Filed 3/1/24 In re Connor J. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

In re CONNOR J. et al.,

Persons Coming Under 

Juvenile Court Law.

 B329833

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP05142)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ERICA G.

Defendant and 

 Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay III, Judge. Affirmed.
2

Katie Curtis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,

for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________

In the proceedings below, after appellant mother Erica G. 

failed to reunify with her son Connor after being provided more 

than two years of reunification services, the juvenile court 

terminated reunification services and set a hearing under 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 The court found 

that Connor could not be released to Mother because, due to his 

extreme behavior, Mother lacked the ability to keep him safe.

Four months later, Mother filed a petition under section 

388 asking for reunification services to be reinstated, for the 

section 366.26 hearing to be taken off-calendar, and for a hearing 

to be held to determine whether Connor could safely be returned 

to her. The court summarily denied the petition, finding it did 

not “state new evidence or a change of circumstances.” 

On appeal, Mother contends the court erred in summarily 

denying her petition because she submitted evidence that she 

was observed “utiliz[ing] safe play” with Connor, had shown 

accountability for her “previous shortcomings,” had “gained 

insight” into her role in keeping Connor safe, and had expressed 

commitment to “a life of learning” in order to best meet Connor’s 

needs. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
3

determining that Mother failed to demonstrate a substantial 

change in circumstances, and therefore affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

A. DCFS Files a Petition

In September 2020, firefighters summoned to the family 

home for a medical emergency pertaining to the maternal 

grandmother reported to the police that “two young minors were 

being kept in a cage in the kitchen.” Police officers responded

and found the home to be “extremely dirty,” “disgusting,” and 

“dangerous.” After a children’s social worker (CSW) arrived, a 

police officer clarified that the “cage” was actually “a jail door 

blocking the kitchen.” One child, Connor (born September 2015),

was kept behind the door, and he had “free range of the kitchen 

that also connects to another room.” The other child, Kristopher 

(born December 2012), was permitted to “roam around the house

wherever he wants.” Another police officer reported that the 

maternal uncle, who also lived at the house, had stated the metal 

door was built two years ago “because Connor would run out of 

the home.” The uncle explained that Connor had been behind the 

metal door since he was three years old, and “stays there ‘from 

morning to [s]undown.’ ” Mother told the police that Connor was 

kept behind the metal door for his own safety, saying that her 

plan was to wean him off it, and expressing her hope that he 

would “grow out of it.” 

The CSW assessed the home, describing it as “in deplorable 

living condition” because it was “filthy, disorganized and 

2 We limit our summary to the facts and procedural history 

relevant to the issues appellant raises on appeal.
4

extremely cluttered.” The floors were “dirty and stained with a 

brown sticky residue.” In the enclosed kitchen area where 

Connor was kept, there was “a broken table with broken legs, an 

electrical outlet with exposed wires and jagged glass on a broken 

window.” There was also writing all over the wall. The kitchen 

was connected to a living room and a bathroom and the area had 

a couch and television set. While there was less clutter in this

area, “the walls, the floors and the one bathroom in this area 

were extremely dirty.” 

Under questioning by the CSW, Mother explained that she 

lived in the home with the maternal grandparents and the 

maternal uncle. Besides taking care of the children, Mother also 

cared for the maternal grandmother, who was disabled and had 

difficulty moving around the house. Mother claimed that she 

tried to clean the home as much as possible, but was not 

permitted to throw away most of the things in the home, because 

they belonged to the maternal grandmother. Regarding the 

broken table in the kitchen area, Mother stated that Connor had 

broken the table a few months ago, and that he had destroyed 

many other things in the home. While the CSW was present, 

Connor threw food at her several times, spit out carrots, and 

spilled water on the floor. Mother stated the bars keeping 

Connor in the kitchen area were installed a few years ago, after 

Connor had run out of the house and into the street; Mother 

asserted that Connor lacked a sense of danger. Mother added 

that the bars were also there to separate Connor and Kristopher, 

who fought a lot. 

Connor was taken to a medical center for an evaluation. 

