Filed 12/29/22 In re I.R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 I.R., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B317369

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct.

 No. 18CCJP00937C)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Steff Padilla, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.

Pamela Deavours, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Timothy M. O’Crowley, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————

In a dependency proceeding involving I.R. (minor), C.M. 

(father) appeals the juvenile court’s order denying his petition to 

change court orders under Welfare and Institutions Code section 

388.1 Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Family background and history 

Mother met father when she was 14 years old, and he was 

in his 20’s.2 Mother has been addicted to drugs since the age of 

16. Mother and father had a lengthy history of domestic violence. 

Both parents have multiple other children, but we only review 

the child welfare history of three children relevant to the current 

case: minor (born March 2019); brother (born July 2005); sister 

(born September 2009); and half-brother on father’s side. In 

2008, half-brother was declared a dependent based on his

mother’s drug use. The juvenile court granted father sole custody 

1 Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 

Code. Section 388 permits parents and other individuals with an 

interest in a dependent child to petition the juvenile court to 

modify or set aside prior court orders. (§ 388, subd. (a).)

2 Mother is not a party to this appeal. Her involvement in 

the dependency case was minimal, and we discuss her role only 

as relevant to father’s appeal.
3

of half-brother and terminated jurisdiction in October 2008. A 

separate case involving brother and sister began in 2010, based 

on sustained allegations of domestic violence and physical abuse 

of brother. The case ultimately ended in 2015, with the court 

granting maternal grandparents legal guardianship of the two 

children. 

During most of her pregnancy with minor, mother was 

living in motels to avoid coming into contact with father, who had 

constantly threatened to kill her family in the past. Mother 

believed that father had vandalized maternal grandparents’ 

property, including slashing the tires of maternal grandfather’s 

truck and throwing paint on it. Mother tested positive for 

methamphetamine after giving birth to minor at a gestational 

age of 32 weeks in March 2019. At the hospital, mother 

acknowledged her drug use and understood why the Los Angeles 

County Department of Children and Family Services 

(Department) was involved.

Father had been visiting minor at the hospital, but 

nevertheless wanted to confirm paternity. He acknowledged 

using methamphetamine in the past, but claimed he stopped 

using drugs in early 2000. Father’s lengthy criminal history 

included a 2007 conviction for threatening a crime with intent to 

terrorize and a 2010 conviction for child cruelty with a two-year 

prison sentence. More recently, father entered a guilty plea for 

possession of brass knuckles and was anticipating turning 

himself in to serve an eight-month jail sentence on April 12, 

2019. Minor’s maternal aunt and uncle (caregivers) reported that 

mother wanted them to care for minor. 
4

Father’s mixed participation in reunification services in current 

case 

Once minor was discharged from the hospital in April 2019, 

she was detained from parental custody and placed with 

caregivers. In June 2019, the court sustained jurisdictional 

allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), based on 

the parents’ history of domestic violence and the prior 

dependency case involving sister and brother. Father was 

permitted monitored visits three times per week, and the court 

ordered him to complete a 52-week domestic violence program 

and parenting education program, and to participate in 

individual counseling. Minor remained placed with caregivers.

The Department’s six-month review report noted several 

concerning details about father’s visits with minor. The 

caregivers were initially monitoring father’s visits with minor, 

but they reported that very little engagement and bonding took 

place, and father would curse and say bad things about mother 

and maternal family members while holding minor. The 

caregivers stopped monitoring father’s visits in May 2019, 

because they no longer felt comfortable or safe doing so. Paternal 

grandmother monitored father’s visits starting in late May 2019, 

and she reported no concerns. 

In July 2019, father enrolled in a domestic violence 

program with Acacia Counseling, but his participation was 

terminated in October 2019 due to poor attendance (father had 

missed five of 13 sessions). He enrolled in a parenting program 

on August 23, 2019, and had attended five weekly sessions as of 

October 24, 2019. He was participating in weekly individual 

counseling sessions, making progress on his therapy goals, 
5

focused on addressing domestic violence, anger management, and 

coping skills. 

In September 2019, the Department substantiated a report 

that father had physically abused half-brother. Father, who was 

previously living with paternal grandmother and half-brother, 

moved out of paternal grandmother’s home and was living with 

an acquaintance. Because paternal grandmother had been 

present when father abused half-brother, she was no longer an 

appropriate monitor for father’s visits with minor. By late 

November 2019, the social worker and father identified a new 

monitor and a location for future visits. 

