Filed 9/ 21 /15 In re Michael S. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re MICHAEL S. , a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Co urt Law.

_____________________________________ LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

NICOLE S.
, Defendant and Appellant. B 263355
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK18066 )

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Philip L. Soto , Judge. Affirmed. Johanna R. Shargel , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham
, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harr ison, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica S. Mitchell , Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________2

Nicole S. (mother ) appeals from orders of the juvenile court (1) denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 p etition to have her son Michael H. returned to her care, or, alternatively, to grant her reunification services and increase her visitation
with Michael , and (2) terminating her parental rights. 1 We find no abuse of discretion,
and thus we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother has six children: Anthony S. (born Jun

. 1994), Jasmine C. (born Sep

. 1996), Destiny C. (born Feb . 1998), Selena L. (born Jan. 2002 ), Nicole S. (born May 2003), and Michael H. (born Feb. 2013)

. This appeal relates to the juvenile court’ s orders regarding Michael only.
I.
Detention In April 2014, the Department of Child ren and Family Services (DCFS ) received a report that mother was using drugs and leaving her infant
, Michael, alone with a par olee and fellow drug user

. D CFS received a subsequent report that mother had been arrested in April 2014
, and that sheriff deputies had found methamphetamine in her car. Michael
was in the car with mother at the time of the arrest

. R egarding her methamphetamine

use, mother told the deputies, “ ‘ I just relapsed again the other day, I’m trying to quit. ’ ” Mother told a children’s social worker (CSW) that she had successfully completed

an eight

- month substance t reatment program two years earlier and had been drug

- free

ever since

. How ever, she admitted to recently relapsing because of her mother’s terminal
illness

. Mother has a lengthy criminal history of 26 arrests for mostly drug

- related
offenses

. Michael’s five older sib lings became dependents of the j uvenile c ourt and were
ultim atel y adopted due to mother’s substance abuse and failure to comply with court

ordered drug counseling and testing

. Mother agreed that this time she would need to attend an inpatient t reatment program to become drug

- free and to r egain custody of

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3

Michael

. S he requested that DCFS place her son with appropriate relatives in the interim

. Michael was placed in the care of Joy C. , an extended family member and former foster parent, on May 20, 2014

. In report s dated May 27, 2014, DCFS recommended that Michael remain detained
because there was a “very high” risk he would suffer future abuse or neglect

. Further, due to mother’s extensive history of drug abuse and her failure to reunify with her older children, DCFS requested that a petition be filed on Michael’ s behalf and that Michael
remain detained with Joy and her husband

. Finally, DCFS recommended that no reunification services be offered to mother

. At a detention hearing on May 27, 2014 , the court found a prima facie case for detaining Michael. The cour t ordered DCFS to supply mother with referrals for a drug
rehabilitat ion program with random testing and to provide her with monitored visits at least two to three times a week for two to three hours each

. II.
Petition DCFS filed a juvenile dependency pe tition on May 27, 2014. As subsequently amended, the petition alleged: (b

- 1) Mother had a chronic and unresolved history of
substance abuse and was a current user of methamphetamine. Mother’s illicit drug use placed Michael at risk of harm and impeded h er ability provide him with regular care and supervision.
III. Jurisdiction and Disposition
A. Jurisdiction and Disposition Report
T he j urisdiction and d isposition r eport , dated June 25, 2014
, said mother was currently incarcerated at Century Regional Dete ntion Center. She had been arrested on April 6, April 23, and June 9, 2014
, for possession of controlled substance s , but her largely drug

- related criminal hi story dated back to 1998. Her parole had been revoked when she tested positive for methamphetamin e on June 9, 2014.4

Although m other claimed she had completed an eight

- month drug treatment

program while incarcerated in Bakersfield, she did not provide DCF S with a copy of her
certificate of completion

. Further, on at least two prior occasions, mothe r had either
failed or refused to attend drug rehabilitation programs made available to her

. Accordingly, DCFS advised the court that although mother stated she had changed and

was willing to comply with court orders, she “ continues to battle .

. . her lo ng chronic
substance abuse .

