1

Filed 11/10/20 In re B.M. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

In re B.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

C089116

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILD, FAMILY, AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. JD238208)

ORDER DENYING 

PETITION FOR 

REHEARING AND 

MODIFYING OPINION

[NO CHANGE IN 

JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

Appellant filed a petition for rehearing with this court. It is ordered that the 

nonpublished opinion filed herein on October 20, 2020, be modified as follows:

1. At page 18, modify subheading A to read “Sufficient Evidence to Support

Finding of Detriment”:

 
2

2. Following the now modified subheading A on page 18, delete the first three full 

paragraphs and add the following:

Grandmother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the 

court’s finding that return of the minor to her custody would create a 

substantial risk of detriment to the minor’s safety, protection, or physical or 

emotional well-being within the meaning of section 366.22, subdivision (a). 

We disagree.

As relevant here, at the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court 

must return the minor to the custody of the guardian unless it determines, 

by a preponderance of the evidence, that return of the minor would create a 

substantial risk of detriment to the minor’s safety, protection, or physical or 

emotional well-being. (§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1).) “The social worker shall 

have the burden of establishing that detriment.” (Ibid.) 

“In evaluating detriment, the juvenile court must consider the extent 

to which the [guardian] participated in reunification services. [Citations.] 

The court must also consider the efforts or progress the [guardian] has 

made toward eliminating the conditions that led to the child’s out-of-home 

placement. [Citations.]” (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 

1400 (Yvonne W.).) Yet, simply complying with the reunification plan by 

attending the required therapy sessions and parenting classes, and visiting 

the child does not guarantee return of the child. (In re Dustin R. (1997) 

54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1143; In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 

899-901.) While compliance with the plan is a pertinent consideration, it is 

not the sole concern for the juvenile court, nor is it determinative. (In re 

Dustin R., supra, at pp. 1139-1140; In re Joseph B., supra, at pp. 899-901.) 

The detriment justifying continued removal need not be the same as the 

initial detriment. The focus of the decision whether to return the child to 

the guardian’s custody depends on the effect that action would have on the 

physical or emotional well-being of the child at the time of the review 

hearing. (In re Joseph B., supra, at p. 899.) “[I]f returning the child will 

create a substantial risk of detriment to his or her physical or emotional 

well-being [citations], placement must continue regardless of whether that 

detriment mirrors the harm which had required the child’s removal from 

[the guardian’s] custody.” (Id. at p. 900.) 

We review the juvenile court’s finding of substantial risk of 

detriment for substantial evidence. (Yvonne W., supra, 165 Cal.App.4th at 

pp. 1400-1401.) “In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, 

we look to the entire record to determine whether there is substantial 

evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court. We do not pass 

judgment on the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the 

evidence, or determine where the weight of the evidence lies. Rather, we 
3

draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record in 

the light most favorable to the juvenile court’s order, and affirm the order 

even if there is other evidence that would support a contrary 

finding. [Citation.] . . . The appellant has the burden of showing that there 

is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the order.” 

(In re Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 915-916, italics added.)

3. At page 18, modify the first sentence of the fourth paragraph that reads “Here, 

there is ample evidence to support the court’s order of removal” so that it 

reads:

Here, there is ample evidence to support the court’s finding of detriment.

4. At page 19, modify the last sentence of the second full paragraph that reads 

“There is sufficient evidence to support the court’s findings regarding 

removal” so that it reads:

There is sufficient evidence to support the court’s finding of detriment.

5. At page 22, modify the sentence making up the second full paragraph that 

reads “The court’s removal order was supported by substantial evidence” so 

that it reads:

The court’s order was supported by substantial evidence.

There is no change in the judgment. Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

BY THE COURT:

/S/

 

MAURO, Acting P. J.

