Filed 11/5/15 In re Tey. T. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 FIVE

In re TEY. T., et al., Persons Coming

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B263495

 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. 

 No. CK60784)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

Sasha M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Zeke 

Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed. 

Merrill Lee Toole, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant.

Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Respondent E.C. 

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. 

_______________________
2

Sasha M. (minor) appeals from the dependency court’s order returning minor to 

the custody of E.C. (mother) after two years of reunification services, under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 366.25, subd. (a)(1).

1

 Inherent in the court’s decision is a 

determination that neither minor’s counsel nor the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (Department) proved by a preponderance of the evidence 

that minor would be at substantial risk of detriment in mother’s custody. Minor contends 

the court placement order erroneously ignored substantial evidence establishing a risk of 

detriment. Mother, as respondent on appeal, contends the court’s decision is supported 

by substantial evidence. Because the statute requires the court to return a child to 

parental custody absent a finding that return would pose a substantial risk of detriment, 

and because there is substantial evidence to support the court’s placement decision, we 

affirm. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother has seven children ranging in age from 18 months to 21 years old. The 

youngest four are girls: fifteen-year-old Tey., seven-year-old Sav., four-year-old Sasha, 

and eighteen-month-old El. K.M. (father)2is the biological father of the youngest three 

girls.3 

 

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless 

otherwise indicated.

2 Father is not a party to this appeal.

3 Mother’s older children are no longer minors: 21-year-old Tra. and her two 

younger brothers, 20-year-old Tre., and 19-year-old Thi. 
3

Earlier Proceedings

This court has decided one other appeal related to the current dependency 

proceeding, affirming the dependency court’s jurisdictional findings and removal orders, 

based on allegations that the children were at risk of harm because mother disbelieved an 

older daughter’s accusation that father had sexually abused her, and mother’s failure to 

adequately provide for her children Tre. and Tey. We excerpt from our earlier opinion 

(In re Tey. T. (Apr. 30, 2014, B250449) [nonpub. opn.])4relevant details about the 

family’s involvement with the dependency system:

“The current case is the family’s third dependency proceeding. The Department 

filed the first petition in June 2006. Mother’s younger son, Thi., was nine at the time and 

had been hospitalized twice for severe emotional disturbance and diagnosed with a 

number of mental health disorders. Mother had initially entered into a voluntary family 

maintenance contract, but then refused to cooperate and would not allow mental health 

professionals to assist Thi. The Department filed a petition after Tra., Tre., and Tey. 

reported suffering both physical and mental abuse. The dependency court detained the 

children from mother and released them to [their biological father.] . . . The court 

sustained the petition on April 3, 2007, but in the interim, mother had given birth to Sav. 

in July 2006. Mother did not cooperate with the Department’s requests to see Sav., and 

when the social worker attempted to visit mother and K.M., the home was vacant and 

there was an eviction sign in the window. The Department filed a petition on behalf of 

Sav., obtained a protective custody warrant, located Sav., and placed the infant in foster 

care. On May 15, 2007, the court sustained a supplemental petition filed on behalf of 

Sav. By July 2007, four of the siblings were placed with the maternal aunt, and both 

mother and K.M. were participating in reunification services. After enrolling in various 

parenting classes, [m]other and K.M. regained custody of all five children in January 

 

4 Respondent incorporated the facts from the earlier appeal under California Rules 

of Court, rule 8.147(b).
4

2008, and the team providing mental health wraparound services to Thi. was confident 

that mother would ensure continued mental health services for him. The court terminated 

jurisdiction in July 2008.

“The family again came to the Department’s attention in February 2011 when 

mother left Thi. with [his father], who was unable to care for the boy. Thi. reported that 

he and his siblings had not been to school in over four years, and mother and K.M. did 

not provide enough food to the family. The Department was unable to locate the other 

siblings, but filed a petition in May 2011 naming all six children. The court issued 

protective custody warrants for the missing children, and arrest warrants for mother and 

K.M. 