At the December 2019 six-month review hearing, the court 

ordered the Department to continue providing reunification 

services and to set up a visitation schedule for father. The 12-

month review hearing, originally scheduled for June 2020, was 

continued to September 18, 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Twelve-month review report and hearing—court grants father an 

additional six months of reunification services

The Department’s 12-month review report described minor 

as a joyful child who was well bonded to the caregivers. Due to 

COVID-19, father’s monitored visits switched over to remote 

visits using a phone application. The monitor reported there was 

tension between the caregivers and father, but the monitor 

reported no concerns about the visits. While it is not clear from 

the record when father resumed in-person visits, the Department 

liberalized his visits to permit unmonitored visits in person 

beginning July 21, 2020, three times a week for three hours per 

visit, with the exchange taking place at a police station. No 
6

issues were reported regarding the exchanges, and father 

reported he and minor were bonding more and minor was 

comfortable with him. Caregivers reported minor often returned 

fussy and in a bad mood. 

Father had strong participation in his domestic violence 

and parenting classes in the first half of 2020, but began to falter 

in July and August of the same year. Acacia Counseling, the 

same domestic violence program that had previously terminated 

father’s participation in October 2019, permitted father to return 

and reported he was doing well as of June 2020. However, even 

after the program director spoke to father about the importance 

of consistent attendance, and changed class dates to 

accommodate father’s work schedule, father had five absences, 

resulting in another termination from the program in August 

2020. According to the program director, father verbally abused 

female staff members when the female facilitator brought father’s 

lack of attendance to his attention. Father accused the program 

director of making false claims about his behavior; father also 

claimed that the program director refused to give father his 

transcripts so he could enroll at another program. The program 

director responded that father’s termination letter had the 

necessary transcript information. Father was able to enroll in a 

different domestic violence program through Baldwin Park 

Counseling on August 27, 2020. 

Father had attended 15 sessions of parenting classes 

through Spiritt Family Centers before the program stopped inperson sessions in March 2020 due to COVID-19. Thereafter, 

father’s participation in video sessions was consistent and he was 

an active participant. However, on July 17, 2020, father was 

reportedly “concerned about going back to jail for something that 
7

took place in the past and had a nervous breakdown,” becoming 

very angry, yelling and swearing. By August 25, 2020, father had 

missed approximately four to five weeks of sessions, although he 

attended a session on August 21, 2020. The program facilitator 

felt that father needed to attend an anger management program, 

and did not believe father was ready to have children returned to 

his care. 

By August 19, 2020, father had completed 56 individual 

counseling sessions. A letter describing father’s progress stated 

that the therapist was “addressing case-related issues 

surrounding anxiety, emotional regulation[,] and anger 

management.” Father’s treatment included “identification of 

triggers related to anger, best practices for emotional regulation, 

understanding parental responsibilities related to child safety, 

fostering personal insight, developing and maintaining healthy 

coping skills, and challenging historic narratives that are 

incompatible with [father’s] treatment goals.” The therapist 

noted that while father had “demonstrated growth,” his 

treatment was “not yet in the end-phase.” Father maintained his 

participation in individual counseling, and continued to make 

progress in dealing with anxiety, emotional regulation, anger 

management, and identifying triggers related to his anger. 

The Department’s review report made no mention of a 

pending criminal case against father. The Department 

recommended continuing reunification services for father, and 

setting a date for an 18-month review hearing. 

At the 12-month review hearing on September 18, 2020, the 

court considered the Department’s reports and arguments from 

counsel. After father acknowledged to the court that he 

understood he needed to secure housing, and stated he had been 
8

reinstated and had completed 30 weeks of a 52-week domestic 

violence program, the court found that father was likely to 

reunify within the next six months, and ordered the Department 

to continue providing reunification services. 

