Filed 12/23/13 In re Alex H. CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re A lex H

. et al

. , Person s Coming Under the Juvenil e Court Law.

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

v.

K ATHERINE G

. , Defendant and Appellant. B 24 7978
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK 85 818 )

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anthony Trendacosta
, Commissioner

. A ffirm ed

. Janette Freeman Cochran , under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
John F. Krattli
, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel,
William D. Thetford , Deputy County Counsel
, for Plaintiff and Respondent

.

______________________________2

Katherine G . (mother) appeal s from the juvenile court’ s order denying her Welfare
and Insti tutions Code section 3 88 1 petition, which soug ht reinstatement of reunification
services or the return of her children Alex and A. H

. to her or to the maternal grandmother. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion, and w e affirm it s order denying mo ther’s petition

.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
Alex (born in 2009) and A .H. (born in 2010) came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) as a result of a police respon se to a domestic violence call in December 2010

. In February 2011, the juvenile court sustained parts of DCFS’s section 300 petition alleging the children’s presumed father, Angel H. (father)
, hit mother while she was holding two

- month old A .H., and had earlier dragged
and struck mother in the stomach whil e she was pregnant

. Also sustained were

a llegations that the parents use d methamphetamine and marijuana

. The children were removed from the parents’ custody, and the parents were granted monitored visitation and reunification services. They were ordered to complete drug rehabilitation with random testing, group domestic violence counseling , parenting education, and individual counseling. In December 2011, mother gave birth to a third child, Angel, who also was detained and placed with his siblings in th e home of the maternal grandmother. The parents lived together through most of the period when reunification services were provided for the two older children

. O n April 5, 2012, father was arrested for
domestic violence after he hit mother with his fist s, dragged her on the ground by her hair, and kicked her in the head and stomach several times. On April 12, t he court
combined the twelve

- mont h review hearing for Alex and A .H. with Angel’s jurisdictional hearing. The court sustained allegations of dome stic violence and substance abuse in DCFS’s section 300 petition as to Angel and added him to the parents’ reunification plan.
It terminated father’s reunification services as to Alex and A .H. , continued mother’s

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code

.3

services, and ordered separate monitored v isits for each parent. In May, the children were placed in foster care after the maternal grandmother requested their removal due to ongoing problems with the parents.
At the time of the 18

- month review hearing for the two older children in June 2012, m other was not in compliance with her case plan. She had been terminated from her domestic violence program for lack of attendance and had not completed a parenting

program. By December 2011, mother had completed 21 individual counseling sessions
and an o ut patient substance abuse program , b ut she had not enrolled in an after

- care substance abuse program as recommended by her counselor. B etween February and April 2012 , she had missed five out of seven drug tests. T he court terminated mother’s
reunificatio n services as to Alex and A .H. and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing for
them. Two days before the June 2012 hearing, mother enrolled in a residential substance abuse program at Foley House. In October, h er program counselor reported mother was

uncoope rative, had learned no thing from the program, and continued to prioritize her relationship wi th father over reunifying with her children. Mother had visited the children regularly while they were placed with the maternal grandmother , but after they

were r emoved to foster care, she missed some visits, came to others with father, argued with him, and talked on the phone with him. After entering Foley House, mother made no effort to visit the children at a location closer to their foster care placement, and the foster mother had to bring the children to Foley House. In November 2012, m other moved to Building Blocks, a sober living facility and
enrolled in Options for Recovery, a one

- year treatment program for pregnant women or
mothers with substance abuse p roblem s

. Since an adoptive home had not been found for Alex and A.H., and the maternal grandmother’s adoptive home study was not likely to be approved , the section 3 66.26 hearing was continued. Mother filed her section 3884

petition as to these two childr en in December 2012

. A fourth child, Anthony, was born in January 2013. 2 A combined hearing on the section 388 petition and a six

- month review hearing as

to the third child, Angel
, w as held o n February 21, 2013. Mother testified she was “going

on eight months ” of sobriety, she h ad not been in a relationship with father “for a few months,” and resuming that relationship was not her plan “at the moment.” She was living at a sober living facility and participating in various programs and counseling at Opt ions for Recovery. Her visits with the children were still monitored, but she claimed
that if granted unmonitored visits, she would not allow father to be present. M other
characteriz ed herself as “a work in progress. ” The characteriza tion was seconded b y her case manager at Options for Recovery
, who testified mother was beginning to break “ out of her denial” and was “learning and growing” as far as her relationships were concerned