“The Department was unable to locate the family until March 2012, when K.M.’s 

mother called the Department to report that the children had been dropped off at her 

home. The Department interviewed the children, who reported that they did not have 

contact information for their parents, but that Thi.’s allegations were untrue. They 

claimed to be properly homeschooled and denied any abuse. Mother and K.M. entered 

into a voluntary contract with the Department, and the petition was dismissed in June 

2012. Part of the contract was an agreement to enroll the children in school or in a 

certified homeschooling program. 

“In August 2012, Tra. filed a police report with the Palmdale Sheriff’s Department 

alleging K.M. had raped her on multiple occasions. In the police report, Tra. claimed that 

the rape occurrences began when she was 16 and continued until May 2012. They took 

place when mother was not home. In July 2012 and again in October 2012, the 

Department received reports that Tra. had disclosed she had been sexually abused by 

K.M. In both instances, social workers interviewed family members and concluded the 

reports were unfounded. 

“The Department received another report about the family on December 16, 2012, 

when Tre. and Tey. sought to leave the home to live with [their father]. Four days later, 

[the father] dropped Tra., Tre., and Tey. off at a Los Angeles police station, stating he 

was unable to care for the children, and that mother was still receiving financial 
5

assistance for them. Tre. and Tey. reported going to mother’s home earlier that day to 

obtain a letter from mother permitting [their father] to care for them, but she refused to let 

them into the house. 

“At the adjudication hearing, Tra. testified that K.M. first sexually abused her 

when Sasha was an infant. He sent the other siblings to the park, and when Tra was 

putting Sasha down to sleep, ‘he was in there, and he came and got close to me. And, 

basically -- he did oral to me and, like, climbed on top of me.’ Afterwards, she told Tey., 

but did not tell mother. On at least two occasions, K.M. penetrated her with his penis. 

The abuse ended when she was placed in foster care as part of the 2011 case. She did not 

tell anyone in the Department about the abuse because she was embarrassed. 

“Tey. testified that Tra. told her of the abuse, but she never witnessed K.M. 

sexually abusing Tra. She said she originally denied knowing of any abuse because she 

did not want to believe it. Mother testified she never left Tra. alone with K.M., and did 

not believe that K.M. had abused Tra. as Tra. alleged. 

“The court found no evidence that mother had been told of the abuse, but also 

noted that ‘the children didn’t really have a chance to express what was going on to the 

mother. She discouraged any of that sort of communication.’”

On June 12, 2013, the court ordered mother to complete the following 

reunification services: (1) conjoint counseling as recommended by children’s therapist; 

(2) individual counseling to address case issues (including child safety factors, personal 

responsibility, sexual abuse awareness and alternative parenting methods for out of 

control children); (3) sexual abuse awareness counseling; and (4) participate in all school 

activities including any necessary Individualized Education Programs (IEP). The court 

ordered monitored visits for mother and father.

Six and Twelve-month Review Periods

On December 16, 2013, the court ordered a psycho-educational assessment for 

Sasha, and granted mother unmonitored day visits with Sav. and Sasha, up to five hours a 
6

visit. Father’s visits remained monitored. The Department’s six-month status review 

reports described mother as being partially compliant with reunification services. She 

had taken a foster care parenting class and participated in weekly individual counseling 

between October and December 2013, but had failed to fully address safety issues. The 

Department recommended that all court-ordered services be completed before the minors 

could be safely returned to the home. In addition, the Department recommended granting 

Sasha’s foster parents educational rights because even though the court had previously 

ordered a psycho-social evaluation, the school district would not conduct the evaluation 

without parental consent, but mother and father had declined to consent. Finally, the 

Department tried to arrange a time to assess mother’s home for overnight visits, but 

mother had failed to contact the Department to arrange a date for the assessment. 

