Filed 3/2/22 In re Roy J. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re ROY J. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B311267

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. DK22633A-C)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ADELA R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Juvenile Court Referee. 

Affirmed.

Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * * * * *

Adela R. (mother) challenges orders denying her 

modification petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 

388 and terminating her parental rights to her children Roy J. 

(born March 2011), Aaliyah J. (born March 2013), and Prince M. 

(born September 2015), pursuant to Welfare and Institutions 

Code section 366.26.1 We find no error and affirm the orders.

COMBINED FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL 

BACKGROUND

This is mother’s second appeal in this dependency 

proceeding. Mother previously appealed from the juvenile court’s 

judgment declaring the three children dependents of the court,

challenging one of the juvenile court’s three stated grounds for 

assertion of jurisdiction over the children. In an unpublished 

opinion we affirmed the judgment. (In re Roy J. (Aug. 29, 2018, 

B285949) [nonpub. opn].)

The following portion of the factual and procedural 

background is taken from our prior opinion in this matter:

The family

The family consists of mother and her three children, who 

were ages six, four, and one at the time the petition was filed. 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
3

Raydell J. is the father of Roy and Aaliyah. Darrell M. was found 

to be Prince’s presumed father.2

The three children were occasionally cared for by maternal 

grandmother, Blanca, and maternal stepgrandfather, Carlos. 

Blanca and Carlos have two teenage daughters, Joana and 

Kimberly.

Family history

A September 4, 1999 referral to the Los Angeles County 

Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) alleging 

that mother (then eight years old) was the victim of ongoing 

sexual abuse by Carlos was substantiated. On numerous 

occasions Carlos would enter mother’s room at night and fondle 

and touch mother’s vaginal area. In addition, Blanca and Carlos 

would hit mother on a regular basis. Mother did not tell Blanca 

that Carlos was touching her because Blanca was “so in love” 

with Carlos.

On September 18, 1999, DCFS received a second referral of 

general neglect because Blanca allowed Carlos into her 

apartment although DCFS had told Blanca not to allow Carlos 

near mother. This second referral was deemed unfounded.

In February 2002, a referral alleged that mother’s brother, 

Francisco, then seven years old, and a classmate were fondling a 

female classmate’s genital area. The referral was deemed 

unfounded.

In October 2004, another referral alleged general physical 

and emotional abuse of mother and Francisco by Blanca and 

Carlos. The caller suspected that mother, then 13 years old, had 

been sexually abused by Carlos. Mother and Francisco were 

2 Raydell J. and Darrell M. are not a parties to this appeal.
4

disciplined by kneeling down and holding soda bottles for hours. 

Francisco had behavioral problems, and mother was not enrolled 

in school. The allegation was also deemed unfounded.

The referral and investigation leading to the current 

proceedings

On March 9, 2017, DCFS received a referral alleging that 

Roy, Aaliyah, and Prince were victims of general neglect by 

mother. Mother was residing in a motel with the children and 

engaging in prostitution under the name “Rose.” Mother’s pimp 

was an individual named “Darriel or Darrel M.” Mother had 

been a prostitute since she was 13 years old. It was also believed 

that mother had used marijuana and ecstasy in the children’s 

presence. On one occasion, mother slept for three days, though 

two of the children tried to wake her. The children would 

occasionally reside with Blanca and Carlos.

When a social worker went to the motel in search of 

mother, it was discovered that mother had been going to the 

motel for three or four years, but had been “red flagged” due to 

frequent physical fights with an unknown male.

When the social worker was able to contact mother by 

phone, mother stated that she was homeless. Mother agreed to 

meet the social worker at the DCFS office and gave permission to 

the social worker to interview the children who were at Blanca’s 

home.

At Blanca’s home the social worker was told by then 16-

year-old Kimberly that she resided there with Blanca, Carlos, 

and her 15-year-old sister, Joana. Mother’s children were also 

then in the home. Mother had not visited them for about a 

month but called to speak with them. Kimberly had not 

witnessed any domestic disputes but observed mother with a 
5

black eye. Mother claimed she had a fight with a girl, but 

Aaliyah stated that “Daddy” hit mother. Kimberly noted that the 

children referred to Darrell M. as “Daddy.”

Aaliyah was interviewed. She did not know what drugs 

were, but she had seen mother smoking cigarettes. Aaliyah 

denied witnessing mother acting weird. She stated, “daddy hit 

mommy with a belt while she was in the shower.” Aaliyah could 

not identify “daddy” by name.

On March 10, 2017, mother and Darrell were interviewed 

at the DCFS office. The social worker observed that mother’s left 

eye was bruised and purple. Mother stated that she had been in 

a fight two weeks earlier with a girl for stealing.

Mother explained that her employer had cut her hours, and 

she could not afford rent. Mother had moved in with Blanca and 

Carlos, but the landlord complained so she left. She was 

homeless since then.

Mother denied any recent prostitution. The social worker 

informed mother that her criminal history showed she was 

arrested for prostitution as recently as January 2017. Mother 

claimed that since she had previously engaged in prostitution, 

she was arrested any time she was seen on Long Beach 

Boulevard. Mother denied drug use, denied that she and Darrell 

engaged in physical altercations, and agreed to drug test. Mother 

stated that Darrell had ended their romantic relationship when 

he found out he was not Prince’s father, but he still helped her by 

paying for hotel rooms. Mother denied both domestic violence 

and that her children had ever been sexually abused.

When interviewed, Blanca initially denied that Carlos 

sexually abused mother when mother was a child. She then 

added that mother claimed she had lied about the sexual abuse. 
6

To Blanca’s knowledge, “everything was fine.” Blanca was not 

interested in legal guardianship of the children due to her health 

and Kimberly’s depression.