. . and she lacks the conflict resolution skills and she resorts to using drugs when th ings happen in her life.” DCF S recommended that Michael remain
detained based on mother’s drug history and current drug use, her failure to make appropriate arrangements for Michael’s care, her failure to reunify with his siblings, and
her incarceration

. On May 27, 2014 , the court found George H. to be Michael’s alleged father.
However , George H. consistently denied fathering Michael and did not appear to have any interest in becoming involved in Michael’s life

. Based on the above

- mentioned information , DCFS recommended that the court bypass reunification services , that Michael be suitably place d
, and that the court order

p ermanent p lac ement s ervices for Michael

. B. Hearing On June 25, 2014, the court sustained paragraph b

- 1 of the petition and found that
Michael was a person described by section 300
, subdivision (b). It ordered DCFS to provide a supplemental report addressing mother’s p rogress and whether there was any change in DCFS’s recommendation s

. C. Interim Review Report DCFS filed an interim review report dated July 30, 2014. It said that mother
remained incarcerated and that DCFS had not been able to verify her compliance wi th the drug court program. DCFS advised the court , again, that it was in Michael’s best
interest s that mother not be offered reunification services. It noted that Michael was thriving in the home of his current caregivers
, who wished to adopt him

.5

A d ispositi on hear ing was held on August 4, 2014. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that Michael’s placement was necessary and appropriate , and it declared Michael a dependent child pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). The court
declined to orde r r eunification services to mother pursuant to section 361.5 , subdivisions (b) (10) (parent failed to reunify with child’s sibling), (b)(11) ( parental rights over a sibling have been terminated), and (b)(13) ( the parent has a history of extensive, abusive, and chronic use of drugs and has resisted prior court

- ordered treatment for this problem
on at least two prior occasions)

. The court then ordered DCFS to provide perm anent placement services for Michael, and it set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to terminate mother’s parental rights

. IV.

Six Month Review and Section 366.26 Report
DCFS filed a status review report and a section 366.26 report
, both dated December 1, 2014. The status review report stated that Michael was thriving in the home
of his ca regiver s

. According to both mother and the caregiver s , Michael was developmentally on track and was meeting many developmental milestones such as walking without assistance and following simple commands. Michael had no chronic
illnesses or health issues

. Mother was regularly visiting with Michael at the drug treatment center where she was living and the visits were reported to be going well

. Mother told the CSW she “ wants to learn how to remain sober and become a better person in orde r to fit in society
, ” and she said she planned to comply with her current in

patient progr am to help her meet these goals. DCFS recommende d that Michael remain a dependent child of the court and that he continue to receive adoption p lanning servi ces. The section 366.26 re port said that Michael had been living with his caregivers since May 21, 2014
, and that he appeared to be getting appropriate care and was doing
well. The caregivers remained committed to adopting Michael and were currently in the process of completing an adoption application. DCFS stated that at the time of the writing of the report
, mother “continues to have un resolved substance abuse issues ” and
remained incapable of providing Michael with a safe, drug

- free home environment.6

DCFS recommended that the court identify adoption as a permanent placement goal for
Michael.
O n December 1, 2014, the court continued the section 366.26 hearing to March 2,
2015 . T he hearing subsequently was contin ued again to April 2, 2015.
V.
Mother’s S ection 388 Petition
On F ebruary 13 , 2015 , mother filed a section 388 petition asking that Michael be

return ed to her care or, in the alternative, that she be granted reunification services and
increased visitation

. M other asserted that she had been enrolled in Shields For Famili es’

r esidential t reatment p rogram for four month s, after which she enrolled in o utpatient
treatment. The out patient treatment program required her to attend treatment five days a
week from 9:00 a

