommodations for J.M. to visit Mother in 

San Diego. Mother would potentially enjoy longer visits in Arizona because 
11

she would be there for consecutive days. That meant the visits could be 

scheduled for more days in the week than she enjoyed in San Diego, 

depending on “what the family would be available to do.” Aunt expressed 

willingness to supervise Mother’s visits with J.M. and the Agency could

assess additional individuals to supervise visits. The Agency would

communicate with Mother’s service providers to determine her availability to 

visit J.M. In determining whether to expand Mother’s time with J.M., the 

Agency would evaluate visit information from Aunt, as well as observations

from Mother’s providers about her progress in services. 

Aunt testified about her willingness to abide by the court’s visitation 

orders. The social worker did not believe Aunt harbored bias against Mother

or would impede reunification. Aunt loved Mother, but Aunt also felt

protective of J.M. However, Aunt would not accommodate visits in her house. 

In contrast, the great-uncle refused to supervise Mother’s visits, declined to 

have contact with Mother, and expressed concern about reunification. 

Upon learning the Agency was going to recommend reunification 

services, Aunt “talked to the family” to figure out how to “support” Mother. 

The Agency viewed Aunt as the family member who “kind of helps everything 

stick together.” The social worker viewed Aunt as the “most neutral” family 

member; Aunt even agreed to support Mother throughout the process. The

social worker did not believe Aunt would pressure Mother to agree to 

adoption. 

J.M. and Mother asked the court to maintain J.M.’s placement with the 

great-uncle. They believed it would be better for reunification and visitation. 

I. The Court’s Ruling

After weighing the section 361.3 factors, the juvenile court found J.M.’s 

best interests favored placement with Aunt. The maternal family wanted 
12

J.M. to be placed with Aunt. Mother also originally wanted J.M. to be placed

with Aunt, and for Aunt to adopt him. 

Further, Aunt was willing to care for J.M. during reunification, and

agreed to a permanent placement should reunification efforts fail. Aunt 

would travel to San Diego monthly to facilitate visitation between Mother 

and J.M. Aunt also agreed to supervise visits for them in Arizona and 

support video calls so Mother and J.M. could talk to each other. The court 

ordered the Agency to hold a child and family team meeting to create a 

visitation plan for Mother. J.M. would remain in San Diego until the plan 

got deployed. 

At Mother’s request, the juvenile court granted her leave to set a 

special hearing if issues regarding visitation arose. 

DISCUSSION

The sole issue presented in Mother’s and J.M.’s appeal is whether the 

juvenile court erred by failing to apply properly section 361.3’s relative 

placement preference criteria. Specifically, Mother and J.M. both claim the 

juvenile court did not correctly weigh the section 361.3 factors otherwise the 

court would place J.M. with the great-uncle. We disagree. 

A. Standard of Review

We review the juvenile court’s determination regarding placement with 

a relative under the abuse of discretion standard. (Alicia B. v. Superior Court

(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 863.) We “ ‘interfere only “ ‘if we find that under 

all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court’s action, 

no judge could reasonably have made the order that he did.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.; see In 

re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318 (Stephanie M.) [noting “when a 

court has made a custody determination in a dependency proceeding, ‘ “a 

reviewing court will not disturb that decision unless the trial court has 
13

exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or 

patently absurd determination [citations]” ’ ”].) 

B. General Legal Principles

Section 361.3 identifies the factors that the court and social worker 

must consider to determine whether placement in a relative’s home is in a 

child’s best interests. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(1)-(8).) These criteria include but 

are not limited to: (1) the child’s best interests; (2) the wishes of the parents, 

the relative, and the child; (3) the moral character of the relative and any 

others living in that home; (4) the length and quality of the relationship 

between the relative and the child; and (5) the relative’s ability to provide a 

safe, stable environment for the child. (§ 361.3, subd. (a).) 

“When considering whether to place the child with a relative, the 

juvenile court must apply the placement factors, and any other relevant 

factors, and exercise its independent judgment concerning the relative’s 

request for placement.” (In re Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708, 719 

(Isabella G.).) Relatives are to “ ‘be assessed and considered favorably, 

subject to the juvenile court’s consideration of the suitability of the relative’s 

home and the best interests of the child.’ ” (Ibid., italics omitted.) The 

“linchpin of a section 361.3 analysis is whether placement with a relative is 

in the best interests of the minor.” (Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 

Cal.App.4th 856, 862-863.) 

C. Analysis

Mother argues that the juvenile court “improperly weighed the factors 

under section 361.3, subdivision (a).” J.M. similarly argues that “the relative 

placement factors weighed in favor of denying the [A]gency’s request to move 

[J.M.] to Arizona.” Through this argument Mother and J.M. ask us to 

reweigh the evidence and then conclude placement with the great-uncle is the 
14

proper decision. But that we cannot do on appeal. (See Stephanie M., supra,

7 Cal.4th at p. 319 [“the Court of Appeal improperly reweighed the evidence 

and substituted its judgment for that of the juvenile court. Its decision 

cannot stand.”]; In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53 [“We have no 

power to judge the effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence, to 

consider the credibility of witnesses or to resolve conflicts in the evidence or 

the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from that evidence”], 

overruled on other grounds in In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 636, fn. 

5.) 