Shortly before the six-month review hearing, the Department reported that mother 

had moved into maternal aunt’s home in January 2014, and on February 27, 2014, social 

workers assessed the home for overnight visits. The social workers planned to schedule a 

team decisionmaking meeting (TDM) with mother to go over boundaries for overnight 

visits, come up with a schedule, and further discuss reunification. 

At the six-month review hearing on March 14, 2013, the court again ordered a

psycho-educational assessment for Sasha. The Department was given discretion to 

permit weekend overnight visits for Tey., Sav., or Sasha, as well as discretion to walk on 

a “home of parent order” for any of the three girls. 

After a TDM on March 18, 2014, mother began having overnight visits with both 

Sav. and Sasha. Mother’s overnight visits with Sasha were discontinued in late May after 

Sasha disclosed that on a visit with her “bio mom” she slept in the bed with her “bio 

dad.” Mother contacted the supervising social worker and denied father having any 

contact with girls; she claimed Sasha was lying. Mother continued having weekly 

unmonitored day visits with Sasha. 
7

Eighteen-month Review Period

The Department’s 18-month status review report dated August 6, 2014, stated that 

mother was in partial compliance with the case plan, but that the social worker had been 

unable to contact mother to discuss her perception of her needs. Mother’s therapist 

reported mother had attended 28 classes, beginning in November 2013, and the therapist 

could prepare a report about mother’s progress and goals they have covered. Mother had 

weekly unmonitored day visits with Sasha in May, June, and July. The report stated 

Sasha had disclosed that her “bio dad” was on the bus with her and told her, “I love you,” 

during the visit on June 21, 2014. 

The Department further reported that Sasha was not in preschool because “mother 

refuses to sign the educational appropriate paperwork.” Sasha had bonded with her 

caregivers, who were concerned about Sasha’s behavior and the absence of services to 

assist her. “Caregivers report that they have tried continuously to convince mother, who 

has educational rights to sign the necessary papers for Sasha to enroll in school but 

mother refuses to do so.” Caregivers also were seeking an evaluation of Sasha for 

autism, because foster father had been unable to teach Sasha shapes, colors or the 

alphabet, and Sasha was twisting her hair, clothing, and linen to the point of creating 

holes in her clothing and sheets. 

The Department recommended that the court terminate reunification services and 

initiate a request under the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children for possible 

placement with Sasha’s paternal grandmother in Louisiana. A separate report concerning 

Sasha’s older sister Sav. recommended terminating mother’s reunification services and 

setting a selection and implementation hearing. In that report, the Department noted that 

mother had not started court-ordered conjoint therapy with Sav. and explained changes in 

the schedule for overnight visitation by noting that during an overnight visit on May 10, 

2014, mother did not return Sasha to her foster placement on the scheduled day. 

On August 6, 2014, after a contested 18-month hearing, the court moved Sasha’s 

16-year-old half-sister Tey. from foster care to “home of parent-mother” on the condition 
8

that Tey. attend school. Both Sav. and Sasha remained in foster care, and the court 

granted mother overnight visitation with Sav. and Sasha, conditioned on continued 

compliance. The court found a substantial probability that Sav. and Sasha would be 

returned to a parent’s physical custody pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (g). It 

ordered the Department to continue providing reunification services, assist mother to 

enroll in conjoint counseling with Sav. and Sasha, and facilitate mother’s visits with the 

children, including transportation assistance. Finally, it ordered that the Department’s 

next report include detailed current academic information, current medical information, 

and detailed visitation information consistent with the court’s protocol. 

Twenty-four-month Review Period

The Department’s 24-month status review report dated November 18, 2014,

continued to describe the children to be at “high” risk for future abuse or neglect, 

highlighting the fact that although mother “is participating in some Court ordered 

programs, she is not being consistent with visitation with the children, consenting to IEP 

for Sasha, possibly allowing father unmonitored contact with the children, and not 

allowing [the Department] in to her home.” The Department recommended terminating 

reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. 