. m

. to 3:30 p

. m

. , and to submit to daily urinary analysis. According to the program manager, mother had complied with all of the program’s rules and regulations. The court set the section 388 petition for hearing. On February 25, 2015, in response to mother’s section 388 petition, DCFS reported that Michael was bonded to his caregivers and was continuing to thrive in their

care. He w as exhibiting age appropriate behaviors, although he had some developmental and speech delays. The caregivers said helping Michael catch up developmentally was their priority. They had continued to voice their commi tment to adopting Michael and help ing him receive any available support services to aid his development.
DCFS reported that since enrolling with Shields For Families, mother had had eight negative drug tests and no posit ive tests. She was reported to interact well with Michael during weekly monitored visits. Nonetheless , DCFS continued to recommend that reunifying with mother was not in Michael’s best interests. DCFS noted that when
mother was asked what her care plan for Michae l would be while she was enrolled in a
fu ll out patient program , mother said “ ‘ I don’t know yet. ’ ” M other admitted to the CSW that “the longest she has ever raised a child was about one year bef ore [the] child was
removed ” due to her substance abuse. Further, at the time of the petition, mother had7

been sober for only about six months
, “ and that was only due to an arrest and subsequent order to enter a drug program.”
VI. April 2015 Status Review Report
DCFS filed a status review report dated A pril 2, 2015. It reported that Michael appeared well bonded to his caregiver s , noting that d uring the CSW ’s vis its, he would
hold on to his caregiver’s leg and reach out to her to be carried or held throughout his play. His caregivers continue d to active ly participate in multiple services aimed at helping him achieve his target ed development al milestones. Michael was regularly visiting mother at Shield s For Families , and visits were reported to have gone well. DCFS provided an addendum report dated Apri l 2, 2015. It informed the court that the adoption home s tudy for Michael ’s caregivers had been completed and was approved on March 24, 2015. Thus, DCFS requested that the court proceed with termination of parental rights.
VII. April 2, 2015 Hearing
The court held a contested section 388 and section 366.26 hearing on April 2,
2015. The parties stipulated that if called as a witness , the caregiver would testify that mother had been having regular monitored visits with Michael and that the visits were

app ropriate. Mother had requested lengthier visits, but DCFS had denied that request.
M other’s attorney argued that the section 388 petition should be granted because mother had completed a drug program, remained sober since the inception of the case,
and re gularly visited Michael

. Michael knew mother and had a relationship with her

. Counsel for Michael and DCFS disagreed, urging that in light of mother’s long history of drug abuse, granting the section 388 petition was not in Michael’s best interests.
The juvenile court denied mother’s section 388 petition as not in Michael’s best
interest s

. The court explained to mother : “ [ Y ] ou’ve got a very long history of drug
addiction. You have not reunified with other children that hav e been in the system. The
oth er children that have been in the system have also been adopted out. It was a slim8

chance that you would be able to do this, but we decided to give you a chance, and it simply wasn’t done in time to be ab le to reunify with this child.” The court
acknowle dged the progress mother had made towards rehabilitation
, but emphasized Michael’s need for permanency . Further, in light of mother’s lengthy history of drug abuse, the possibility of relapse is “very high still.” With regard to the section 366.26 petitio n, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Michael was adoptable and that “it would be detrimental for the child to be returned to the parents and there’s no exception a pplying in this case.” It ordered parenta l rights terminated and Michael ’s custody and care transferred to DCFS for adoptive planning purposes. Mother timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
I. Applicable Law
Section 388 is a device that allows interested parties to petition the court to change, modify, or set aside an earlier court ord er based on “any change of circumstance
or new evidence.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) In other words, section 388 serves as an

“ ‘ escape mechanism ’ ” to “accommodate the possibility that circumstances may change

. . . that may justify a change in a prior reun ification order.” ( In re Marilyn H . (1993)
5 Cal.4th 295, 309 ( Marilyn H

. )

. ) The burden of proof is on the moving party “to show by a preponderance of the evidence both that there are changed circumstances or new evidence and that also a change in court order would be in the best interest of the child.” ( In re D.B. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1089

. ) H owever, “ [ n ] ot every change in circumstance can justify modification of a prior order” ; the change of circumstance or new evidence must be of such signifi cance that it requires modifying or setting aside the challenged order. ( In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 612

. ) Further, “it is not enough for a parent to show just a genuine change of circumstances.” ( In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 529 ( Kimberly F. )

. ) The parent must show that the requested change of court order would be in the child’s best interest s

