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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).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

Zaragoza 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 presumed father of two-yearold 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 pursue a 

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

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Prior Dependency Proceedings 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, jurisdiction 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 the

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 did

not grasp the seriousness of her actions. She 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. for 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 new 
4

girlfriend, and L.C. had renewed her relationship 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 girlfriend 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 physical 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 were 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 contest 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 them removed from parental custody and 

placed in suitable placement. The court ordered monitored 

visitation and reunification services for L.C. No reunification 
5

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 present. 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 habit of minimizing the domestic violence incidents, 

blaming 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 Department’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 and 

ordered a section 366.26 hearing for December 19, 2019. 

5. Continuance of Section 366.26 Hearing and Denial of 

L.C.’s Request for a Court-Ordered Bonding Study 

On December 19, 2019, the juvenile court continued the 

section 366.26 hearing to March 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 reinstatement 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 March 6, 2020. 

L.C. requested 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 Department that L.C. could obtain her own 

bonding study.

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

and Section 388 Petitions, and Termination of Their 

Parental Rights

At the March 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 to 
7

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 court observed 

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

programs and classes, as evidenced by her continuous verbal and 

physically combative behavior since the termination of 

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

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. The 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 March 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, 196.)

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

continuance. The 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 assist 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. (in

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 the
9

dependency 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 discretion. 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 safely parent the children. The court 

also noted existing 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. The 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 was 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. 1340-1341.) L.C.’s request for a courtordered 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 because
10

the Legislature seeks to prevent 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 1626, 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.