F iled 1/12/ 21 In re J.M. CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This

opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re J

. M. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile

Court Law. B305167

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No.

18CCJP05014)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

DEPARTMENT OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILY

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L

. C. et al.

,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles

County, Martha A. Matthews , Judge. Affirmed.

Zar agoza Law Firm

, Gina Zaragoza , under appointment by

the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant L

. C

. Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant B

. G.

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Acting

Assistant County Counsel, Jessica S. Mitchell , Deputy County

Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 L

. C. and B

. G., the mother and presum ed father of two

- year

old A

. G

. , appeal from the denial of petitions to modify prior

juvenile court orders (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388) 1 and the court’s

subsequent order terminating parental rights to A .G. and

identifying adoption as A .G. ’s permanent plan. (§ 366.26.) L .C.

also appeals from the order denying her petition to modify prior

juvenile court orders concerning five

- year

- old J .M. , whose

presumed father is Juan M. 2 L .C. and B .G. contend the court

abused its discretion in denying a continuance to purs ue a

bonding study. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Prior D ependency P roceedings on Behalf of J .M.

and the Issuance of a 10

- Year Criminal Protective

Order Against Juan M.

In February 2015, a dependency petition was sustained

alleging Juan M. had engaged in physical altercations with L .C.

, endangering infant J .M . J .M. was removed from Juan M. ’s

custody and placed with L .C. , and family preservation services

were offered to L .C . In 2016, jurisdic tion was terminated and

L .C. was awarded sole legal and physical custody of J .M. with

1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions

Code

.

2 Juan M. did not file a section 388 petition

. The section

366.26 hearing concerning his son J .M. was continued

, because

Juan M. was incarcerated, as he was throughout most of this

dependency proceeding

.3

monitored visits for Juan M . A 10

- year criminal protective order

was entered , protecting L .C. from Juan M. until 2025.

2. Filing of a Dependency Petition on Behalf of t he

Children Following L .C. ’s Separate Physical

Altercations with Juan M. and B .G.

In August 2018, the Department of Children and Family

Services (Department) filed a dependency petition on behalf of

three

- year

- old J .M. and infant A .G. alleging they were

endangered in June 2018, when Juan M. engaged in a physical

altercation with L .C. , who contacted Juan M. in violation of the

criminal protective order; and in July 2018 when L .C. physically

attacked B .G. while he was holding A .G

.

L .C. acknowledged her mistake in visiting Juan M. , but d id

not grasp the seriou sness of her actions

. Sh e contended Juan M.

was a good father, and they were working things out. L .C. denied

having “touched” B .G. , insisting the physical altercation never

occurred, and he was “a liar.”

The juvenile court ordered that the children remain

released to L .C. with family maintenance services and monitored

visitation for Juan M. and B .G . L .C. and B .G. were to have no

contact with each other.

3. Arrest of B .G. fo r Inflicting Corporal Injury

and Removal of the Children from L .C. for Having

Contact with B .G.

In September 2018, the Department learned B .G. was

arrested for a domestic violence incident involving his new4

girlfriend, and L .C. had renewed her relations hip with B .G.

, permitting him unmonitored contact with A .G. L .C.

acknowledged she and B .G. were together, but falsely claimed

A .G. was not with them. L .C. believed the Department was

overreacting; she and B .G. wanted to be together now that the

new girlfri end had him arrested. B .G. confirmed that A .G. was

with them and they wanted to be together now as a family

. The juvenile court approved the Department’s request for a

protective custody warrant to remove the children from L .C.

because of the unauthorized contact with B .G . The children were

removed on October 11, 2018 and placed in foster care.

On October 15, 2018, the Department filed an amended

dependency petition adding allegations the children were at risk

of serious physic al harm by B .G. ’s physical altercation with his

new girlfriend and L .C. ’s unauthorized contact with B .G. in

violation of a court order. The petition also alleged L .C. had a

history of substance abuse and B .G. was a current substance

abuser. The children we re ordered to remain in foster care. By

the time of the continued jurisdiction hearing on December 19,

2018, B .G. had been convicted of vandalism and was

incarcerated.