He presented with poor hygiene, wearing wet shorts and a pullups diaper wet with urine. When the CSW changed his pull-ups, 
5

she noted dry feces around his anus. Connor was “extremely 

hyperactive” and took Adderall twice daily. While at the medical 

center, he “ran around uncontrollably,” “got on top of chairs [and] 

tables,” “tried to open all doors within his reach,” “threw books 

and food on the floor,” and “got into [a] physical altercation with 

his older sibling.” Connor did not follow directions and was 

uncooperative. He was transported to the emergency room and 

placed on a 72-hour hold. However, the hospital discharged him 

the next day and he was transported to shelter care, pending 

placement with a foster family. 

The next day, the CSW received text messages from the 

maternal uncle, stating that he was being thrown out of the home 

because Mother claimed he “called the police on her.” The uncle 

informed the CSW that Mother typically “yells and screams [at] 

those kids from the morning till night” and that rather than take 

care of them, she was “online with some boys or whatever.” He

opined that Mother was “not mentally capable of taking care of 

those kids” and the children “should not be with her.” 

DCFS filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) 

and (j), on behalf of both children. Counts b-1 and j-1 identically 

alleged that, for three years, Mother endangered the children by 

keeping Connor behind a locked door made of metal bars for 

extended periods of time, in an area that contained a broken 

table, an electrical outlet with exposed wiring, and jagged glass 

from a broken window. Count b-2 alleged that the children’s 

home was in a “filthy, unsanitary and unsafe, hazardous 

condition,” including a “brown sticky residue and feces 

throughout the home.” Additionally, the children were filthy and 

appeared not to have bathed for days; Connor had dried feces in 
6

his anus and a soiled diaper. The court ordered both children 

detained from Mother. 

B. The Court Removes the Children and Orders 

Reunification Services

In an interview with a dependency investigator (DI), 

Kristopher reported that Mother placed Connor in the kitchen 

area after he awoke because Connor did not listen and would run 

into the street. Connor confirmed Kristopher’s account. Connor 

was frequently distracted during the DI’s interview and the DI 

observed that “sometimes Connor misbehaves to get a reaction 

out of the caregiver or adults in the home.” 

Mother reported that she was often overwhelmed caring for 

the children and the maternal grandmother. She reiterated that 

Connor was kept in the kitchen area because otherwise “he would 

constantly destroy things, hit and fight with his brother, draw all 

over the walls, and would leave through the front door into the 

street.” Mother told the DI that Connor had been diagnosed with 

ADHD and ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder) and had been 

taking medication since he was four. Mother said she was willing 

to do whatever was necessary to have the children reunified with 

her. 

A home inspection revealed that while there had been some 

improvements—the feces and sticky residue appeared to have 

been cleaned up—the floors were still dirty and the house 

“remained in a somewhat hoarder type condition.” In the 

bedroom where Mother and the children slept, at the end of the 

bed, there were “a pair of shoes, [a] toy metal trumpet, and a pile 

of dry dog poop.” 

At the October 2020 jurisdiction hearing, Mother entered a 

plea of no contest to an amended count b-1, which alleged that,
7

without proper training, Mother had a limited ability to provide 

appropriate care and supervision for Connor due to his 

behavioral issues, including diagnoses of ADHD and ODD, which 

endangered both children. The court dismissed the remaining 

counts. Turning to disposition, the court removed both children 

from Mother. Mother was ordered to take a parenting class for 

children with special needs as well as to undergo individual 

counseling. 

C. Six-Month Review Hearing

In an April 2021 status report, DCFS noted that, mostly 

due to behavioral issues, Connor had been moved several times, 

and was now in his sixth foster home. DCFS reported that 

Connor was “finally stabilized in the home of [his] current 

caregiver” and was “showing great progress with his behavior.” 

Kristopher was on his third foster home. 

Mother completed her parenting classes. When asked what 

she had learned, she responded that time-outs needed to take 

place in an area without distraction and have a duration 

commensurate with the child’s age, that she should tell the 

children she loved them, and that she should use positive 

reinforcement. A CSW observed that it did not appear Mother 

gained “any new skills or insight as to how to work with her 

children that do have special needs.” 