/S/

 

MURRAY, J.
4

/S/

 

RENNER, J.
1

Filed 10/20/20 In re B.M. CA3 (unmodified opinion)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

In re B.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

C089116

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILD, FAMILY, AND ADULT SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. JD238208)

M.H., paternal grandmother of the minor (grandmother), appeals from the juvenile 

court’s order terminating her reunification services and continuing the minor in out-ofhome placement. (Welf & Inst. Code, §§ 336.22, 395.)1

 We will affirm the juvenile 

court’s orders.

1

 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2

I. BACKGROUND

The six-year-old minor came to the attention of the Sacramento County 

Department of Child, Family, and Adult Services (Department), Child Protective 

Services (CPS), in April 2017 when a mandated reporter alleged that grandmother, the 

legal guardian of the minor and the minor’s twin sibling, N.M., physically assaulted the 

minor and N.M., leaving the minor with a bloody nose and scratches on his body.2 The 

minor initially claimed the injuries were the result of abuse by his uncle, his father, and 

grandmother. It was also reported that the minor, who has an intellectual disability, only 

attended school sporadically and missed 32 days of school in a six-month period, his 

grandmother refused to attend his individualized education plan (IEP) meetings or sign 

IEP documents necessary for his education, and the minor was routinely transported 

home after school but there was no one to meet him. 

Social worker Jones made several unannounced visits to grandmother’s address to 

speak with grandmother and the minor in person, and attempted to contact grandmother 

by telephone, all without success. On May 18, 2017, the social worker interviewed the 

minor at school, at which time the minor informed her that grandmother “ ‘whoops me all 

the time with a belt’ ” and showed her what appeared to be scratches on his torso and 

face. Given the minor’s intellectual disability, he was unable to disclose with detail who 

inflicted the injuries. The minor eventually became distracted and refused to continue the 

interview. The same day, the minor’s elementary school teacher reported that the minor 

had missed 38 days of school since October 2016, the school had “extreme difficulty” 

contacting grandmother who “hangs up on staff and refuses to come to the door” when 

attempts were made to meet with her in person, and grandmother refused to sign the 

minor’s IEP paperwork. 

2

 N.M. is not a party to this appeal and will only be mentioned where relevant to the 

issues raised by grandmother.
3

The Department set an in-person meeting with grandmother for June 12, 2017, and 

sent her a certified letter to that effect 10 days prior to the meeting. Grandmother neither 

responded to the letter nor attended the meeting. Thereafter, the elementary school 

teacher reported the minor had not been at school for more than a week. 

On June 16, 2017, after attempting unsuccessfully to contact grandmother, the 

social worker requested assistance from the police department to complete a welfare 

check at grandmother’s home. Officer Vito reported that grandmother’s family was 

hostile toward him and other officers and refused to allow them to see the minor or his 

sibling. Two hours later, Officer Vito completed a parole sweep of grandmother’s home 

and found the minor and N.M. with marks and bruises on their bodies. The minor had a 

bloody nose. When asked how he came to have a bloody nose, the minor pointed to 

grandmother and said, “ ‘mom did it.’ ” N.M. told Officer Vito that the minor missed the 

school bus and “ ‘got a whooping for it.’ ” The minor and N.M. were taken into 

protective custody. Officer Vito informed the social worker that there were other 

children in the home ranging in age from 10 years to 16 years old, all of whom were 

grandmother’s biological children. None of those children showed signs of abuse. 

The Department filed a dependency petition on behalf of the minor pursuant to 

section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), alleging ongoing physical abuse by grandmother 

resulting in visible injuries, and failure by grandmother to respond to the minor’s 

educational needs by refusing to attend IEP meetings for the minor or sign the minor’s 

IEP documentation. 

On June 22, 2017, the juvenile court ordered the minor detained in out-of-home 

placement, limited grandmother’s developmental and educational rights as to the minor, 

and appointed the parents as temporary developmental and educational rights holders and 

ordered reunification services for grandmother. 