Mother had two overnight visits with Sasha in late September and early October 

2014. The Department suspended visits after discovering that mother had continued a 

sexual relationship with father, and he was the father of her youngest daughter, El., born 

on April 9, 2014. Mother did not disclose this information to the Department until 

October 2014, when the Department was investigating statements by Sasha that she had 

slept in the same bed as her baby sister and her birth father. According to mother, the last 

time she saw father was April 2014. On October 28, 2014, the Department filed a section 

388 petition to change mother’s visits to monitored, based on concerns that mother was 

allowing father to have contact with the children during unmonitored overnight visits. 

On November 10, 2014, mother’s counsel filed a walk-on request seeking an order 
9

requiring the Department to permit unmonitored overnight visits as previously ordered by 

the court on August 6, 2014. 

The Department reported that since Tey. was placed with mother in August 2014, 

mother had not made Tey. available for in-home visits by the social workers. Mother 

refused to let the social worker visit Tey. in the home, and the social worker had to 

instead meet with Tey. at a local Starbucks. The social worker made an unannounced 

visit in September, and mother refused entry, so the social worker met with Tey. outside 

the home. In addition, when the social worker asked mother to inform her of an initial 

meeting with the wraparound team,5 mother said “no,” stating she has worked with 

wraparound in the past and does not need the Department involved with her wraparound 

team. On October 30, 2014, mother had not complied with obtaining wraparound 

services, but demanded that the Department provide her with financial assistance to 

obtain housing. 

On November 18, 2014, the court continued both the section 388 hearing and the 

24-month review hearing to allow the Department to conduct a TDM and put a safety 

plan into place to address safety issues with respect to Tey. and El., as well as visits with 

both Sav. and Sasha. The court further ordered that one or more children must be present 

during Sasha’s visits with mother, and the Department was to conduct a predetention 

investigation for both Tey. and El.

Mother, foster parents, and the Department conducted a TDM and agreed on a 

safety plan that permitted both Tey. and El. to remain in mother’s home with family 

maintenance services. Mother agreed to allow the Department to enter the home, to 

continue in conjoint therapy with Sav., to encourage Tey. to participate with the 

wraparound team, and to allow the Department to participate in wraparound meetings 

when necessary. Mother would have overnight visits with both Sav. and Sasha on the 

weekends. She would provide current telephone numbers to foster parents and the 

 

5 Wraparound services are integrated services provided by multiple agencies to 

assist minors in dependency proceedings.
10

Department, and foster father would make Sasha available for telephone contact with 

mother. 

The Department reported in January 2015 that the referral relating to El. had been 

closed out as unfounded, but the Department was still investigating a new referral 

received on December 16, 2014, that mother was physically abusing Sasha as well as her 

older siblings. The court and the parties agreed to continue the 24-month review hearing 

to March for the results of the latest referral. Minors’ counsel declared a conflict; he was 

relieved from representing Sav. but continued representing Sasha. Mother’s counsel 

claimed mother had been unable to arrange some overnight visits, and the court ordered 

the Department to speak to both mother and Sasha’s caretaker to resolve visitation issues. 

The court also gave the Department discretion to start extended visits for both Sav. and 

Sasha. On February 25, 2015, the court ordered the Department to provide a report on 

details of the earlier referrals and the Department’s investigations, as well as the dates of 

all of mother’s visits with Sasha since December 8, 2014. A last minute information 

report filed on March 10, 2014, stated that both referrals were closed as unfounded on 

January 13, 2015. Sasha had overnight weekend visits with no safety concerns, and she 

had her first extended visit with mother between February 20 and 26, 2015. The social 

worker planned to continue to liberalize visits with both children until the scheduled 

hearing on March 10, 2015. The Department recommended that both Sav. and Sasha be 

returned to mother’s care.