Additionally, Mother was “inconsistent” with statements 

made to the CSW and to caregivers. For example, Kristopher 

had informed a CSW that Mother had told him his father tried to 

kill him. When the CSW asked Mother about this allegation, she 

denied it. But when a caregiver was monitoring a phone call 

between Mother and Kristopher and Kristopher asked about this 

statement, “[M]other would quickly change the subject but would 
8

not deny she had disclosed said information to the child.” Mother 

stated that the children enjoyed watching the television show 

Supernatural. When told the show was inappropriate for the 

children’s ages, Mother stated the boys never watched it. Mother 

was seen by Connor’s Intensive Field Capable Clinical Services

team leaving the home of one of Connor’s caregivers but, when 

asked about this, claimed she would never go to the caregiver’s 

home. Finally, during a visit with Kristopher’s newest caregiver, 

Mother stated that Connor’s caregiver would just drop him off for 

visits, and suggested that Kristopher’s new caregiver do the 

same. When the CSW confronted her about this statement, she 

admitted it was a lie. When the CSW spoke with Connor’s 

caregiver, that caregiver reported that Mother had told her the 

same thing about Kristopher’s caregiver. 

Mother visited with both children. In the one visit 

monitored by a CSW, Mother was observed “to be very kind but 

unable to adequately supervise both boys at the same time. 

During the visit monitored by [the] CSW, the child Connor 

continuously eloped and both CSW and Mother had to chase after 

him.” While they were doing this, “Kristopher would be observed 

to also ignore the mother’s directions.” The remainder of 

Mother’s visits were monitored by each child’s caregiver and only 

consisted of Mother and one child at a time. Both caregivers

reported that Mother appeared to be a “trigger for each respective

child to misbehave.” Moreover, despite Mother being told to not 

spend her time with the children offering gifts, but instead to talk 

and play with them, the caregivers observed that during visits 

and calls, Mother would constantly ask what new toy the child 

wanted or discuss the plan to buy the toy. They also reported 

that Mother was unable to manage the children’s tantrums, and 
9

Mother had commented that “buying the child what he requests 

is easier th[a]n him having a tantrum.” 

One of the children’s caregivers reported to a CSW that 

Mother appeared to be “coaching” the kids at times and had said 

she could get Connor to “do and say what she wants.” DCFS also 

reported that Mother lacked insight into why a case was open, 

and took no responsibility for the issues that occasioned the case. 

She blamed the dirty home on the maternal grandmother and 

failed to acknowledge the children’s behavioral issues “were 

created due to the mother’s home having no structure and the 

mother not setting boundaries.” 

At the six-month review hearing, the court acknowledged 

Mother’s completion of parenting classes, but found that “those 

parenting classes clearly ha[ve] not helped the mother gain any 

insight as to how these children were traumatized and how to 

better parent them.” The court also found that “the extent of 

progress made towards alleviating or mitigating the causes that 

necessitated placement for the mother is very minimal.” The 

court ordered continued reunification services. 

D. Twelve-Month Review Hearing

Mother continued visiting with the children separately. At 

almost every visit, Connor would throw a tantrum when Mother 

told him “no.” Mother was advised not to engage with Connor 

during these tantrums; when she followed the advice, Connor

seemed to have fewer tantrums. Mother’s visits with Kristopher 

went well. 

In June 2021, Mother visited both children at the same 

time. The visit was mostly appropriate, and Mother was able to 

set “small boundaries” for Connor and to follow through on those 
10

boundaries. When Kristopher was caught “assaulting” Connor, 

Mother was able to place Kristopher in a time-out. 

In an October 2021 status report, DCFS reported that both 

children again had to be moved multiple times due to 

inappropriate behavior; Connor had been placed in his tenth 

foster home, and Kristopher his sixth. Connor continued to be 

destructive, to spit, to curse, and to damage his caregivers’ 

property. DCFS noted that, with one caregiver, Connor had 

made significant progress—saying “please” and “thank you” and 

becoming potty-trained—but after “a special visit with [M]other 

on his birthday,” he “was observed to revert to past behavior.” A 

week after Mother’s visit, Connor began following the rules 

again. While the trigger for Connor’s reversion was 

undetermined, the caregiver admitted she had permitted Mother 

to take Connor to the bathroom on her own, as well as take him 

to her car to retrieve a gift. 

The report also stated that Mother consistently visited both 

children but “continues to have difficulty in regards to setting 

boundaries with the children, reprimanding and following 

through with redirecting the children.” While Mother appeared 

open to accept help for the children, she “commented that she is 

scared that the children will resent her if she reprimands them.” 