On March 15, 2017, mother tested positive for drugs. On 

March 29, 2017, mother called the social worker and reported she 

had been arrested on March 15, 2017, on a warrant for 

prostitution and fraudulent checks. Mother was released from 

custody on March 21, 2017. On March 31, 2017, mother tested 

positive for cannabinoids.

Darrell considered himself to be Prince’s father despite a

paternity test to the contrary. Aaliyah and Roy called him 

“daddy” because they did not have a relationship with their 

father. Darrell acknowledged that he was on probation for 

domestic violence. He also confirmed that he had been trying to 

keep mother from using methamphetamines. Mother last used 

the drug two months earlier.

Section 300 petition and detention

On April 11, 2017, the juvenile court issued a removal 

warrant for the children, and DCFS took the children into 

protective custody.

On April 25, 2017, DCFS filed a petition on behalf of the 

children pursuant to section 300. Under section 300, subdivision 

(b) (failure to protect), the petition alleged that (1) mother had a 

history of methamphetamine and marijuana use; (2) mother 

failed to make an appropriate plan for the children in that she 

left them in the care of Blanca, despite knowing that Carlos 

resided in the home, and that Carlos had molested mother as a 

child; and (3) Raydell, father of Roy and Aaliyah, is a registered 

controlled substance offender with a criminal history including 

convictions for possession of a controlled substance and robbery. 
7

Pursuant to section 300, subdivision (d), the petition repeated the 

allegations that mother failed to make an appropriate plan for 

the children’s care and supervision by leaving them in a home 

where Carlos resided, despite knowledge that Carlos had sexually 

abused mother as a minor.

At the initial detention hearing on April 25, 2017, the 

juvenile court found that DCFS had presented a prima facie case 

that the children were individuals described under section 300, 

subdivisions (b) and (d). The children were ordered detained 

from their parents on an emergency basis. On April 27, 2015, the 

juvenile court ordered family reunification services and weekly 

monitored visitation.

Jurisdiction/disposition report and hearing

DCFS filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on June 6, 

2017. When interviewed, mother admitted to past drug use but 

denied current drug use. She admitted having “snorted 

methamphetamine” when she was seven weeks into her 

pregnancy with Prince, but then stopped. She resumed 

“snorting” methamphetamine when Prince was six months old. 

Mother admitted to smoking marijuana since the age of 10, but 

stopped during the pregnancy of each child. Blanca would watch 

the children while mother was under the influence of marijuana.

As to counts (b)(2) and (d)(1), which alleged that she 

inappropriately left the children in a home with Carlos, mother 

admitted these allegations were true. Mother acknowledged that 

she was molested by Carlos for approximately one year. Mother 

was seven years old when the abuse began. Carlos would touch 

her breasts and vagina under her clothes. Mother recalled that 

Carlos left the home after DCFS became involved, but returned 

after DCFS closed its case. Mother said Carlos did not touch her 
8

again after the investigation, but from then on they had a 

strained relationship. At the age of 14 mother ran away from 

home and supported herself through prostitution.

Mother was aware that she was leaving her children at the 

home where Carlos lived. Mother claims to have spoken with 

Carlos and told him not to be alone with the children. When 

Blanca could not be there, Darrell would supervise. Mother 

denied the children were ever left under Carlos’s supervision. 

Mother had no concerns about giving Carlos access to the 

children because she forgave him for sexually abusing her when 

she was a child.

In an interview Darrell expressed awareness that mother 

had been sexually abused by Carlos and had confronted Carlos 

about it, saying it was “not right” and that he should not touch 

Roy, Aaliyah, or Prince. Darrell would “keep an eye” on Carlos, 

and he and mother made unannounced visits to the home. The 

children were always with Blanca, and Darrell never observed 

Carlos caring for the children.

In a July 21, 2017 supplemental report, DCFS reported 

that mother had entered a substance abuse program.

At the adjudication hearing on July 21, 2017, mother 

admitted that she made an inappropriate plan for the children 

but asked the court to dismiss count (d)(1) only because the 

children were not at substantial risk of sexual abuse. The 

children’s counsel agreed with mother that count (d)(1) should be 

dismissed and indicated that the allegations were more 

appropriately pled under count (b)(2). The juvenile court found 

that mother did not sufficiently ensure that when she left her 

children with Blanca, Carlos would not offend again. Further, 
9

the court noted that Carlos had not done anything to show that 

he was unlikely to offend again.

The juvenile court sustained amended allegations under 

section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d). Under both counts (b)(2) 

and (d)(1), the court sustained allegations that mother failed to 

make an appropriate plan for her children in that she left them 

in the home where Carlos resided, which placed them at risk of 

harm.

Disposition and first appeal

The juvenile court declared the children dependents of the 

court under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (d). The children 

were removed from parental custody. The court ordered family 

reunification services for mother and Darrell, denied family 

reunification services to Raydell, and ordered monitored visits for 

mother and Darrell.

On July 28, 2017, mother filed a notice of appeal from the 

court’s July 21, 2017 judgment.

On August 29, 2018, this court affirmed the judgment. (In 

re Roy J., supra, B285949.)

3

Reunification period through February 2018 six-month 

review hearing

In the January 22, 2018 status review report, DCFS 

reported that Roy and Aaliyah remained placed with their 

caregivers Guadalupe and Frank V., and Prince remained placed 

with Jennifer and Gilbert G. Roy and Aaliyah had been with 

Guadalupe and Frank since April 20, 2017. Prince had been in 

Jennifer and Gilbert’s home since April 24, 2017. All three 

3 This concludes the portion of this section from our prior 

opinion in this matter.
10

children were comfortable with their caregivers. Roy and Prince 

were approved for regional center services. Aaliyah initially 

suffered from trauma-related symptoms, but the majority of her 

symptoms had diminished since she was living with her 

caregivers, and she was receiving therapy. Prince was also 

receiving weekly in-home therapy sessions.