Eighteen-month review report and hearing—reunification services 

are terminated after father is incarcerated

The Department’s 18-month review report included 

information that was known, at least to father, at the time of the 

12-month review hearing, but that was not included in the

Department’s 12-month review report. Neither father nor the 

Department communicated the following information to the court 

at the 12-month review hearing, which took place on 

September 18, 2020. On September 17, 2020, father informed the 

social worker he would be turning himself in on September 21, 

2020, to serve 220 days in county jail, with a hope that he would 

be released early. The jail term stemmed from father violating a 

restraining order restricting father from having physical contact 

with half-brother. Father had received notice in April 2020 of the 

criminal hearing scheduled for July 13, 2020. Father reportedly 

went to court with an intent to “fight the case,” but after 

consulting with his public defender, he decided to turn himself in 

for jail time. Father also reported he had informed the caregivers 

that he would not be able to have visits with minor. The social 

worker confirmed with the jail that father’s projected release date 

was in February 2021. It is unclear whether the Department was 

aware of pending criminal charges against father or the details of 

an open dependency case involving half-brother at the time the 

12-month review report was prepared in September 2020. 
9

Most of the remaining information in the Department’s 18-

month status review report simply repeated the information 

given in the Department’s 12-month status review report. The 

caregivers expressed interest in providing permanency. 

Considering father’s prior problems completing reunification 

services, as well as the fact that “he was incarcerated as a result 

of violating a restraining order protecting [half-brother], who has 

a Dependency case open in part due to father’s physical abuse,” 

and father’s anticipated release date of February 2021, the 

Department recommended terminating reunification services for 

father and setting a hearing under section 366.26. 

The court terminated father’s reunification services on 

December 15, 2020. There is no indication in the record that 

father requested or had any visits with minor while he was 

incarcerated from September 2020 through February 2021. After 

he was released from jail in late February 2021, father had 

monitored visits with minor three times per week for three hours 

per visit. Although the Department had previously determined 

paternal grandmother was no longer an appropriate monitor in 

2019, the record does not explain why she resumed monitoring 

father’s visits after his release from incarceration. 

Father’s section 388 petition

On June 16, 2021, father filed a petition under section 388, 

asking the court to vacate its December 2020 order, reinstate 

reunification services, and order unmonitored and weekend 

overnight visits with minor, along with services such as conjoint 

counseling to address any barriers to reunification. Attached to 

father’s section 388 petition were letters demonstrating that 
10

father had completed 52 sessions of a domestic violence program 

(including 28 sessions credited from his sessions with Acacia 

Counseling), 27 sessions of parenting classes, including 19 

sessions since January 2021, and 73 sessions of individual 

counseling since March 2019. The court scheduled an evidentiary 

hearing, and directed the Department to file a response to the 

petition. 

Subsequent reports and evidentiary hearing

In July 2021, father requested a nine-hour monitored visit 

to take place on July 31, 2021, so he could take minor to Knott’s 

Berry Farm to celebrate brother’s birthday, together with sister

and half-brother. The caregivers agreed to a six-hour visit, but

during the visit, father had difficulty managing his time with 

minor and the siblings simultaneously. He called the caregivers 

and asked them to pick minor up from Knott’s Berry Farm, and 

they did so at 2:15 p.m. On August 6, 2021, the caregivers 

reported they had received a phone call from sister, who was 

present during the Knott’s Berry Farm trip. Sister informed the 

caregivers that after the caregivers had picked minor up at 

Knott’s Berry Farm, father started making claims that he was 

going to kill the caregivers, and that while father was making the 

threats, paternal grandmother was telling him to “be quiet.” 

Father had monitored visits with minor three times a week, 

monitored by paternal grandmother. Father’s communications 

with the social worker in August 2021 evidenced continuing 

tensions and distrust between father and maternal family 

members. The caregivers reported minor would return after 

visits in a fussy or agitated mood, often hitting herself on the 
11

head in anger. Father reported that during visits, he would feed 

minor and take her to the park to play. He felt well-bonded to 

minor. Paternal grandmother expressed to the social worker that 

she had no concerns regarding father’s behavior, and that father 

deserved unmonitored visits. 

At the evidentiary hearing on father’s section 388 petition, 

the court heard testimony from father’s therapist. The therapist

described the work father had done to identify his triggers and 

learn coping mechanisms. The therapist acknowledged father 

continued to struggle with triggers and anger issues, and 

described father’s feelings relating to the caregivers as 

“frustration, not being properly understood, being 

misrepresented.” Paternal grandmother testified about father’s 

visits with minor, and about the family visit to Knott’s Berry 

Farm, denying that father threatened to kill the caregivers. She 

never had any concerns about father’s behavior towards any of 

his children, had never seen him get angry and never heard other 

family members describe him as getting angry. She was aware 

that a restraining order protected half-brother from father, but 

was not sure if father had violated the restraining order. She 

believed father had a positive relationship with minor, and he 

should have unmonitored visits. Father testified about his 

relationship with mother and her family, describing both 

relationships as “toxic.” He described his request for a nine-hour 

visit with minor, stating the caregivers would only agree to three 

or four hours. He denied being upset, saying instead he was 

“disappointed.” Responding to the court’s questions, father 

described his relationship with caregivers starting out okay, but 

deteriorating over time, and that it was currently “real shaky.” 