Because the children had been placed geographically far apart, 

Mother visited the children separately. With Connor, Mother 

tended to “revert to giving the child her phone to keep him 

occupied during visits” and needed cues on when to discipline 

him. When a “Parent Partner” attempted to speak with Mother 

about this issue, Mother “responded stating that she was a great 

parent, only had a case with the Department because of her 
11

brother’s disclosures and was not going to listen further to Parent 

Partner Virginia’s recommendations.” 

With Kristopher, Mother was “observed to be appropriate,” 

though Kristopher did not seem interested in engaging with her 

beyond showing interest in what she might be bringing him (e.g., 

gifts or special food). When Mother needed to reprimand 

Kristopher, she would talk to him about his behavior and then 

place him in time-out. This would cause Kristopher to throw a 

tantrum and call attention to himself and Mother but, if Mother 

did not engage, Kristopher would stop. 

In a December 2021 twelve-month review hearing, the 

court ordered reunification services to be continued. 

E. Eighteen-Month Review Hearing

In a March 2022 status report, DCFS informed the court

that Connor was still behaving in destructive ways at his 

caregiver’s home and the caregiver reported she could not leave 

Connor alone. DCFS provided a “1:1 for the overnight hours.” 

Mother still consistently visited with the children, and was still 

observed “to have difficulty in regards to setting boundaries with 

the children, reprimanding and following through with 

redirecting the children.” In visits with Connor, it was observed 

that Mother continued “to struggle with giving in to all of 

Connor’s requests as she states that she gives into most of his 

requests so that he doesn’t have a meltdown or tantrum.”

However, in contrast to the previous report, DCFS stated Mother 

now appeared to be “open and willing to accept help in regards to 

the special needs of her children.” 

In an April 2022 review hearing, the court ordered that 

both reunification services and the eighteen-month review 

hearing date would be continued until September 2022, noting 
12

that, as of the next hearing date, the children would have been in 

“protective custody” for two years. 

In a September 2022 status report, DCFS informed the 

court that Kristopher seemed to be doing well in his caregiver’s 

home, but Connor was still exhibiting challenging behavior. 

Specifically, “Connor continues to be destructive in the home 

including scratching the television, breaking a Ring doorbell 

camera, has broken the toilet, repeatedly throwing various items 

on the roof of the home, removed the smoke detector from the 

ceiling, repeatedly breaking the screen to his bedroom window 

and his closet door. [His caregiver] reported that Connor 

continues defecating in his underwear on almost a daily basis 

and has hidden his feces in his room. [His caregiver] has 

reported that in the past month[,] Connor has begun wetting the 

bed and peeing on the floor. When [his caregiver] attempted to 

have Connor clean up after himself for defecating in his 

underwear, he smeared his feces on the wall. [His caregiver] 

reports that outbursts happen daily and sometimes multiple 

times within a day and his triggers are unknown.” The report 

noted that Connor had been placed in 14 different homes since 

detention. He had been with his current caregiver since January 

2022. 

Mother was still reported “to have difficulty in regard to 

setting boundaries with the children, reprimanding and following 

through with redirecting the children.” On a recent visit with 

Connor, he ran into a parking lot and was almost hit by a car. 

Although Mother instructed Connor to hold her hand in the 

parking lot, he refused. He also had a hard time sitting still, 

jumped around while holding his food, and ate food that he had 

dropped on the floor. Mother instructed him not to, but he again 
13

ignored her. Throughout the visit, he yelled and cursed and, 

when Mother attempted to put him in a time-out, ran to a 

playground area. When the son of Connor’s caregiver arrived to 

pick him up, it was observed that Connor complied with his 

instructions. In contrast, Mother’s visits with Kristopher had 

gone so well that DCFS liberalized them to unmonitored; his 

caregiver reported that Kristopher now seemed happier. DCFS 

recommended that Kristopher be returned to Mother, but that 

reunification services be terminated as to Connor, and that the 

court set a hearing under section 366.26. 

At a September 2022 review hearing, Kristopher was 

released to Mother on an “extended visit,” and the hearing was 

continued until November 2022. 

In a November 2022 last minute information, DCFS 

informed the court that Mother had enrolled in a parenting class 

for children with special needs. The review hearing was 

continued until December 2022. 