Mother had enrolled in an in-patient drug program on 

June 27, 2017, but was discharged on September 3, 2017, because 

against the rules she was in possession of a cell phone. While 

mother was in the in-patient program she tested positive for 

marijuana three times.

On September 10, 2017, mother informed the DCFS social 

worker that she would attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) 

meetings while waiting to be enrolled into another drug 

treatment program. However she never provided the social 

worker with any AA sign-in sheets. On September 21, 2017, 

mother was scheduled to enroll at House of Uhuru drug 

treatment outpatient program, but she was arrested for 

outstanding warrants the day before she was to begin the 

program. On November 8, 2017, mother was officially accepted 

into the outpatient program. Mother had 14 negative drug tests 

and three no-shows between September 12, 2017, and 

December 21, 2017.

Mother initially had four-hour monitored visits with the 

children at her inpatient drug program. After her termination 

from the program, the children’s caregivers would monitor the 

visits at a McDonald’s restaurant. Jennifer, Prince’s caregiver, 

reported that he had a difficult time with the visits. He would 

get upset and hit himself with a closed fist, have night terrors,

cry, and pinch himself. Roy and Aaliyah’s caregiver, Guadalupe,
11

had informed Jennifer that the children were exposed to domestic 

violence while they lived with mother. Since Prince had never 

been examined by a physician he was taken for his first round of 

immunizations.

Mother failed to visit the children for the month of June

2017. On December 22, 2017, the social worker reported that 

mother’s visits had been inconsistent since she was asked to 

leave the inpatient drug program. However in January 2018 

mother’s visits were reported to be more consistent. On 

January 29, 2018, Jennifer reported that mother failed to appear

for a visit with Prince the previous week.

In a February 9, 2018 last minute information for the court, 

DCFS reported it was unable to determine if mother was 

participating in her outpatient drug treatment program because 

the case manager had not returned the social worker’s phone 

calls and mother’s communication with DCFS had decreased. 

Mother was no longer requesting bus passes. Mother had been 

arrested on September 23, 2017, January 7, 2018, and 

January 30, 2018. Mother failed to visit the children on 

January 27 and February 3, 2018.

At the February 9, 2018 six-month review hearing, the 

juvenile court found mother was in partial compliance with her 

case plan and set the matter for a 12-month review hearing.

Reunification period through August 2018 12-month 

review hearing

DCFS filed a status review report in June 2018. The 

children continued to thrive in their respective placements. The 

therapists observed that Roy and Aaliyah had greatly benefited 

from the stability and care provided. Roy told the social worker, 

“I need to be sure we are going to be able to stay here with Frank 
12

and Guadalupe.” Aaliyah expressed that she wanted mother to 

be able to continue visiting her and Roy on the weekends. 

Prince’s therapist also reported that he had made significant 

progress, and Jennifer was active in assisting him in meeting his 

goals.

In May 2018, mother graduated from the House of Uhuru 

outpatient program. Mother moved into transitional housing and 

obtained employment as a warehouse representative for a 

cosmetics company. Mother had completed eight 12-step 

meetings but needed to make up meetings that she had missed. 

On June 6, 2018, mother was arrested on misdemeanor charges.

Mother continued to have monitored visits with the 

children on Saturdays from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mother 

visited regularly but did not stay for the entire allotted time. In 

the past, Darrell had transported mother to the visits, but in 

June 2018 Guadalupe and Frank noted that mother was driving 

Darrell’s car. The social worker was concerned because mother 

had reported that she had no contact with Darrell. On June 13, 

2018, Jennifer reported that Prince did not want to visit with 

mother the previous Saturday.

On June 25, 2018, the juvenile court ordered DCFS to 

assess unmonitored overnight visits for mother. 

In August 2018, DCFS filed an interim review report. On 

July 18, 2018, mother’s case manager at House of Uhuru 

confirmed that mother completed the outpatient drug treatment 

program on June 20, 2018. However mother did not receive a 

certificate of completion because she did not attend the required 

Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings. Between April and July

2018, mother failed to test twice for drugs and once had a diluted 

test result. She tested negative for drugs 11 times.
13

During her visit with the children on March 31, 2018, 

mother fed Prince candy and soda and refused to stop after 

Jennifer cautioned that the child would become ill. Prince 

vomitted and had diarrhea that night and the following day. 

Mother laughed when she heard Prince was ill. Mother did not 

visit the children on April 13, 2018, May 12, 2018, or June 2, 

2018.

DCFS recommended that unmonitored overnight visits 

with mother were not appropriate because mother’s transitional 

housing prohibited overnight visits with children, and mother 

had not been forthcoming about her relationship with Darrell. 

At the August 10, 2018 12-month review hearing, mother 

was homeless and residing with friends. The social worker 

testified that in late July 2018 mother initiated a verbal incident 

with Jennifer after mother took Prince to the bathroom and 

Jennifer followed. Mother became outraged. She then followed 

Jennifer, Gilbert and Prince out of McDonald’s and shouted, 

“[Y]ou can’t have your own baby, so that’s why you’re trying to 

steal mine.” Mother failed to visit the children the following 

week. Mother missed two weeks of visits in late July and early 

August 2018.

The juvenile court found that, while mother had made 

substantial progress, she needed to complete the NA meeting 

requirements and continue with individual counseling. The court 

warned mother to avoid contact with Darrell as he was not 

compliant with any of the court’s orders. The court ordered 

mother to begin twice weekly unmonitored visits with the length 

of the visits to increase over time. Darrell was not to be present 

at mother’s visits. The matter was set for a section 366.26 

hearing.
14

Reunification period through January 31, 2019 section 

366.22 hearing

In an October 2018 status review report the social worker 

reported that mother was driving Darrell’s car to get to the visits,

even though she had a suspended license. Mother was not 

regularly participating in visits and would visit the children once 

a week rather than twice a week. She would visit for two hours 

instead of the five hours she was allotted. She missed visits on 

September 8, September 15, September 22, September 29, 

October 5, and October 12, 2018.