On August 15, 2017, the Department filed a first amended petition: (1) striking 

the physical abuse allegation (§ 300, subd. (a)), modifying the failure to protect allegation 
4

(§ 300, subd. (b)) to include an allegation that grandmother left the minor and N.M. with 

inadequate caregivers who were incapable of supervising and protecting them (i.e., their 

nine-year-old aunt, M., who reportedly placed the minor on a hot stove resulting in an 

injury to his back thigh); and (2) adding an allegation pursuant to section 300, 

subdivision (c) that the minor was at risk of serious emotional harm due to grandmother’s 

failure and refusal to provide the minor with medical, behavioral, and mental health care 

necessary to address his special needs and her failure to provide the minor with adequate 

care, supervision, and protection. 

The Department filed a motion to terminate grandmother’s guardianship of the 

minor and N.M. 

At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on September 12, 2017, the Department 

withdrew its motion to terminate the guardianship. All parties submitted on jurisdiction. 

Grandmother, with the assistance of counsel, signed and filed a waiver of rights 

indicating she read the amended petition, she understood it, and she submitted on the 

basis of the social worker’s report. After finding grandmother made a knowing, 

intelligent, and voluntary waiver of rights, the court sustained the allegations in the 

amended petition. The minor and N.M. were removed from grandmother’s custody. The 

court ordered reunification services for grandmother. 

The Department’s March 9, 2018 pre-permanency review report recommended 

continued out-of-home placement for the minor and N.M. and continued services for 

grandmother and the parents. 3 Grandmother’s case plan required her to participate in 

specialized parenting education, anger management, individual counseling, and conjoint 

counseling with the minor, as confirmed by the services letter signed by grandmother on 

3

 The March 9, 2018 report erroneously stated the section 300, subdivision (a) allegation 

had been sustained, but correctly noted the minor and N.M. were dependents of the 

juvenile court pursuant to subdivision (b) of that section. 
5

August 15, 2017. The plan was modified by the court on September 12, 2017, to specify 

that the parenting education program should be for special needs children. The 

Department noted that contacting grandmother proved to be challenging for several 

months, but eventually grandmother began to respond to voicemail messages and meet 

with the social worker monthly. 

Social worker Ralph initially requested authorization on behalf of grandmother for 

specialized parenting education for children with special needs through Strategies for 

Change. However, the request was denied and Ralph was directed to find other 

specialized parenting classes within the community. She found several potential 

programs but was advised those services did not provide the required specialized 

parenting classes. Ralph resubmitted the initial request for Strategies for Change, which 

was authorized on October 24, 2017. Grandmother was instructed to coordinate 

scheduling of the parenting classes with the parents’ schedule. When the parents failed to 

respond, Ralph informed grandmother that another request for authorization would be 

submitted so that grandmother could attend specialized parenting education sessions 

alone. 

Grandmother completed all 12 sessions of her anger management program at 

Cornerstone Recovery, Inc. on December 15, 2017. However, staff at Cornerstone 

reported that grandmother denied having anger issues and questioned why she should 

participate in the program. Grandmother received counseling on assertive 

communication, which included skills grandmother claimed she already possessed. She 

also received nonaggressive coping skills, which grandmother stated she would use if she 

found herself “being stressed out by her grandchildren and/or other family members.” 

Pursuant to grandmother’s request that she be allowed to complete anger 

management before beginning individual counseling, the Department delayed submitting 

the request for authorization for counseling until January 9, 2018. Grandmother 

completed her initial intake and reported she had completed three individual counseling 
6

sessions. However, on February 14, 2018, the counselor reported that grandmother failed 

to show up for three sessions and was removed from the calendar and placed on a wait 

list. Based on grandmother’s failure to participate in individual counseling, the 

Department concluded it was not appropriate to begin conjoint counseling with the 

minor. 

Grandmother reportedly participated in weekly supervised visits with the minor 

and N.M. 