The 24-month review hearing began on March 10, 2015, with Sasha’s counsel 

contesting the Department’s recommendation to place Sasha with mother. The court 

admitted into evidence the Department reports dated January 29, 2013, August 6, 2014, 

November 18, 2014, December 8, 2014, January 12, 2015, and March 10, 2015, as well 

as the Department’s section 388 petition filed October 28, 2014. Minor’s counsel called 

foster father to testify, but the testimony was cut short when a public health nurse 

determined that Sasha, who was present in court for the hearing, needed a breathing 

treatment. Mother had given her two breathing treatments in the morning before court, 

but did not bring the machine to administer another. 
11

On March 12, 2015, the Department changed its recommendation regarding 

Sasha’s placement, recommending monitored visits for mother instead, based on the fact 

that mother did not provide appropriate and consistent medical attention and care to 

Sasha when she was suffering respiratory issues during the court hearing on March 10, 

2015. The report expressed concern that mother’s limited knowledge of Sasha’s medical 

condition and how to act on Sasha’s behalf while she was suffering an asthma attack 

could be life threatening if not dealt with timely and appropriately. 

Foster Parent’s Testimony

Sasha’s foster father testified that Sasha had been placed with him for 26 months. 

He had significant concerns about mother’s willingness and ability to provide for Sasha’s 

educational needs, particularly because mother had refused to consent to testing. He 

testified there had been blocks of time four or five weeks long where mother would not 

contact him and no visits would take place. Since the beginning of 2015, however, the 

length and frequency of Sasha’s visits with mother had increased. After visits with 

mother, Sasha ate larger portions of food than normal and said she did not get enough to 

eat while she was with her mother. Sometimes she would return from visits smelling 

badly, with dirty and cracked skin, but other times she was clean, and her skin looked 

normal. 

Mother’s Testimony

Mother testified she was in favor of Sasha receiving services, including speech 

therapy and being assessed for autism. She never refused to sign an authorization 

regarding Sasha’s education or assessment, and had authorized Regional Center services 

some time ago. She disputed the foster father’s testimony about how much she was 

feeding Sasha, stating Sasha was fed three times a day, plus snacks, and never 

complained she was hungry. 
12

Mother denied that Sasha was dirty or that her skin was cracked or bleeding while 

in her custody, and explained that she followed doctor’s instructions to treat Sasha’s dry 

skin with a special thick lotion, using hydrocortisone if there was any skin breakage. 

Mother testified she had to take Sasha to urgent care for her asthma, and was given 

albuterol and steroids. She gave the medications to foster father, who never gave it back 

when Sasha had visits with mother. 

Mother began overnight visitation with Sasha in April 2014, but at times the visits 

would not take place because foster father would not respond to her efforts to confirm the 

visit, and she would need to get the social worker involved. Foster father would also tell 

the social worker Sasha was claiming she spent the night with her father, and the social 

worker would suspend overnight visits and require monitored visits but was unable to

find a monitor, so mother would not have visits. 

Mother testified she continued in a relationship with father after the petition in this 

case was sustained in 2013, and that he is the father of her youngest child El. She last 

had contact with him in April 2014, and had ended her relationship with him out of 

concern for her children’s safety. 

Placement Decision

Joining in minor’s argument in favor of a detriment finding that would prevent 

Sasha’s placement with mother, the deputy county counsel described the basis for the 

court’s decision as a “credibility contest” between foster father and mother. The deputy 

county counsel described foster father’s testimony as credible and objective, while 

mother’s testimony “has a lot of holes in it.” The court announced its decision as 

follows: “I must admit when the foster father was testifying, I had serious concerns about 

his concerns. I do believe that Sasha is differently situated than the other children in 

relation to her age and ability to report problems that arise in the mother’s home. So I do 

think that there is one way that she’s differently situated. I was definitely leaning 

towards [minor’s counsel’s] position after the foster father’s testimony. [¶] But I also 
13

found the mother to then be very – to have made marked progress from the beginning of 

this case to her testimony at these two hearings.” The court found mother to be in 

compliance with the case plan and placed Sasha with mother under the Department’s 

supervision, conditioned on continued compliance with the case plan. 