On September 6, 2018, mother was arrested for operating a 

vehicle without a driver’s license and spent three days in jail. 

Mother was also arrested on October 2, 2018.

In September 2018 Roy and Aaliyah expressed fear of

returning to mother’s care if Darrell was present. They disclosed 

that when they lived with mother, Darrell would physically 

assault mother to get her out of bed. Roy witnessed Darrell hit 

mother with a belt when she was not doing something or moving 

fast enough for Darrell. Roy admitted that Darrell was 

sometimes violent with him. Roy and Aaliyah expressed that 

they did not want to return to mother’s custody but wanted to 

stay with Guadalupe and Frank.

On October 21, 2018, Roy said he did not want to travel to 

visit mother. He informed the social worker that if mother was 

not going to show up, he would rather play soccer. Guadalupe 

and Frank reported that mother did not call to speak with the 

children during the week.

Mother reported she had been attending Cocaine 

Anonymous meetings, however she did not have a sponsor. 

Mother’s case manager at the shelter where mother had been 
15

residing said mother had left. The case manager had been trying 

to find mother housing that would accommodate the children, but 

mother abandoned her spot and left no information. Mother 

confirmed she had been living with friends. Mother was 

pregnant and due to her pregnancy was unable to stand for long 

periods of time. Her work hours had been cut and she could no 

longer afford the rent at the shelter. Mother had not been testing

for drugs but denied using drugs. She stated she was not drug 

testing because she was depressed. Mother also admitted that 

she had not been visiting the children but would do so soon. 

Mother admitted having difficulty connecting with Prince. 

Mother failed to test for drugs seven times and tested negative 12 

times from August through December 2018.

Mother did not visit Roy and Aaliyah from October 12 

through the end of November 2018. Mother did not visit Prince 

from September through December 2018. Mother had a visit 

with the children on December 1, 2018, and the caregivers 

noticed that mother had bruising around her right eye.

On December 10, 2018, mother had an unsupervised visit 

with Roy and Aaliyah for five hours. Guadalupe was concerned

because mother told the children to lie as to who attended the 

visit, and Roy yelled at Aaliyah, causing her to cry.

On December 27, 2018, mother had a visit with Prince, who 

recognized mother and played with her.

On January 7, 2019, Guadalupe submitted a caregiver 

information form stating that mother told the children during 

unmonitored visits to lie about who attended the visits. When 

Guadalupe picked up the children from the visits, they seemed ill 

at ease, and Roy yelled at Aaliyah, “[D]on’t tell! [D]on’t tell! 

[M]ommy is going to get in trouble.”
16

At the January 31, 2019 section 366.22 hearing, the parties 

stipulated to extending mother’s family reunification services to 

the 24-month date. The court set the matter for a section 366.25 

hearing. The court declared Jennifer and Gilbert to be Prince’s 

de facto parents and added Jennifer as Prince’s educational 

rights holder.

January 2019 through September 12, 2019 section 366.25 

hearing

Mother gave birth to Sophia on January 14, 2019, and on 

January 17, 2019, mother was discharged to the maternal 

grandmother’s home. On February 11, 2019, mother admitted 

that she had not been attending NA meetings and did not have a 

sponsor. Mother said she had not thought about doing drugs 

because Sophia was keeping her busy. Mother was concerned 

about losing contact with her other children and felt that they 

held a grudge against her because of her absence from their lives. 

Maternal grandmother was concerned that mother would revert 

to drugs and prostitution when maternal grandmother moved out 

of state. Mother admitted she needed help supervising the 

children during unmonitored visits. Mother failed to drug test 

once and tested negative three times between January 19, 2019,

and March 7, 2019. Mother was not utilizing her second day of 

weekly visits and did not participate in phone visits with the 

children. Mother failed to appear for three visits and arrived late 

to one visit between January 5 and March 16, 2019.

Guadalupe and Frank reported that mother had bruises on 

her cheek when she showed up to a visit in February 2019. 

Mother was trying to hide the bruising. Roy did not want to visit 

with mother, and it had become a challenge to get him to 

participate. On March 18, 2019, Roy informed Guadalupe that 
17

during a visit mother called Darrell and made Roy thank Darrell 

for a gift he received from Darrell. Guadalupe and Frank 

expressed concern that mother was not able to watch all four 

children during the unmonitored visits.

On March 11, 2019, mother terminated the visit early. 

When Guadalupe and Frank arrived to pick up the children at 

McDonald’s, they found Roy walking in the restroom barefoot and 

Aaliyah alone in the play area. Mother was in the restroom with 

Sophia and Prince.

Jennifer said Prince was reluctant to visit. He would 

appear sad before visits and would have tantrums while 

preparing for visits. Jennifer was concerned that mother was not 

engaging with Prince during the visits. At the March 11, 2019 

visit Prince was walking around the McDonald’s bathroom with 

only his urine soaked socks on.

On April 22, 2019, mother reported that she moved in with 

Prince’s paternal aunt and was going to work at a hot dog 

restaurant that Prince’s paternal family owned. Mother failed to 

visit the children on March 30, April 13, and April 20, 2019. On 

May 24, 2019, Jennifer filed a caregiver information form stating 

that mother’s visits had been inconsistent, which was disruptive 

to Prince, who did not want to go on visits with mother.