In a December 2022 last minute information, DCFS 

informed the court that Connor was still exhibiting extreme 

behavioral issues. Mother was attending a parenting class for 

children with special needs and had attended one session so far. 

DCFS reported a “slight improvement in regards to the visitation 

as Connor is able to be redirected from cursing with a couple of 

prompts and reminders throughout the visit.” However, Mother 

continued to “struggle with consistency of disciplining Connor 

during the visits when he is behaving in negative manner and . . . 

[M]other has needed the support of the monitor to redirect 

Connor and model being consistent.” 

At the December 2022 eighteen-month review hearing, 

counsel for DCFS asked that Kristopher be released to Mother, 
14

but that family reunification services be terminated as to Connor

and that the court set a hearing under section 366.26. Connor’s 

counsel agreed, arguing that if, after two years of services, visits 

with Connor still needed to be monitored, matters were clearly 

not at a juncture where Connor could be released to Mother. 

Kristopher’s counsel added that one reason she was comfortable 

with the release of Kristopher to Mother was because Connor 

would not be there. 

Mother’s counsel agreed that Kristopher should be released 

to Mother but argued that Connor should also be released to her, 

citing her completion of all court-ordered programs and the lack

of a substantial risk to Connor. Acknowledging the difficulties 

Mother had with disciplining Connor, Mother’s counsel pointed 

out that these issues were not “specific to Mother.”

The court released Kristopher to Mother, but terminated 

reunification services as to Connor, finding that “essentially, 

we’re out of time.” The court remarked that Connor could not be 

released to Mother because he “would not be safe at home, that 

Mother is unable to keep him safe.” The court set a hearing 

under section 366.26. 

F. Mother Files a Section 388 Petition

In April 2023, Mother filed a petition under section 388, 

asking the court to reinstate family reunification services, take 

off-calendar the scheduled section 366.26 hearing, and to set a 

new hearing to determine whether “Mother’s Family 

Reunification Services have allowed the child to be return to 

Mother’s custody.” Mother argued that, since the time the court

terminated reunification services, “Mother has continued to 

participate in Parenting Class and Support Group for families 

with children at risk and/or with special needs through the 
15

Jeffrey Foundation.” Mother had also continued to visit Connor 

and to remain involved in his care and education. The petition 

contended Mother’s requests were in Connor’s best interest 

because she had “shown accountability for the actions that 

brought her family before the Court,” she had “done what has 

been asked of her to mitigate or otherwise address those 

concerns,” she was “committed to a life of learning in order to 

best meet her children’s needs as they grow and those needs 

change,” and it would be in Connor’s best interest to “grow up 

with his loving mother and brother.”

The petition was supported by a declaration from Mother 

stating that she had started a parenting class for special needs 

children and attended a “few classes so far.” Mother explained 

that she had learned “to take deep breaths and use calm voices 

when redirecting or giving directions” and “the symptoms of 

ADHD, anxiety, ODD in children and how to communicate with 

Connor.” She additionally learned how to “show love” and “give 

more positive strokes and use positive and negative 

consequences.” She added she had also learned from having 

Kristopher back in her custody and being able to put the things 

she learned into practice. Mother alleged that while visits with 

Connor were “challenging at first,” they were improving, and she 

was able to redirect Connor to use his words instead of hitting or 

throwing a tantrum. 

Mother attached two letters to her declaration. One 

confirmed her enrollment and attendance in a parenting class for 

children with special needs. The second was from an Intensive 

Field Capable Clinical Services program—a “strength-based, 

family focused program, which aims to support families and 

children with complex needs”—in which Connor had been 
16

enrolled since March 2022. This letter stated that Mother was 

receptive to advice from the program’s “parent partner” and the 

partner had observed Mother being able to “utilize safe play” and 

build on her bond with Connor “utilizing communication skills.” 

The court summarily denied the petition two weeks after it 

was filed, finding that “the request does not state new evidence or 

a change of circumstances.” The order was issued on a form with 

several other boxes that could be checked as a reason for denial, 

including “the proposed change of order . . . does not promote the 

best interest of the child,” but none were checked.3 Mother 

timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

“Section 388 allows a parent to petition to change, modify, 

or set aside any previous juvenile court order. (§ 388, subd. (a).) 