DISCUSSION

As minor argues on appeal, the record contains abundant evidence to support a 

finding that there is a substantial risk of detriment to Sasha’s health and safety if she is 

returned to mother’s custody. Our consideration of the issues minor raises on appeal is 

constrained both by the requirements of section 366.26, subdivision (a), and by the

substantial evidence standard of review. The statute compels the dependency court to 

return a child to his or her parents unless it makes a finding that there is a substantial risk 

of detriment to the child’s safety and well-being. (§ 366.26, subd. (a).) Viewed in the 

light most favorable to the order of the dependency court, we cannot conclude the 

decision to return minor to mother’s custody is unsupported by substantial evidence. We 

therefore affirm.

A. Standard of review

We review the court’s findings for substantial evidence. (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 

165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1400-1401.) In determining whether substantial evidence 

supports a finding, “all intendments are in favor of the judgment and [we] must accept as 

true the evidence which tends to establish the correctness of the findings as made, taking 

into account as well all inferences which might reasonably have been drawn by the trial 

court.” (Crogan v. Metz (1956) 47 Cal.2d 398, 403-404.) “‘“[T]he [appellate] court must 

review the whole record in the light most favorable to the judgment below to determine 

whether it discloses substantial evidence . . . such that a reasonable trier of fact could 

[make the findings made].”’ [Citations.]” (In re Matthew S. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 315, 
14

321.) If the order “‘“is supported by substantial evidence, we must accord due deference 

to the trier of fact and not substitute our evaluation of a witness’s credibility for that of 

the fact finder. [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (People v. Smith (2005) 37 Cal.4th 

733, 739.)

“We do not reweigh the evidence or exercise independent judgment, but merely 

determine if there are sufficient facts to support the findings of the trial court.” (In re 

Matthew S., supra, 201 Cal.App.3d at p. 321.) If supported by substantial evidence, the 

judgment or finding must be upheld, even though substantial evidence may also exist that 

would support a contrary judgment and the dependency court might have reached a 

different conclusion had it determined the facts and weighed credibility differently. (In 

re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.) Thus, the pertinent inquiry when a 

finding is challenged on sufficiency of the evidence grounds is whether substantial 

evidence supports the finding, not whether a contrary finding might have been made. 

(Ibid.)

B. Required findings at 24-month hearing

At each review hearing, including the 24-month review hearing, the Department 

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the child’s return to parental custody 

would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child’s safety, protection or physical or 

emotional well-being. Unless the court finds substantial risk of detriment, it must return 

the child to parental custody. (§ 366.25, subd. (a)(1).) 

Minor emphasizes on appeal that mother received over 24 months of reunification 

services, despite a statutory presumption that when a child is less than three years old at 

the time of removal, a parent is only entitled to six months of reunification services. (§

361.5, subd. (b)(2).) However, the length of time mother received reunification services 

does not affect our review of whether there was substantial evidence to support the 

court’s finding that there was no risk of detriment.
15

C. The evidence supporting the finding of no substantial risk of detriment is legally 

sufficient

1. Evidence supporting minor’s argument

The record unquestionably contains substantial evidence calling into question 

mother’s credibility and raising serious issues as to the risk of detriment to minor if 

returned to mother. There are three areas in which evidence directly contradicts mother’s 

testimony: mother’s approach to Sasha’s educational needs, mother’s willingness to 

grant the Department access to the home to verify the children’s safety, and father’s 

presence during Sasha’s visits with mother. 