In a June 6, 2019 report, DCFS reported that mother had 

visited Roy and Aaliyah on May 4, 2019, and visited Prince on 

May 11, 2019. Mother failed to show up at the May 18, 2019 

visit. Guadalupe and Frank reported that they were concerned 

that mother was not disciplining the children during visits. At 

one visit, Roy slapped Aaliyah and mother did not discipline him 

because she felt that it was normal for siblings to act this way 

towards each other. On August 12, 2019, Jennifer submitted 
18

another caregiver information form stating that mother had been 

inconsistent with her visits with Prince.

On June 6, 2019, mother was cited for driving with a 

suspended license, and on June 12, 2019, mother was cited for 

loitering for the purpose of prostitution.

Mother failed to visit the children six times from June 22 

through July 27, 2019. She also failed to participate in her 

parenting program. On August 6, 2019, at 3:04 a.m., mother was 

cited by the sheriff’s department.

On August 30, 2019, Jennifer submitted another caregiver 

information form stating that mother scheduled visits with 

Prince but failed to appear and that Prince no longer wanted to 

visit with mother. Mother failed to visit the children on 

August 17, 2019, August 24, 2019, and August 31, 2019. Mother 

visited the children on August 10, 2019, and September 7, 2019. 

Mother also failed to drug test three times between August 14 

through August 26, 2019. On August 27, 2019, mother informed 

the social worker that she could not drug test because she had 

lost her identification, which the social worker replaced for 

mother.

At the September 12, 2019 section 366.25 hearing, the 

juvenile court found mother had not made substantial progress in 

her case plan. The court terminated family reunification services 

and set the matter for a section 366.26 permanency planning 

hearing.

Permanency planning

On October 1, 2019, the children’s counsel filed a walk-on 

request for Guadalupe and Frank to be appointed the children’s 

co-educational rights holders, as they had not heard from mother 
19

since the section 366.25 hearing. The juvenile court granted the 

request. 

On December 1, 2019, Jennifer and Gilbert informed the 

social worker that they wanted to adopt Prince. Prince had been 

in their home since April 24, 2017, and was bonded to Jennifer 

and Gilbert.

On December 12, 2019, Guadalupe and Frank informed the 

social worker that they wanted to adopt Roy and Aaliyah, who 

had been in their home since April 20, 2017. The children were 

bonded to Guadalupe and Frank and were thriving in their home.

On December 22, 2019, mother was arrested on a warrant 

for prostitution.

In the January 13, 2020 section 366.26 report, the social 

worker reported that mother had not contacted the children’s 

caregivers to schedule any visits since the September 2019 

hearing. Mother had not called to speak with the children or 

inquire as to their wellbeing. Guadalupe and Frank had called 

mother during the holidays to facilitate a phone call between her 

and the children. Mother said she was unavailable and did not 

ask about the children.

On January 30, 2020, mother was convicted of driving 

while her license was suspended.

Mother’s section 388 petition

On January 26, 2021, mother filed a section 388 petition 

seeking reinstatement of family reunification services. Mother 

alleged that she had completed all of her court-ordered programs 

and had obtained stable housing. Attached to mother’s petition 

were her certificate of completion of parenting in March 2020, a 

letter for housing, her NA sign-in sheets from 2017, and her 
20

completion letter from House of Uhuru dated June 20, 2018. The 

juvenile court set mother’s section 388 petition for hearing.

In a February 2021 status review report DCFS reported 

that mother had not visited the children since February 2020, nor 

had she called the caregivers to inquire about their wellbeing. 

Guadalupe noted that mother did not call the children on 

Christmas or their birthdays.

On March 8, 2021, DCFS received a referral alleging that 

mother was engaging in substance abuse, including marijuana 

and alcohol, while caring for two-year-old Sophia.

DCFS interviewed the children for a March 15, 2021 

response to mother’s section 388 petition. The investigator 

observed that Roy felt uncomfortable talking about mother and 

was uncertain of the last time he had seen mother, but he 

responded, “Maybe 1 year.” When asked whether he wanted to 

return to mother’s care, Roy responded “Yes.” When asked if he 

would be okay remaining with Guadalupe and Frank, Roy 

responded, “Yes.”

Aaliyah stated she resided with “my dad, my mom, and I 

have Jocelyn my cousin, [and] Adrian my cousin.” Aaliyah then 

clarified she called Guadalupe “Grandma Lupe or Lupe.” Aaliyah 

recalled living with mother when she was “tiny.” She had happy 

memories but also recalled Darrell hitting mother with a belt. 

Aaliyah expressed that she would like to remain with Guadalupe 

and Frank. Aaliyah could not recall the last time she spoke with 

mother, whom she missed and loved. She also wanted to go back 

and see Prince and Sophia. She missed mother’s hugs and 

squeezes and said mother would let the children eat fruit at 

bedtime and let her use her phone at night.
21

Since mother had not visited or called the children since 

early 2020, Guadalupe was surprised that mother filed a section 

388 petition. The children left four to five messages for mother, 

which were not returned. The children called mother on Mother’s 

Day, but mother did not respond. Guadalupe felt it was in the 

children’s best interests to stay with her and Frank.

Prince was attached to Jennifer and Gilbert, whom he 

referred to as “mommy and daddy.” Prince appeared to be unable 

to recall mother. Mother’s last visit with Prince was in February

2020. During the four years that Prince lived with Jennifer, 

mother had called only three times. The most recent call was on 

Prince’s birthday in September 2019. Jennifer felt it was in 

Prince’s best interest to remain with her and Gilbert. He was 

bonded to them.

DCFS interviewed mother on March 3, 2021. Mother 

resided in a one-bedroom apartment, but she would be provided 

with a voucher for a larger apartment if Roy, Aaliyah and Prince 

were returned to her. Mother stated that she filed the section 

388 petition because she had been doing well for 18 months and 

had Sophia in her care for two years. Mother admitted past drug 

use but stated she had not used drugs for two years. Mother was 

not attending NA and did not have a sponsor. Mother had a 

misdemeanor court hearing on March 11, 2021. She was unable 

to recall the reason for the misdemeanor case.