. DCFS offered evidence disputing mother’s claim that she was not in a re lationship
with father : father attended narcotics anonymous meetings at mother’s sober living facility , which was located within a mile from his house, and he was present at Anthony’s
birth in January 2013. In February, father showed up at mother’s sched uled time for a team decision meeting with DCFS , and the parents visited Angel
, who was hospitalized for pneumonia
, on the same day

. Mother failed to drug test for DCFS consistently. Between April 2012 and January 2013, she missed 11 tests , and she teste d negative nine
times and positive for marijuana once in July 2012

. The court denied m other’s section 388 petition and terminated the parents’
reunification services for Angel. As to the petition, the court concluded mother had
shown that she was making progress, but not that her circumstances had changed or that returning the two older children to her would be in their best interest . The court

2 In April 2013, after the order at issu e in this appeal, the court sustained a non

detained petition as to Anthony, removed him from father’s custody, and ordered family preservation services for mother and reunification services for father.5

specifically found mother was not credible
, and it had no confidence that she would stay away from father. 3 This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION The only issue on appeal is whether the court abused its discretion in denying mother’s section 388 petition.
Section 388 provid es the juvenile court with discre tion to modify a previous order
when a parent presents evid ence of changed circumstances and demonstrates that the request ed modification is in the child’ s best interests. ( In re Stephanie M. (1994)
7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) The parent bears the burden of proving by preponderance of the
evidence that the modification should be granted. ( Ibid .) A showing of changing
circumstances that “ would mean delaying the selection of a permanent home for a child to see if a parent, who has repeatedly failed to reunify with the child, might be able to reunify at some future point , does not promote stabi lity for the child or the child’ s best
interests. [Citation.] ” ( In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47 .) We review the court’s decision on a section 388 petition for abuse of discretion. ( In re Stephanie M.
, supra , 7 Cal.4th at p. 318 .) We do not re weigh the evidence,
redet e rmine the credibility of witnesses
, or resolve conflicts in the evidence or in the
reasonable inferences that may be drawn from it

. ( In re Casey D. , supra , 70 Cal.App.4th at p p

. 52

– 53.)
Mother relies on In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519. The court in that case listed three nonexclusive factors bearing on a section 388 petition: “ (1) the seriousness of the problem which led to the dependency, and the reason for any

3 At the end of the hearing, counsel for DCFS repr esented that there was a family interested in adopting the children, and DCFS later reported the children were matched with a prospective adoptive family on February 21, 2013, the day of the hearing. By April, they had begun weekday overnight visits and h ad grown attached to the prospective adoptive parents.6

continuation of that problem ; (2) the strength of relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent and caretakers; and (3) the degree to which the problem may be easily removed or ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has been. ” ( Id . at
p. 532.) The court ac k

nowledged that the last factor, changed circumstances, was “the essence” of a section 388 petition. ( Id . at p. 531.) The mother in In re Kimberly F

. established that circumstances had changed because the re ason for her children’s removal, the unsanitary an d unsafe conditions of the home, no longer existed at the time her section 388 petition was denied. ( Id . at p. 526

– 527.)
That is not the case here. When she filed the section 388 petition in December 2012, mother had only recently enrolled in the yea r

- long treatment program at Options for Recovery. By February 2013, when the court denied her petition, there was evidence suggesting mother had finally begun making progress on her case issues. But she was not close to completing the program or resolvin g the issues. At best, mother showed that her circumstances were changing, not that they had changed. That showing was insufficient
under section 388. ( See In re Casey D. , supra , 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 47 .) The court also questioned the credibility of m other’s testimony that her circumstances were changing, and we may not redetermine the issue of her credibility on appeal. ( See In re Casey D. , supra , 70 Cal.App.4th at p p . 52