Mother testified she never refused to sign an authorization to have Sasha assessed, 

yet the record contains no signed authorization after a lengthy dependency, and testimony 

from foster father as well as ongoing reports from the Department state that mother had 

refused to sign any releases for the school district to conduct an IEP for Sasha. There is 

evidence in any earlier case that Sasha’s half-sibling Thi. had not been enrolled in school 

for four years. Two of Sasha’s older half-siblings stated that mother would pretend she 

was enrolling the children in school or home schooling them, but then would make them 

stay in a room all day rather than going to school, and when Sasha’s sister Sav. was 

detained in 2012 at the age of six, she was still not enrolled in school. 

Mother’s testimony that social workers had been to visit the home while Tey. was 

placed with mother is in direct conflict with the Department’s reports stating mother was 

unavailable and at times refused to allow social workers access to the home to visit Tey. 

Mother has a documented history of evading the Department’s scrutiny, including 

refusing to give the Department access to the home, resulting in a court-issued protective 

custody warrant for the Department to detain Sasha and Sav. The Department filed a 

petition in May 2011 based on reports that the children had not been to school for four 

years, but the Department was not able to locate the children until March of 2012. 
16

Mother testified she was no longer in contact with father, and did not permit any 

contact between father and any of her children, but she admitted being in a relationship 

with father during the time she was having unmonitored visitation with the children. She 

conceived and gave birth to father’s child, and later cared for the child for six months 

without revealing the child’s existence to the Department. Instead, mother accused Sasha 

of lying when she claimed to have seen her father during visits. It was only due to 

Sasha’s insistence that she had seen her father and her baby sister that the infant’s 

existence came to light. 

2. Evidence supporting a return to parental custody under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 366.25, subdivision (a)(1)

Mother had complied with orders to participate in individual counseling and 

parenting classes, having obtained certificates of completion for six parenting classes and 

participated in 42 individual therapy sessions between October 2013 and November 

2014. She maintained regular visitation with Sasha, progressively moving from 

monitored visits to unmonitored daytime visits. After the Department inspected the 

home, unmonitored overnight visits for Sasha began around April 2014. According to 

mother’s testimony, any gaps in visitation were either due to lack of communication from 

foster father or the Department suspending visits while it investigated concerns about 

father being present during mother’s overnight visits with Sasha. However, mother 

consistently denied that father had been at the home or had access to the children during 

visits. She also testified she never refused to authorize educational assessments or 

services for Sasha. Mother testified she fed the children three meals a day, plus snacks, 

and that she never used physical discipline for Sasha. 

The Department had conducted investigations regarding possible detention of El. 

and Tey., but both referrals were closed as unfounded. Although the court found Sasha to 

be differently situated than her sisters, the fact that the Department found no safety 

concerns with allowing Tey. and El. to remain in mother’s custody also weighs in favor 
17

of the court’s decision to place Sasha with her mother. In ordering Sasha to be returned 

to mother’s home, the court noted mother had made marked progress, and its decision 

reflects a determination that mother’s testimony was more credible than foster father’s. 

3. The order is supported by substantial evidence

Although there are significant facts in that record that would support a detriment 

finding, minor’s contention in the final analysis is foreclosed by the standard of review, 

which requires us to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the 

court’s decision, not whether other evidence may have supported a decision to the 

contrary. (In re Dakota H., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 228.) Viewed in the light most 

favorable to the dependency court’s finding, and giving due deference to the court’s 

credibility determinations, there is substantial evidence to support the court’s finding that 

Sasha’s safety and physical or emotional well-being was not at substantial risk of 

detriment if she returned to mother’s custody. 

Although we uphold the order, the significant facts that would have supported a 

detriment finding justify careful monitoring of the success of the placement of minor with 

mother. We have no reason to doubt that the Department, the experienced dependency 

court judge, and minor’s counsel will diligently monitor minor’s progress, and, if 

necessary, promptly take appropriate corrective actions. 
18

DISPOSITION

The dependency court’s findings and order returning S.M. to mother’s custody are 

affirmed.

KRIEGLER, J. 

We concur: 

MOSK, Acting P. J.

BAKER, J.