The Department assessed the risk of returning the minor to grandmother as high 

due to grandmother’s failure to participate in or complete services, her inconsistent 

visitation, and her continued minimization and refusal to acknowledge responsibility for 

the minor’s removal. The Department recommended an additional six months of 

services. 

At the April 10, 2018 pre-permanency hearing, all parties submitted on the 

Department’s report and recommendations. 

In its July 27, 2018 permanency report, the Department recommended that the 

court terminate services to grandmother and the parents, set the matter for a section 

366.26 hearing, and identify adoption or legal guardianship as the appropriate permanent 

plan.4 Grandmother’s participation in services continued to be inconsistent, as 

demonstrated by her failure to respond to her individual counseling therapist since April 

2018. Her visitation was becoming more consistent, but there continued to be 

occurrences of grandmother’s failure to confirm visits resulting in cancellations. The 

Department concluded that the risk of returning the minor to grandmother continued to be 

high due to grandmother’s continued failure to complete services, her inconsistent 

4

 The July 27, 2018 report again erroneously stated the section 300, subdivision (a) 

allegation had been sustained, but correctly noted the minor and N.M. were dependents of 

the juvenile court pursuant to subdivision (b) of that section. 
7

visitation, and her continued minimization and refusal to acknowledge responsibility for 

the minor’s removal. 

On August 14, 2018, the Department filed a second motion to terminate 

guardianship. However, the Department withdrew the motion on August 28, 2018, 

stating it believed the section 366.21 factors could be met in order to continue services to 

grandmother. 

On August 31, 2018, the Department filed an addendum report regarding 

grandmother’s progress in services. It was reported that Ralph was unable to obtain 

another authorization for specialized parenting education through Strategies for Change 

due to a staffing change. Thereafter, she referred grandmother to Birth and Beyond and, 

when grandmother reported she was having difficulty finding an appropriate course there, 

referred her to a nurturing parent program (for children aged zero to five) with a different 

provider, scheduled to begin on August 6, 2018. However, grandmother decided against 

the zero-to-five age class “because it was two times a week” and instead opted for the 

school-aged class held once a week on Saturdays. She reportedly completed eight 

sessions of the school-aged parenting class. 

Grandmother eventually completed all six remaining sessions of individual 

counseling within a matter of days on the eve of the September 4, 2018 review hearing. 

However, the Department recommended an additional course of individual counseling, 

concluding that rushing to complete the therapy component of her case plan before the 

hearing did not allow time for the therapist to work with grandmother and provide her 

with the support and guidance needed to develop the skills and insight necessary to 

successfully parent the minor. The Department also reported grandmother’s visitation 

had historically been inconsistent and therefore remained supervised. However, 

grandmother’s participation had significantly improved since August 2018, and the 

Department transitioned her to observed visits. The Department recommended an 

additional six months of services. 
8

12-Month Review Hearing

The contested permanency hearing concluded on September 20, 2018. The court 

found grandmother failed to make substantive progress in services and failed to recognize 

the issues that led to removal of the minor or address what changes were necessary for 

return of the minor to her home. The court noted that grandmother’s testimony 

demonstrated that grandmother disputed jurisdiction, blamed others for her predicament, 

and persisted in claiming the allegations against her were untrue despite having signed a 

waiver as to jurisdiction. Regarding the allegations related to the minor’s schooling and 

IEP, grandmother minimized those issues and, when asked about meeting the special 

needs of the minor and N.M., grandmother stated she “did not even know” the minor’s 

special needs were an issue. As a result of grandmother’s failure to comply with the 

minor’s IEP and ensure the necessary documentation was current, the minor did not 

receive the supportive services provided for his mental, physical, social, emotional, and 

behavioral needs, and engaged in self-harming behavior and aggressive behavior that 

included yelling, hitting, punching, and kicking N.M. and others. The court also found 

grandmother minimized or outright denied the subdivision (b) allegations and maintained 

there was no risk of harm in her home despite that she provided no evidence of how 

grandmother intended to protect the minor and N.M. from the conduct of the aunt who 

injured the minor by reportedly placing him on a hot stove. The court concluded return 

of the minor to grandmother was not appropriate. 