Mother admitted to not visiting the children since the 

beginning of the pandemic. She also admitted to not having 

called. Mother acknowledged problems with Jennifer and blamed 

the social worker for poor communication. Mother also noted she 

was embarrassed to face Roy and Aaliyah because they would ask 

her when they were coming home. Mother acknowledged that if 
22

the children were returned to her care they would be “a little like 

strangers.” She would need to get to know what they like and get 

them used to each other. Mother admitted she was still in 

contact with Darrell, who had been incarcerated for the last 18 

months for pandering. Mother anticipated his release at the end 

of March 2021. Mother denied a relationship with Darrell other 

than they were good friends.

The dependency investigator obtained posts from mother’s 

social media accounts. In her profile, mother had an OnlyFans 

account, which was popular with sex workers. On March 27, 

2020, mother posted a picture of herself with “Let’s Smoke.” On 

April 1, 2020, mother posted a picture of herself pouring a glass 

of Jack Daniels whiskey, stating, “Almost half way gone.” On 

April 4, 2020, mother posted a photo, stating, “Are your kids 

acting up? Whip their ass! CPS is closed.” On April 20, 2020, 

mother posted a picture of herself wearing a low cut shirt, 

stating, “Happy 420!!!” Mother posted several photos of Darrell, 

suggesting that she missed him and looked forward to his return 

when he was released from jail. Mother also posted a photo of 

herself vaping with the caption, “Good morning[.] Gotta have my 

medicine before starting my day.” In two undated posts, mother 

was viewed blowing smoke, one from a blunt. DCFS located 

several other posts of mother smoking blunts and drinking 

alcohol. DCFS opined that mother had not resolved her 

substance abuse problems as she was regularly smoking 

marijuana and drinking alcohol instead of visiting her children. 

DCFS expressed concern that mother was awaiting Darrell’s 

release from prison, given his past abuse of her. DCFS was also

concerned that mother had expressed on social media the view 

that physical abuse was appropriate. Given Roy’s special needs 
23

(learning disability, speech delay, and medical needs) and 

Prince’s special needs (speech delay), mother’s expectation that 

she could care for all the children seemed unrealistic.

March 2021 hearing on mother’s section 388 petition and 

section 366.26 termination of parental rights

The juvenile court conducted a hearing regarding mother’s 

section 388 petition on March 15 and 18, 2021. The juvenile 

court admitted into evidence DCFS’s reports and took judicial 

notice of the previously sustained petition, case plan, and minute 

orders. 

Mother testified that she had successfully completed drug 

rehabilitation and learned tools to avoid relapse. Mother stated 

she stopped going to NA meetings when the pandemic started 

and had never had a sponsor. Mother admitted she did not visit 

the children since approximately April or July 2020. She stated 

that she stopped visiting because of the pandemic. Mother 

denied being in a relationship with Darrell. When confronted 

with her social media posts, mother stated that she drank one sip

on her birthday and only drank twice since the children had been 

removed from her care. Mother denied using marijuana recently 

and stated that cigarettes were like medicine to her. Mother 

wanted the chance to be a good parent and stated that she had a 

stable home for the past two years.

Though mother was aware that Roy had speech and health 

problems, she did not know details. She was also aware that 

Prince had a speech problem. Mother admitted she had not been 

in contact with the children’s caregivers for about a year.

Mother’s counsel requested the juvenile court grant her 

section 388 petition and reinstate family reunification services. 

The children’s counsel requested the court deny mother’s section 
24

388 petition because mother had not shown changed 

circumstances. She had not been engaged in NA meetings and 

did not have a sponsor. The children’s counsel added 

reunification would not be in the children’s best interests because 

mother would be unable to adequately supervise the children. 

DCFS joined with the children’s counsel. DCFS added that 

mother’s social media posts were a “red flag” and mother’s 

testimony about the posts was not credible, especially because 

mother was not participating in any services to maintain her 

sobriety. DCFS clarified that mother had not seen the children 

since February 2020. Mother also failed to take advantage of her 

unmonitored visits and did not call the children or participate in 

virtual visits.

The juvenile court found that mother had failed to 

demonstrate changed circumstances and that it would not be in 

the children’s best interests to grant mother’s section 388 petition 

for additional family reunification services. The court denied 

mother’s petition.

Mother’s counsel objected to the termination of parental 

rights under the beneficial parental relationship exception found 

in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). The children’s counsel 

and DCFS argued that mother did not meet her burden of

showing that this exception applied because mother had not 

visited the children in 13 months, had not called them even on 

their birthdays, had not called on holidays, and did not return 

their calls when they called her.

The juvenile court found the children were adoptable and 

that no exception to termination of parental rights applied. 

Mother had not maintained regular visitation and had not 

established a bond with the children that outweighed the benefits 
25

of the permanence and stability of adoption. The juvenile court 

terminated mother’s parental rights.

On March 22, 2021, mother filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

I. Mother’s section 388 petition

Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in denying her 

section 388 petition, that she showed a change of circumstances, 

and that it was in the children’s best interests to grant her 

reunification services. As set forth below, we find no error in the 

juvenile court’s decision.

A. Applicable law and standard of review

Section 388 permits the juvenile court, “upon grounds of 

change of circumstance or new evidence . . . to change, modify, or 

set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the 

jurisdiction of the court.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) A petition 

pursuant to section 388 may seek to set aside an order 

terminating reunification services and to reinstate such services. 

(In re D.N. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 741, 754.) “[T]he Legislature 

has provided the procedure pursuant to section 388 to 

accommodate the possibility that circumstances may change after 

the reunification period that may justify a change in a prior 

reunification order.” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 

(Marilyn H.).)