J.M. is also incorrect to argue that “the question of relative placement 

was not presently a legitimate consideration at the disposition hearing.” On 

the contrary, the law required the juvenile court at the disposition hearing to 

assess J.M. for placement with Aunt. (§ 361.3, subd. (b) [“In any case in 

which more than one relative requests preferential consideration pursuant to 

this section, each relative shall be considered under the factors enumerated 

in subdivision (a).”]; see also In re Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708, 719 

[“The Agency is required to assess those relatives seeking placement 

according to the factors described in section 361.3, subdivision (a) (placement 

factors) and must document those efforts . . . ”], italics in original.) Moreover, 

section 361.3, subdivision (b) expressly provides that the Agency can “place a 

child in the home of a relative . . . pending the consideration of other relatives 

who have requested preferential consideration.” The court did not err when 

it considered placing J.M. with Aunt even though the court previously placed 

J.M. with the great-uncle. 

J.M.’s reliance on In re Maria Q. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 577 (Maria Q.) 

is misplaced. In Maria Q., we considered whether section 361.3 applied to a 

post-permanency placement request. (Maria Q., at p. 581.) Here, there was
15

no such request. Instead, Aunt asked for placement prior to the dispositional 

hearing. In this situation Maria Q. is inapposite. 

The record before us supports the juvenile court’s decision to place J.M. 

with Aunt. The court correctly found that Mother expressed “on more than 

one occasion” that J.M. should be placed with Aunt, including as recently as 

June 2023. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(2).) Both Mother and J.M. agreed to bifurcate 

jurisdiction and disposition to allow time for a court ordered placement 

assessment for Aunt. Moreover, although Mother suggested it would be 

easier to reunify if J.M. lived in San Diego, she never expressed to the Agency 

that she did not want J.M. placed with Aunt. Indeed, Mother repeatedly 

expressed that J.M. should live with Aunt if the court bypassed her 

reunification services. 

The court also correctly found Aunt wanted to care for J.M. during not 

only reunification, but permanently if Mother’s reunification effort ended 

unsuccessfully. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(2), (a)(6) & (a)(7)(H)(i).) Aunt requested 

J.M.’s immediate and long-term placement with her, asking the Agency to 

submit an assessment of her. Aunt felt ready to care for J.M. and expressed

concern that other relatives, like the great-uncle, were getting older and 

already cared for Mother’s other children. Mother similarly expressed 

concern that the great-uncle was tired and needed a break from caring for 

J.M. Additionally, Aunt took part in J.M.’s life since his birth. (§ 361.3, 

subd. (a)(6).) She saw J.M. several times per year before the Agency opened 

this case, and J.M. and Mother stayed with her during the prior 

Thanksgiving holiday. During this matter’s pendency, Aunt visited J.M. in 

San Diego and spoke to him on Facetime almost every day. These facts 

support the court’s decision. 
16

But Mother and J.M. argue that the court erred in placing J.M. “in a 

home 350 miles away from [Mother].” They contend that J.M.’s placement in 

Arizona makes visitation more difficult and impedes reunification. The court, 

however, correctly recognized Aunt’s willingness to facilitate court-ordered 

reunification activities in California. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(E) & (a)(7)(G).) 

Aunt expressed support for monthly travel with J.M. to San Diego for visits. 

She also stated her willingness to supervise visits in Arizona. The Agency 

would arrange Mother’s travel to Arizona and provide accommodations. 

Consequently, Mother could potentially visit J.M. for more time while in 

Arizona than she might in San Diego. While Mother’s visits to Arizona 

required advanced planning with her service providers and Aunt, San Diego 

visits also need scheduling for a variety of reasons, including currently the 

great-uncle would not allow spontaneous visits with J.M.

Indeed, the great-uncle refused to facilitate court-ordered reunification 

efforts with Mother. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(E).) He was unwilling to supervise 

her visits, declined to have contact with her, and expressed concern about the 

possibility of J.M. returning to her care. Furthermore, great-uncle stated he 

would not provide J.M. with a permanent home if reunification efforts failed. 

The court correctly found these factors weighed against placing J.M. with the 

great-uncle. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(H)(i)) 

The record further establishes that Aunt provided J.M. a safe, secure, 

and stable environment, including a home that continued the structure he 

experienced with great-uncle. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(A).) In addition, Aunt 

provided J.M. with the necessities of life, including a designated room and 

enrollment in activities and enrichment resources. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(C)) 

She stated a willingness to protect J.M. from Mother and tried to correct 
17

some of the negative qualities J.M. learned from Mother, like Mother’s short 

temper. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(D).)

Aunt would also facilitate visitation with J.M.’s relatives, including his 

sisters and other family residing in Arizona. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(F).) Since 

the Agency approved Aunt’s home for placement, the court could presume its 

safety. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(8)(A).) Additionally, Aunt expressed an ability to 

exercise proper and effective care and control over J.M. (§ 361.3, subd. 

(a)(7)(B).) After “consider[ing] all of those factors in determining which 

relative placement is in [J.M.’s] best interest,” the court reasonably 

determined it was in J.M.’s best interests to live with Aunt.

Here, the juvenile court was ideally suited to “make the hard call” as to

which of two placement options served J.M.’s best interests. (See In re M.H. 

(2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1296, 1305.) Substantial evidence supports the court’s

decision to place J.M. with Aunt. (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 319 

[“When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the 

reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial 

court”].) We find the court did not abuse its discretion. (In re Tanis H. (1997) 

59 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1227 [The trial court has “broad discretion to determine 

what best serves a child’s interests”].) 
18

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s findings and orders are affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

IRION, J.