At the jurisdiction hearing, B .G. and L .C. each signed a

waiver form and pleaded no con test to the allegations. The

juvenile court sustained the petition, with the exception of the

substance abuse allegations , which were dismissed.

At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared the

children dependents of the court under section 300 , subdivisions

(a) and (b) and ordered the m removed from parental custody and

placed in suitable placement. The court ordered monitored

visitation and reunification services for L .C . No reunification5

services were ordered for B .G. due to his incarceration ( § 361.5,

subd. (a)) ; he was to have monitored visits upon release

.

4. The Six

- and 12

- Month Review Hearings

Prior to the six

- month review hearing, the Department

learned L .C. had been arrested in June 2019 for being the

aggressor in a domestic violence incident involving her new

boyfriend. L .C. said she felt “unsupported” and blamed her new

boyfriend for “mak[ing] a big deal and just being a crybaby.” The

children were not pre sent. L .C. ’s previously liberalized

unmonitored visitation reverted to monitored visitation. The

Department recommended she participate in an anger

management program

.

At the six

- month review hearing, the juvenile court found

L .C. had made partial progress and ordered continued family

reunification services. L .C. was given a referral for anger

management counseling. The children were to remain in foster

care.

Despite some initial progress, L .C. began to relapse into

her former hab it of minimizing the domestic violence incidents,

b laming others, and refusing to take responsibility for her

impulsive actions. The Department was concerned L .C. still

lacked the insight and skills necessary to ensure her children’s

safety.

The Departmen t’s September 6, 2019 Status Review report

had a change in recommendation to terminate reunification

services and set a section 366.26 hearing.6 At the September 6, 2019 12

- month review hearing, the

juvenile court terminated L .C. ’s reunification services a nd

ordered a section 366.26 hearing for December 19, 2019.

5. Continuance of Section 3 6 6. 2 6 Hearing and Denial of

L .C. ’s Request for a Court

- Ordered Bonding Study

On December 19, 2019, the juvenile court continued the

section 3 6 6. 2 6 hearing to Ma rch 6, 2020 for the completion of an

adoption readiness assessment and a hearing on L .C. ’s newly

filed section 388 petition. In her petition, L .C. sought to modify

the court’s September 6, 2019 order terminating reunification

services and requested reinsta tement of reunification services,

and the return of the children to her custody

, or in the

alternative, unmonitored visitation. B .G. subsequently petitioned

for reunification services. His section 388 petition was also to be

heard on Ma rch 6, 2020

.

L .C. r equested the court to order a bonding study. In

denying the request, the court explained a bonding study would

“ just take too long” under the circumstances. However, the court

agreed with the Departmen t that L .C. could obtain her own

bond ing study.

6. D enial of L .C. ’s and B .G. ’s Requested Continuance

and Section 388 Petitions, and Termination of Their

Parental Rights

At the Ma rch 6, 2020 hearing, L .C. , moved for a 30

- day

continuance to conduct the bonding study. She explained the

bonding study had not occurred as planned due to7

misunderstandings and miscommunications among the parties.

The juvenile court denied the motion.

The court summarily denied B .G. ’s section 388 petition

. The court noted that, since his November 1, 2019 release from

custody , B .G. ’s monitored visits with two

- year

- old A .G. had not

all gone well. The court determined that ordering reunification

services for B .G. would not serve A

. G. ’s best interest after nearly

18 months in her current placement.

L .C. testified in support of her section 388 petition that she

understood the cycle of violence, complied with her case plan, and

visited her children. In denying the petition, the cour t observed

L .C. had failed to internalize the lessons of her court

- ordered

programs and classes, as evidenced by her continuous verbal and

physical ly combative behavior since the termination of

reunification services. The court pointed to L .C. ’s recent ver bal

comments and threats towards a social worker in the children’s

presence and physical altercation with a coworker in a parking

lot. Also “startling” to the court was L .C. ’s testimony that she and

B .G. had never been involved in a physical altercation. T he court

found L .C. had not shown changed conditions and the requested

order would not be in the children’s best interest.