Under section 388, the petitioning party has the burden of 

proving by a preponderance of the evidence both a change of 

circumstances or new evidence that warrants the proposed 

modification of a prior order and that the proposed modification 

is in the child’s best interest. (In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 

398, 415.) “The petition is addressed to the sound discretion of 
26

the juvenile court and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal 

in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” (Ibid.)

It is not enough for a parent to show changing 

circumstances. (In re Mickel O. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 586, 615.) 

The parent must show changed circumstances of a significant 

nature. (Ibid.) After reunification services have been 

terminated, the focus shifts to the child’s need for permanence 

and stability, and it is presumed that continued out-of-home care 

is in the best interest of the child. (Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th 

at p. 310.) “The parent, however, may rebut that presumption by 

showing that circumstances have changed that would warrant 

further consideration of reunification.” (Ibid.)

B. Changed circumstances

Mother claims that she showed changed circumstances by 

having completed her services and a substance abuse treatment 

program, had maintained sobriety for a significant period of time, 

and maintained a stable residence and successfully parented 

Sophia for two years.

Mother claims her three years of sobriety is longer than the 

120-day period criticized in In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 

Cal.App.4th 519, 531, footnote 9, “It is the nature of addiction 

that one must be ‘clean’ for a much longer period than 120 days 

to show real reform.” Mother ignores the conflicting evidence 

before the court, which suggested that mother was not being 

truthful about her sobriety. While mother did participate in a 

drug rehabilitation program, mother failed to obtain a certificate 

of completion because she did not attend the required NA 

meetings. The record contains numerous incidents of missed 

drug tests over the years. At the time of the hearing on mother’s 

petition, mother admitted that she had not attended NA 
27

meetings for over a year and had never obtained a sponsor. 

Further, DCFS presented evidence that mother was actively 

engaging in alcohol and drug use. The court had before it 

evidence from mother’s social media accounts showing that 

mother was smoking marijuana and drinking. Mother admitted 

she drank alcohol on her birthday. The court was not required to 

credit mother’s evidence that she had achieved sobriety in the 

face of so much evidence to the contrary. The evidence before the 

court supported its determination that mother had not made 

significant progress in overcoming her substance abuse issues.

Mother also points to her ability to successfully parent 

Sophia for two years. However, recent allegations brought to 

DCFS raised concerns regarding neglect of Sophia due to 

mother’s substance abuse. The juvenile court was made aware of 

the recent allegations in an interim review report filed by DCFS 

in March 2021. Mother argues that an investigation does not 

equate to a true finding for general neglect and should not be 

interpreted as such. However, the juvenile court was entitled to 

consider the ongoing investigation as to mother’s alleged neglect 

of Sophia when considering whether mother’s circumstances had 

truly changed.

Mother cites In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38,

disapproved on other grounds by In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 

614, 635 (Caden C.), which explained the difference between 

changed and changing circumstances: “A petition which alleges 

merely changing circumstances 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 stability for the 
28

child or the child’s best interests” (Casey D., at p. 47). Mother 

argues that she showed changed, not changing, circumstances.

As set forth above, the juvenile court was entitled to credit 

the contrary evidence presented by DCFS that mother had not 

demonstrated changed circumstances. “The change of 

circumstances . . . ‘must be of such significant nature that it 

requires a setting aside or modification of the challenged prior 

order.’” (In re Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 615.) 

Mother failed to persuade the juvenile court that she had 

genuinely changed, and the record supports the juvenile court’s 

decision.

C. Best interests of the children

The record supports the juvenile court’s determination that 

mother did not make a sufficient showing of changed 

circumstances. Therefore, we need not discuss the second 

required showing—that offering mother further reunification 

services was in the best interests of the children. However, we 

note that mother failed to meet her burden of proving that 

further reunification services served the best interests of the 

children.

“After the termination of reunification services, the 

parents’ interest in the care, custody and companionship of the 

child are no longer paramount.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 

Cal.4th 295, 317.) The focus shifts to the child’s need for 

permanence and stability, and “there is a rebuttable presumption 

that continued foster care is in the best interests of the child.” 

(Ibid.) While mother was not seeking a change in her children’s 

placement, her request for continued reunification services 

suggests that mother’s goal was reunification with her children.
29

Mother points to evidence that her children stated that 

they loved her and wanted to return to her care, particularly 

Aaliyah’s testimony that she missed mother’s hugs and squeezes 

and missed Sophia and Prince. Mother argues that the children’s 

comments show that it was in the children’s best interests to 

allow mother further reunification services.

Again, mother declines to cite the contrary evidence in the 

record. Mother had not had custody of her children since April

2017—almost four years. Mother failed to consistently visit the 

children, which led to the children experiencing disappointment 

and engaging in difficult behaviors. Both Roy and Prince directly 

stated at different times that they no longer wanted to visit with 

mother. The children’s caregivers pointed to mother’s 

inconsistency as leading to behavioral problems with the 

children. In addition, the children appeared anxious after 

visiting with mother, as she would tell them to lie about who was 

present at the visits. Mother’s coercion of the children into 

concealing the truth caused friction between Aaliyah and Roy. 

The children were thriving in stable, loving homes with their 

prospective adoptive parents. The juvenile court was entitled to 

consider all the evidence that the reunification services were not 

serving the children’s best interests.

The juvenile court properly evaluated the evidence and 

determined that mother did not meet her burden of proof under 

section 388. The juvenile court acted well within its discretion, 

and we will not disturb its ruling.
30

II. Beneficial parental relationship exception to 

termination of parental rights

A. Applicable law and standard of review

If a court cannot safely return a dependent child to a 

parent’s custody within statutory time limits, the court must set 

a permanency planning hearing under section 366.26. (Caden C., 

supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 630.) “[W]hen the court orders the section 

366.26 hearing, reunification services have been terminated, and 

the assumption is that the problems that led to the court taking 

jurisdiction have not been resolved.” (Ibid.) The goal is to select 

and implement a permanent plan for the child. (Ibid.) “To guide 

the court in selecting the most suitable permanent arrangement, 

the statute lists plans in order of preference and provides a 

detailed procedure for choosing among them.” (Ibid.) When it is 

determined that a child is adoptable, the court “shall” terminate 

parental rights to allow for adoption. (Ibid.; see § 366.26, subd. 