With regard to services, the court noted that the delay in individual counseling was 

due in part to grandmother’s request that she only be required to complete one service at 

a time, and the fact that when she did begin counseling, her participation was 

inconsistent, and she left the Strategies for Change program earlier than anticipated. The 

delay was also attributable to the social worker, who was unaware that the court did not 

sustain the allegations of physical abuse by grandmother and erroneously designed a case 

plan for grandmother believing the court found those allegations true. The error resulted 
9

in a delay in providing services specifically tailored to address the issues that led to 

removal of the minor. Then, once counseling began, grandmother was provided six 

sessions in the span of three days. The court found the individual counseling provided to 

grandmother was not reasonable, as demonstrated by grandmother’s testimony that she 

still did not understand why the minor and N.M. were removed from her care. While 

grandmother was referred to the proper parenting class late in the case, she failed to 

engage in the recommended services and decided other classes were more appropriate or 

convenient. The court found the Department made all reasonable efforts regarding 

visitation, while grandmother failed to engage in regular visits or take advantage of her 

time with the minor and N.M. However, the Department failed to include grandmother in 

any child family team meetings. 

The court concluded the Department did not provide reasonable services, found 

grandmother’s progress in services was minimal, and continued services for an additional 

six months. The court ordered grandmother to comply with the case plan, which “shall 

include individual counseling to address the issues that led to the children’s removal” and 

“be specific in regard to the parenting deficits that were demonstrated,” but not to include 

conjoint counseling unless and until grandmother demonstrated insight into the 

conditions that led to removal and articulated her responsibility in that regard. The court 

further ordered that grandmother be advised of and encouraged to participate in services 

provided to the minor and N.M. and be given the opportunity to participate in child 

family team meetings, and that visitation should not be unsupervised until grandmother 

demonstrated significant progress on the issue of failure to protect the minor and N.M. 

Finally, the court admonished grandmother to regularly communicate with the 

Department and attend every visit available to her on a consistent basis. 

18-Month Review Report and Addenda

The Department’s 18-month review report, filed November 30, 2018, repeated its 

early error by stating again that the section 300, subdivision (a) allegation had been 
10

sustained. The report correctly noted the minor and N.M. were dependents of the 

juvenile court pursuant to subdivision (b) of that section. 

The Department filed an addendum report on January 14, 2019. Grandmother 

reportedly completed her parenting program, attended and participated in all child family 

team meetings, and participated in five therapeutic visits with the minor and his 

behavioral specialist. She demonstrated the ability to initiate a setting with structure, 

limits, and consistent behavioral expectations for the minor, and provide him with 

assertive redirection and guidance in a nurturing manner as needed. The WRAP-around 

facilitator opined that grandmother’s level of engagement showed promise for continued 

growth in understanding the minor’s behavioral needs and how to address them. 

The report also included a counseling report written by Rajeshwari Prasad. Prasad 

reported grandmother’s prognosis was “poor,” stating she made minimal progress in 

sessions and demonstrated a lack of accountability and insight regarding the reasons for 

CPS’s involvement in the matter. Prasad noted grandmother’s engagement in counseling 

sessions consisted of blaming others for CPS’s continued involvement with the family 

rather than taking accountability for her actions, greatly hindering her progress in 

treatment. Prasad concluded that, without grandmother recognizing and taking 

responsibility for her part in the case, the “risk for similar incidents to recur remains 

high.” Prasad did not recommend additional counseling to improve grandmother’s 

parenting skills and protective capacity, as grandmother stated she wanted grief 

counseling to address the loss of the children from her care. 