.9

A ruling on a section 388 petition is within the sound discretion of the juvenile court and will only be disturbed if an abuse of d iscretion is clearly established. ( In re
D.B. , supra , 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 1089

. ) “An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court has exceeded the bounds of reason by making an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd determination.” ( In re Marc elo B

. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 635
, 642
, quoting In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318 ( Stephanie M. ).) However,

“ ‘[ w ] hen two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decisi on for that of the trial court. ’ ” ( Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 272, quoting Shamblin v. Brattain (1988) 44 Cal.3d 474, 478

- 479 ) ; Stephanie M.
, supra , at p. 318

- 319 .) Therefore, “ ‘[ t ] he appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whe ther the trial court exceeded the bo u nds of

reason. ’ ” ( Stephanie M. , supra , at p. 318 )

. II.

T he Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion i n Denying Mother’s Section 388 Petition Mother urges that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition because she “did everything she possibly could have done to change her
circumstances.” She emphasizes that having recognized the need for treatment in order to become a responsible parent, she successfully completed an inpatient prog ram and
advanced to a full

- day outpatient program with daily drug testing. Further, since beginning treatment , she has never had a dirty test and was consistent with her visitation. Thus, mother argues that the juvenile court “had every reason to grant h er change

- of

circumstances petition.” While we applaud mother’s efforts to overcome her drug addiction, t o support a section 388 petition, the change in circumstances must be substantial. ( In re Ernesto R

. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 219, 223 ( Ernesto R. ) .) M other’s recent sobriety “reflects

‘ changing, ’ not changed, circumstances. ” ( Ibid

. , citing Casey D

. , supra , 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 49.) Mother has a history of drug relapses, is in the early stages of recovery, and is still addressing a chronic substance ab use problem. (See Ernesto R ., supra , at p. 223;10

Kimberly F
., supra , 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 531 .) Mother’s completion of a drug treatment program, though commendable, is not a substantial change of circumstances. Further, by simply focusing on her drug reha bilitation, mother fails to “explore the nature of the ‘best interests’ aspect of section 388.” ( Kimb erly F. , supra , 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 529 .) Michael has been in the care of his current caregivers for nearly half his life
and is bonded to them. His ca regivers have provided a nurturing environment and are committed to adopting him. Granting a section 388 petition would delay selection of a permanent home and not serve Michael’s best interests. ( In re Casey D . (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 49 ( Casey D

. ) ; E rnesto R. , supra , 230 Cal. A pp.4th at pp. 223

- 224.) “Childhood does not wait for the parent to become adequate. [Citation.] ” ( Marilyn H

. , supra , 5 Cal.4th at p. 310. ) Further, mother did not demonstrate that she could care for Michael while she
continu e d her drug treatment. At the time of the petition, mot her was participating in an

out patient program, which required that she attend classes five days a week from
9:00 a

. m

. to 3:30 p

. m

. , and she could not provide DCFS with a child care plan for
Michael. Moreover , Michael’s young age meant that he was too young to be able to protect himself if mother should relapse . ( Casey D

. , supra , 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 49 .) Mother’s sole contention with regard to Michael’s best interests is that the “existing family un it” should be preserved. While we agree that preserving existing families is important, when, as here, reunification services were terminated, “the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability.” ( In re Angel B . (2002) 97 Cal.App.4t h 454, 464 .)
While we acknow ledge that section 388 is difficult for the moving party to meet in

many cases, mother’s failure in this regard is not based solely on her “pre

- petition failures” as she alleges, but on the fact that she did not make an adequa te showing that a modification of the prior order would be in Michael’s best interest. Thus, we find no
merit to her claims that the juvenile court rejected her petition simply because it was “dead set against parental reunification.” As such, we find th at the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying her section 388 petition. Further, because mother did not11

demonstrate a n independent basis for reversing the order terminating mother’s parental rights, our conclusion is dispositive of mother’ s appeals from both the denial of her
section 388 petition and the order terminating her parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The order s of the juvenile court denying mother’s section 388 pe t ition and terminating her parental rights are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBL ISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EDMON, P. J.

We concur:

LAVIN , J.

JONES , J. *

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justic e pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.