‘The petitioner has the burden of showing by a preponderance of 

the evidence (1) that there is new evidence or a change of 

circumstances and (2) that the proposed modification would be in 

the best interests of the child.’ ” (In re J.M. (2020) 50 

3 The parties disagree as to the significance of the 

unchecked box next to the statement that Mother’s request was 

not in Connor’s best interest. Mother argues the unchecked box 

was “either due to the fact that [the court] felt mother had made 

that prima facie showing [of best interest]” or that “the juvenile 

[court] did not consider this prong at all.” DCFS counters that, 

given the court’s finding that Mother failed to establish a change 

of circumstances, the court did not need to consider this prong

and additionally, under the doctrine of implied findings, we must 

infer the trial court made all findings necessary to support its 

denial of the petition. Because, as discussed below, we find the 

court did not err in determining that Mother failed to establish 

changed circumstances, we need not consider these arguments.
17

Cal.App.5th 833, 845, emphasis in original.) “To support a 

section 388 petition, the change in circumstances must be 

substantial.” (In re Ernesto R. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 219, 223.)

“A summary denial of a section 388 petition is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion.” (In re D.R. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 480, 

487.) “A court exceeds the limits of legal discretion if its 

determination is arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd. The 

appropriate test is whether the court exceeded the bounds of 

reason.” (In re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 851, citing In re 

Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318–319.)

Here, the juvenile court denied Mother’s petition because 

“the request does not state new evidence or a change of 

circumstances.” Mother contends the court erred because she 

had presented a letter from an Intensive Field Capable Clinical 

Services program attesting to Mother’s ability to “utilize safe 

play” and she had also “accepted accountability for her previous 

shortcomings; showed heartfelt tenderness and acceptance of her 

child’s difficulties; had gained insight into the requirements of 

her role in keeping Connor safe; and expressed commitment to ‘a 

life of learning in order to best meet her children’s needs as they 

grew and those needs changed.’ ” We discern no error.

“A parent establishes a substantial change of 

circumstances for purposes of section 388 by showing that, during 

the period between termination of reunification services and the 

permanency planning hearing, he or she has resolved the 

previously unresolved issues supporting juvenile court 

jurisdiction.” (In re J.M., supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at p. 846.) Here, 

jurisdiction over Connor was established due to Mother’s limited 

ability to provide appropriate care and supervision. This concern 

was still present when the court terminated family reunification 
18

services without releasing Connor to Mother—the court expressly 

remarked on Mother’s inability to keep Connor safe at home. 

While Mother did present evidence that she was now able to 

safely play with Connor for a few hours a week during a 

monitored visit, that is a far cry from being able to keep Connor 

safe as his primary caregiver. This is especially true when 

Mother was already responsible for Kristopher, a child with his 

own behavioral issues, and who had never been successfully 

housed with Connor. Indeed, one justification that Mother gave 

for sequestering Connor in the kitchen area behind metal bars 

was that the boys fought a lot. 

Mother’s claim that she had shown accountability for her 

previous shortcomings, empathized with Connor’s difficulties, 

gained insight into her role in keeping Connor safe, and was 

committed to learning how to meet his needs, also do not 

constitute a substantial change. Indeed, many of Mother’s 

statements do not constitute a change at all. In March 2022, nine 

months before reunification services were terminated, DCFS 

reported that Mother appeared “open and willing to accept help 

in regards to the special needs of her children” and since the 

inception of the case, Mother had said she was willing to do 

whatever was necessary to have the children reunified with her.

Mother had completed her parenting classes by the six-month 

review hearing, and had been enrolled in a parenting class for 

children with special needs in November 2022, one month before 

services were terminated.

4 Nor is there any evidence to suggest 

that, prior to the termination of services, Mother was ignorant of 

4 Indeed, Mother herself contends that she completed all 

her court-ordered programs. 
19

the role she would play in Connor’s safety if he were released to 

her, or that she did not empathize with and accept Connor’s 

issues.

We conclude the juvenile court acted well within the 

bounds of reason in determining Mother failed to demonstrate a 

substantial change in circumstances. It therefore did not abuse 

its discretion in summarily denying Mother’s section 388 petition.

DISPOSITION

The court’s order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

CHANEY, J.

We concur:

BENDIX, Acting P. J.

WEINGART, J.