In light of Prasad’s conclusions, the Department expressed “significant concerns” 

regarding grandmother’s lack of insight or willingness or ability to ameliorate the issues 

resulting in removal of the minor and N.M. After 18 months of services, grandmother 

continued to assert that there were no issues, past or present, with her parenting skills, her 

disciplinary practices, or her supervision of the minor and N.M. She repeatedly insisted 

CPS lied about every allegation in the amended petition and steadfastly denied the 
11

veracity of those allegations, despite that the petition was sustained. The Department 

noted the minor and N.M. were young children with significant special needs who would 

undoubtedly require considerable support and intervention in the future. Grandmother’s 

lack of acknowledgement or significant progress throughout the case raised concerns 

about her ability to provide the minor and N.M. with the skilled parenting necessary for 

them to achieve their full potential. 

The Department reported the minor was placed in a short-term residential 

therapeutic facility where his “significant behavioral and mental health needs [were] 

being addressed.” Because the minor continued to require a higher level of care, he was 

not yet ready to transition to a foster home, and there was no identified person willing or 

able to provide a permanent home for him. The Department recommended the minor 

remain in his current placement with a goal of adoption. 

Contested 18-Month Review Hearing

The contested 18-month review hearing commenced on January 15, 2019, and 

continued for a number of days throughout February and March 2019. 

WRAP Facilitator Laura Morris testified that grandmother regularly attended child 

family team meetings and was open to suggestions from the WRAP team. Morris 

testified that social worker Ralph was present at child family team meetings to engage 

grandmother in and provide information about her case plan. 

WRAP Family Specialist Jessica Chan testified she was involved in child family 

team meetings with grandmother, who was receptive to suggestions and very cooperative. 

Chan testified that grandmother occasionally told the WRAP team she was confused 

about what she was supposed to do in order to get the minor back. Chan further testified 

that social worker Ralph was, at times, confrontational and seemed irritated that services 

were not being met in a timely manner with respect to grandmother’s case plan. 

Social Worker Sandra Ralph testified she was present at some of the child family 

team meetings involving grandmother, who seemed engaged with the minor. Ralph 
12

testified that the WRAP team felt grandmother was showing signs of progressing with 

skills and moving in a positive direction. Ralph discussed with grandmother what was 

required of grandmother as part of her case plan, as did the WRAP facilitator. In 

particular, Ralph discussed with grandmother why she needed to complete a second 

round of individual counseling and a second parenting class. They often talked about 

what was required of grandmother from her case plan, and what was expected with 

regard to her progress in services in order to move onto the next step of conjoint 

counseling and unsupervised visits. Ralph also spoke with grandmother about utilizing a 

cultural broker, something grandmother was not interested in doing. 

Ralph testified that, over the course of a year and a half, grandmother repeatedly 

raised complaints about the minor’s removal, arguing the responding officer bribed the 

minor to say grandmother hit him. When asked why her recommendation to return the 

minor to grandmother changed following the December 2018 report, Ralph explained that 

she received Prasad’s report about grandmother’s individual counseling that indicated 

grandmother’s lack of progress and accountability and Prasad’s concern that there was 

still a risk to the minor. Ralph agreed that grandmother had been unable to progress past 

her opinion of what happened the night the minor was removed. 

Ralph further testified she referred grandmother to individual counseling 

immediately after the September 2018 hearing. The referral stated the goal was for 

grandmother to make significant progress in demonstrating her insight and 

acknowledgement of her role in the minor’s removal and understand how her actions 

contributed to the case. Therapists determined the details of the goal by reviewing the 

jurisdiction/disposition report and through a conversation with the referring social 

worker. Ralph believed Prasad received the jurisdiction/disposition report, as referenced 

in Prasad’s report, and Ralph might have had conversations with Prasad or Prasad’s 

supervisor, April Hayes, concerning the specific case plan objectives. 
13

Therapeutic Counselor Rajeshwari Prasad testified she provided 10 sessions of 

therapeutic counseling to grandmother. In preparation for counseling, Prasad reviewed 

the jurisdiction/disposition report and the August 7, 2018 permanency report. Prasad 

testified she believed the allegation of physical abuse was substantiated, as was the 

allegation of failure to protect. With regard to the physical abuse allegation, it was 