– 53.) In the section 388 petition, mother apparently overstated her case by cla iming she was living in a confidential location even though her sober living facility was close to father ’s residence,
and he attended narcotics anonymous meetings open to the public at that facility. Father’s presence at Anthony’s birth , at a hospital vi sit to see Angel , and at mother’s separately scheduled meeting with DCFS, all within weeks of the hearing, suggested the parents remained in contact despite mother’s claim she had not been in a relationship
with father for several months. Her response at the hearing that she did not plan to have a relationship with father “at the moment” i s too ambiguous to suggest she had the resolve to stay away from him in the future , especially considering the fact that her continued relationship with him produced two additional children during the dependency proceeding. Mother also claimed she consistently tested negative for drugs even though7

she had not consistently submitted to drug tests for DCFS and had tested positive for marijuana in July 2012, less than five m onths before filing the petition. DCFS argues the first factor in In re Kimberly F

. , supra , 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 530

– 531

— “ the gravity of the problem leading to the dependency and the reason that problem was not overcome by the final review ”

— is irrelevant at this stage of the proceeding

. In determining whether a section 388 petition makes the necessary showing, “ the court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case.” ( In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 189.) But mother’s argument that drug use and domestic violence are not serious problems is unsupported by law or fact. Mother relies on In re Rocco M. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 814, 826 and In re W.O. (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 906, 910

– 911 to argue that drugs in the home would not b e sufficient to warrant a dependency proceeding in the case of infant children. She acknowledges th os e cases involv ed dispositional
orders , and this case is past the dispositional stage

. ( See In re A.H. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 337, 351 [ merits of earlier final orders not subject to review in appeal from later order] .) Nor was the availability of drugs to the children ever the issue in this case.
M other’s drug use, by her own account, was linked to her relationship with father, who provided drugs to her and encouraged her to use them. M other’s unhealthy relationship
with father , which resulted in both drug use and domestic violence, was the underlying problem that led to the dependency, and the record indicates mother had difficulty grasping that problem through most of this dependency case. For most of this case, she participated in programs only intermittently and reluctantly and appeared to be in denial about her relationship with father. As late as October 2012, her program counselor at Foley House commented on mother’s lack of cooperation, unrealistic expectations, and faulty priorities. Thus, for two years after the removal of Alex and A.H. from her custody, mother made no substantive progress with her case plan. The court had good
reason to be c autious about her newfound resolve in light of this long history of noncompliance.8

Mother claims the second factor in In re Kimberly F

. , supra , 56 Cal.App.4th 519,
532

— “ the strength of relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent and

care takers ”

— favors returning the children to her or the maternal grandmother since both
had bonded with the children , who at the time of the hearing were not in a permanent or adoptive placement. Where , as here, the section 388 petition follows the terminatio n of reunification services, the child’s interest in continuity and stability is paramount. ( In re Stephanie M.
, supra , 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.) To rebut the presumption that continuity is in the child’s best interest, the parent must show changed circumsta nces that would warrant modification of the court’s earlier orders . ( In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 310.)
The changed conditions of the mother’s home in In re Kimberly F

. allowed the safe return of the children, who were ambivalent about being ad opted by their caretakers. ( Id

. at pp. 523, 526, 532.) On the other hand, In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 418, new

e vidence indicated that severing a bond with a caretaker would cause serious, long

- term emotional damage to a child previously ordere d returned to her father

. While the record indicates mother and the maternal grandmother maintained a relationship with the children, mother cite s no evidence of an actual or significant bond
with them. The children were three and two year s old at the t ime of the hearing and had been out of mother’s custody for most of their lives. Except for a short period between August 2011 and February 2012, mother’s visits with them remained monitored
, and by February 2013 were limited to four and a half hours on w eekends. The maternal grandmother had brief custody of the children between March 2011 and May 2012, and then had unmonitored visits with them every other Sunday. DCFS did not consider her
home a viable adoptive placement ; it reported that she allowed fa ther to visit the children, and during a single overnight visit over Christmas 2012, allowed mother to spend the night.
M other is correct that the children were not yet permanently pl aced at the time of the hearing, but she offered no new evidence or cha nged circumstances that would require delaying or aborting the selection of a permanent or adoptive placement for them.9

( See In re Casey D. , supra , 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 47 .) The court did not abuse its discretion in denying her section 388 petition.

DI SPOSITION
The order is affirmed

. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EPSTEIN, P. J. We concur:

MANELLA, J.

SUZUKAWA, J.