(c)(1).)

If the parent shows that termination of parental rights 

would be detrimental for at least one specifically enumerated 

reason, the court should decline to terminate parental rights and 

select another permanent plan. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at 

pp. 630-631.) One such exception exists where the juvenile court 

finds that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to 

the child and (1) the parents have maintained regular visitation 

and contact with the child, and (2) the child would benefit from 

continuing the relationship. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Thus, 

the parent must prove three elements in order to prevail under 

this exception: (1) regular visitation and contact; (2) a 

relationship, the continuation of which would benefit the child 

such that (3) the termination of parental rights would be 
31

detrimental to the child. (Caden C., supra, at p. 631.) In 

assessing whether termination would be detrimental to the child, 

“the trial court must decide whether the harm from severing the 

child’s relationship with the parent outweighs the benefit to the 

child of placement in a new adoptive home.” (Id. at p. 632.) “By 

making this decision, the trial court determines whether 

terminating parental rights serves the child’s best interests.” 

(Ibid.)

A substantial evidence standard of review applies to the 

first two elements of this exception. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th

at p. 639.) “The determination that the parent has visited and 

maintained contact with the child ‘consistently,’ taking into 

account ‘the extent permitted by the court’s orders’ [citation] is 

essentially a factual determination. It’s likewise essentially a 

factual determination whether the relationship is such that the 

child would benefit from continuing it.” (Id. at pp. 639-640.) 

Under the substantial evidence standard we do not reweigh the 

evidence. Instead, the juvenile court’s factual determinations 

should be upheld if “‘supported by substantial evidence, even 

though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the 

trial court might have reached a different result had it believed 

other evidence.’” (Id. at p. 640.)

The third element—whether termination of parental rights 

would be detrimental to the child—is different. (Caden C., supra, 

11 Cal.5th at p. 640.) The “ultimate decision—whether 

termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child 

due to the child’s relationship with his parent—is discretionary 

and properly reviewed for abuse of discretion.” (Ibid.) A court 

abuses its discretion “only when ‘“‘the trial court has exceeded 
32

the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, 

or patently absurd determination.’”’” (Id. at p. 641.)

B. Regular visitation and contact

Mother concedes that she did not visit the children in the 

past year. Although it was a year of a global pandemic, mother 

did not call or attempt to contact the children in any way. 

Mother did not even return the children’s phone calls.

Further, even before the pandemic, mother failed to 

regularly visit the children. Mother missed numerous visits, 

which led to frustration and sadness for the children. Mother 

admitted at the hearing that if the children were returned to her 

care they would be “a little like strangers.” Mother failed to meet 

the first element of the beneficial parental relationship exception 

to termination of parental rights.

C. Beneficial relationship and detriment to the 

children

Because the evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

determination that mother failed to show regular visitation and 

contact, we need not discuss the questions of whether mother had 

a beneficial relationship with her children or whether 

termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the 

children. However, we note that substantial evidence in the 

record supports a determination against mother on these factors 

as well.

Mother argues that despite her lack of contact with the 

children she had a bond with her children, and it was in the 

children’s best interests to maintain that bond. Mother argues 

that even the court noted that this was a very sad case because 

mother loved her children and they cared for her. Mother seeks a 

permanent plan of guardianship or long-term foster care to allow 
33

the children to remain in the caregivers’ respective homes yet 

maintain the relationship with their mother. (In re Jerome D. 

(2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1208.)4

The evidence in the record supports a finding that mother’s 

relationship with her children did not rise to the level of benefit 

such that it would be detrimental to the children for it to 

terminate. Mother’s inconsistent visits were detrimental to the 

children’s mental health. Roy expressed his preference to play 

soccer rather than visit with mother since she was inconsistent. 

Mother even admitted she was embarrassed to face Roy and 

Aaliyah because they would ask her when they were coming 

home. Mother’s visits had a negative effect on Prince, who would 

appear anxious and act up in anticipation of her visits. Prince 

stated that he did not want to visit with mother and would have 

tantrums prior to visits. By the time of the termination of 

parental rights Prince could not even recall mother.

4 In In re Jerome D., supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at page 1207, 

there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s 

finding that mother did not meet her burden of showing a 

beneficial relationship. The child had lived with his mother for 

the first six and one-half years of his life and had expressed his 

wish to live with her again. In addition, for at least two months, 

he had been having unsupervised overnight visits in her home. 

Furthermore, there was no woman in his life other than his 

mother with whom he had a beneficial relationship. (Ibid.) 

Under those circumstances, the child had a positive, parental 

relationship with his mother such that it would benefit him to 

maintain his relationship with his mother. The present matter is 

distinguishable, as mother here did not maintain visits with the 

children nor did she maintain a positive relationship with them.
34

Furthermore there was evidence that mother’s visits were 

potentially hazardous to the children. Mother left Aaliyah 

unattended at a McDonald’s, asked the children to lie about who 

was with her at the unmonitored visits, would not discipline the 

children appropriately during visits, and allowed Roy and Prince 

to walk around public restrooms without shoes, among other 

problems and concerns.

Overall, substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s 

findings that mother did not meet the required elements of the 

beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of 

parental rights. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

determining that termination of parental rights would not be 

detrimental to the children.

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

________________________

CHAVEZ, J.

We concur:

________________________

LUI, P. J.

________________________

ASHMANN-GERST, J.