Prasad’s understanding that N.M. had scratches on her and a bloody nose, and the minor 

had burn marks on his buttocks. She based that understanding on what was in the reports 

provided to her. Grandmother’s denial of personally inflicting physical abuse on the 

minor and N.M. formed part of the basis for Prasad’s conclusion that she failed to make 

progress and continued to pose a risk of harm to the children. Prasad operated on the 

belief and understanding that grandmother physically abused the minor and N.M. 

With regard to grandmother’s complaint that Prasad was on her cell phone during 

counseling sessions with grandmother, Prasad testified she did have her cell phone with 

her during sessions and occasionally checked the phone for scheduling updates. She 

noted that therapists were advised to have their phones with them at all times for safety 

reasons. She denied ever rolling her eyes or displaying negative behavior while in 

sessions with grandmother. 

Prasad stated she believed grandmother would continue to have challenges 

meeting the minor’s basic emotional needs, providing for him, and advocating for his 

needs in school. During counseling sessions, grandmother claimed social worker Ralph 

was disrespectful to her and missed monthly appointments with her, and that the minor’s 

group home was responsible for physical injuries to the minor. 

When asked what she did to help grandmother develop methods for dealing with 

stress and the responsibility of parenting two children with special needs, Prasad testified 

she talked with grandmother about using relaxation techniques such as deep breathing 

and guided imagery, all of which grandmother was responsive to. Prasad repeatedly 

mentioned to grandmother her observation that grandmother was blaming others and 
14

asked her to focus her attention on herself and be more reflective. Prasad testified that 

grandmother continued to be in denial about how her actions led to CPS involvement and 

grandmother claimed the jurisdiction/disposition report was “all lies.” Grandmother did 

not acknowledge any issues with her parenting, telling Prasad, “[M]y parenting is the 

bomb. There are no problems with my parenting. All my children, they have good jobs. 

I have two children who are teachers. One is a nurse at Kaiser.” Regarding the incident 

when the minor was burned, grandmother told Prasad, “CPS wants me to admit to 

something I didn’t do[.] I’m not going to do that.” Grandmother claimed the minor’s 

injury to his buttock was the result of climbing out a window and cutting himself on the 

windowsill. She did not believe the minor’s nine-year-old aunt, M., put him on the stove 

and caused the burn and maintained M. never harmed the minor or N.M. She also 

claimed she was always present with the children and never left them unsupervised. 

However, when Prasad asked what she would do differently, grandmother said she would 

never leave the children unsupervised. Grandmother felt CPS had an issue with her work 

schedule and said, “[A]pparently my working has been a problem for CPS. I will have to 

supervise [the children] more. I won’t go anywhere.” 

Prasad testified that grandmother said she felt she had no issues with her ability to 

protect the minor and claimed she was an overly protective parent, telling Prasad, “I’m 

what they call a helicopter mom.” Prasad discussed the report with grandmother and 

tried to impress upon her that there was a pattern of leaving the children in situations that 

exposed them to risk, and it was grandmother’s responsibility to protect them. 

Prasad further testified that grandmother acknowledged the minor and N.M. had 

special needs and said they required extra care and patience, but because they were

developmentally delayed, they needed more of her attention. When Prasad asked about 

the minor’s IEP, grandmother said she missed only one IEP meeting. Grandmother 

agreed the minor missed 38 days of school, but claimed the absences were due to the 

teacher’s request that grandmother keep the minor home because he had severe 
15

behavioral issues in class. Grandmother felt she was meeting the minor’s educational 

needs and denied ever refusing to attend IEP meetings. She claimed any delay in signing 

the minor’s IEP paperwork was the result of the minor not providing her with the 

paperwork. 