Father did not know why the relationship had deteriorated.
12

After hearing oral argument from all parties, the court 

denied father’s section 388 petition. The court explained that 

while father’s testimony was compelling, the court credited the 

report that father had threatened the caregivers and found 

paternal grandmother was not credible. Father had not shown a 

sufficient change in circumstances, based on his lengthy history 

of domestic violence, having recently harassed female staff, and 

having been arrested for abusing his son. Father filed the 

current appeal. 

DISCUSSION

Relevant law and standard of review

“After the termination of reunification services, the 

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

child are no longer paramount. Rather, at this point ‘the focus 

shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability.’ ” 

(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) “ ‘The burden 

thereafter is on the parent to prove changed circumstances 

pursuant to section 388 to revive the reunification issue. Section

388 provides the “escape mechanism” that . . . must be built into 

the process to allow the court to consider new information.’ ” 

(In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 447.) “Even after the 

focus has shifted from reunification, the scheme provides a means 

for the court to address a legitimate change of circumstances 

while protecting the child’s need for prompt resolution of his 

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

However, “after reunification services have terminated, a 

parent’s [section 388] petition for either an order returning 
13

custody or reopening reunification efforts must establish how 

such a change will advance the child’s need for permanency and 

stability.” (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527.) 

A party seeking relief under section 388 “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 

Mickel O. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 586, 615.) In evaluating the 

petition, the juvenile court “may consider the entire factual 

procedural history of the case.” (Id. at p. 616.) Factors to be 

considered in determining what is in the best interests of a child 

under section 388 include “(1) the seriousness of the problem 

which led to the dependency, and the reason for any continuation 

of that problem; (2) the strength of relative bonds between the 

dependent children to both parent and caretakers; and (3) the 

degree to which the problem may be easily removed or 

ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has been.” (In re 

Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 532.)

We review an order denying a parent’s section 388 petition 

for abuse of discretion. (In re J.T. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 953, 

965.) “ ‘ “The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether 

the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more 

inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the 

reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for 

that of the trial court.” ’ ” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at 

pp. 318–319.)
14

Analysis

Father contends the evidence did not support the court’s 

stated reasons for denying his section 388 petition. He further 

argues that having demonstrated changed circumstances, the 

court abused its discretion in concluding that the father had not 

shown the requested orders were in minor’s best interests. 

When the juvenile court terminated father’s reunification 

services at the 18-month review hearing, father was serving a jail 

term for violating a restraining order protecting half-brother. 

Father’s section 388 petition sought unmonitored visits with 

minor, and his release from incarceration was likely adequate to 

show changed circumstances. 

However, father has not met his burden to show that his 

requested relief was in minor’s best interests. Father argues that 

minor’s bond with her caregivers should not preclude giving him 

the opportunity to continue to strengthen his bond with minor. 

He emphasizes the positive nature of his visits with minor, and 

that there was evidence he was gaining more insight into how his 

words and actions could be perceived as aggressive and working 

on changing how he came across. But father’s argument does not 

account for his lengthy and serious criminal history, his prior 

threats and violence towards maternal family members, and the 

idea that additional reunification services would only delay 

permanency for minor, who had been living with caregivers for 

her entire life, since being discharged from the hospital at around 

three weeks old. Father has not demonstrated how making his 

visits unmonitored would advance minor’s physical or emotional 

well-being, and there was no evidence that father’s efforts had 

moved him closer to reunifying with minor. Instead, he had what 
15

could accurately be described as a friendly relationship with the 

child, limited to visits at the park. We therefore conclude that it 

was within the court’s discretion to find that it was not in minor’s 

best interests to reinstate reunification services for father, or to 

grant him unmonitored visits. 

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order denying father’s section 388 

petition is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MOOR, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

BAKER, J.