As for the section 366.26 portion of the hearing, the

Department recommended adoption by the current foster

parents. The juvenile court found no exception to adoption

applied and terminated parental rights for A .G . The court

continued the section 366.26 hearing for J .M. because Juan M.

was not present and was still in custody.8 DISCUSSION

L .C. and B .G. contend the juvenile court abused its

discretion by refusing to continue the Ma rch 6, 2020 hearing to

pursue a bonding study.

We review the denial of a continuance for an abuse of

discretion. ( In re Karla C. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 166, 180.) In

dependency cases, continuances shall be granted only upon a

showing of good cause (§ 352, subd. (a))

, and the parent has the

burden to establish that good cause. ( Renee S. v. Superior Court

(1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 187, 1 96.)

L .C. and B .G. argue there was good cause to grant the

continuance. T he court had permitted L .C. to obtain her own

bonding study. Yet, according to the parents, after necessary

arrangements had been made, minors’ counsel and the

Department “thwarted [ L .C. ’s] efforts to have the study actually

occur.” L .C. and B .G. cite no authority that minors’ counsel or the

Department acted improperly by not participating in the bonding

study in the absence of a court order. In essence, the parents are

saying they were entitled to a continuance because the planned

bonding study did not take place. This is not good cause.

Bonding studies a ssist the juvenile court in determining

the applicability of the beneficial relationship exception to the

termination of parental rights under section 366.26, subdivision

(c)(1)(B)(i). (See San Diego Dep’t of Social Services v. Tina G. (i n

re Tabatha G

) (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1167.) The court,

however, is not required to order a bonding study as a condition

precedent to terminating parental rights. ( In re Lorenzo C. (1997)

54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1339.) “ The denial of a belated request for

[a bonding] study is fully consistent with the scheme of the9

depend ency statutes, and with due process.” ( In re Richard C.

(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1197.)

L .C. and B .G. argue the bonding study was necessary to

help establish the beneficial relationship exception as well as the

reinstatement of reunification services

. On this record, the

juvenile court’s decision to deny a continuance for a bonding

study was not an abuse of disc retion. First, as the court made

clear, even if the bonding study were favorable, it would not have

proved helpful as urged by the parents. The issue before the court

was not whether L .C. and her children were bonded, but whether

L .C. had shown she could s afely parent the children. The court

also noted ex isting evidence in the record showed L .C. ’s

relationship with her children had a negative impact on them

.

In any event, to the extent the bonding study could have

proved helpful as the parents contend

, it was a question of too

little too late. T he children were removed from L .C. pursuant to a

protective order on October 11, 2018. Her reunification services

were terminated on September 6, 2019. At that point, family

preservation w as no longer an overriding concern. The focus

shifted to the interests of J .M. and A .G. in permanency and

stability, once they were removed from parental custody and

reunification services were terminated. ( In re Lorenzo C., supra,

54 Cal.App.4th at pp. 13 40

- 1341.) L .C. ’s request for a court

ordered bonding study was rejected in December 2019. After her

own planned study fell through, L .C. , joined by B .G. , did not seek

to conduct a bonding study until the March 6, 2020 section 366.26

hearing. At that point , the children had been in foster care for

nearly 18 months. Granting a continuance would have simply

added more delay to an already drawn out case. Continuances in

dependency proceedings court are expressly discouraged because10

the L egislature seeks to pre vent children from remaining in

dependency limbo any longer than necessary. ( In re Emily L.

(1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 734, 743; see In re David H. (2008) 165

Cal.App.4th 16 2 6, 1635 .) There was no abuse of discretion.

DISPOSITION

The orders denying L .C. ’s and B .G. ’s section 388 petitions

to modify prior juvenile court orders and terminating their

parental rights to A .G. are affirmed. The order denying L .C. ’s

petition to modify prior juvenile court orders concerning J .M is

also affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J.

We concur:

MANELLA

, P.J.

WILLHITE, J.