Regarding medical neglect, Prasad testified the grandmother blamed the biological 

mother for neglecting the minor and N.M. and using drugs while pregnant. 

Prasad did not believe grandmother made any progress regarding her protective 

capacity toward the minor and N.M. She felt grandmother blamed others and lacked the 

ability to evaluate her own behavior and understand how she contributed to the need for 

CPS involvement with the children. Prasad believed that, even without the physical 

abuse allegations, there would be a risk to the minor and N.M. in the future based on 

grandmother’s lack of progress and insight. Prasad had concerns regarding 

grandmother’s ability to be a caregiver to children with special needs, such as the minor 

and N.M., given grandmother’s lack of insight and denials. 

Grandmother testified and confirmed she told Prasad the jurisdiction/disposition 

report was all lies. She testified she told Prasad she always kept an eye on her children 

and there was never a lack of supervision. She also told Prasad there were no issues with 

her parenting and she has always been “very overprotective.” She stated she never left 

the minor or N.M. alone with their aunt, and the minor was never burned on the stove. 

She denied any lack of supervision of either the minor or N.M., or any failure to protect 

them. 

Grandmother admitted the minor “had a lot of days missing from school,” but 

denied telling Prasad it was the teacher’s fault. She testified there was only one day 

when the teacher instructed her to keep the minor home from school. She claimed the 

minor’s father was responsible for getting the minor to school while she was working. 

She quit her job in February 2017, after which she got the minor to school. 
16

Grandmother denied ever telling anyone that the responding officer bribed the 

minor with candy. She claimed she never admitted any of the allegations in the petition 

and stated someone brought her “the paper” and told her “they would take [her] 

guardianship away” if she did not sign it. She testified she did not know what the 

allegations against her were when she signed “the paper.” The court noted that 

grandmother signed a waiver on September 12, 2017, indicating she wished to submit her 

petition on the basis of the social worker’s report, but she did not check the box that she 

admitted the allegations. It was also noted that grandmother checked the box indicating 

she read and understood the petition. When asked whether she read and understood the 

petition, grandmother said, “No, I didn’t.” However, she confirmed the court asked her if 

she understood the petition and testified she indicated to the court that she did. 

When asked to explain her understanding of the allegations in the amended 

petition, grandmother testified, “[N]o one has ever listened to anything I’ve said from day 

one.” She added, “Nobody listened to nothing. Everybody was just going on their own 

understanding of—whatever the kids said.” She complained that there was no specific 

date as to when the alleged injury to the minor’s buttocks occurred. When asked what 

she would do differently, grandmother testified she would make sure the minor and N.M. 

were at school on time every day, be more engaged in child family teams and the WRAP 

program, and be more engaged regarding the minor’s intellectual disabilities. She stated 

she had a better understanding of the minor and N.M.’s intellectual disabilities. When 

asked whether she would change anything about her supervision of the children, 

grandmother testified she would “keep an even closer eye on them” so there would not be 

“any room for an allegation of non-supervision.” 

On March 11, 2019, the court found return of the minor to grandmother was not 

appropriate. In particular, the court found grandmother failed to make substantive 

progress in services in that she failed to recognize the issues that led to removal and made 

no progress in addressing how things would be different were the minor and N.M. to be 
17

returned to her. The court noted grandmother continued to dispute the basis for 

jurisdiction and deny any neglect of the minor or N.M. The court further noted that 

grandmother continued to minimize the extent of the minor’s school absences, failed to 

acknowledge the special needs of the minor and N.M. was an issue, denied any issues 

with her parenting, insisted she supervised the minor and N.M. at all times, maintained 

the minor did not suffer an injury at the hands of his nine-year-old aunt, and for all intents 

and purposes, planned to continue doing what she was doing before the children were 

removed. 

The court further found that, although the social worker was unaware at the 12-

month review hearing that the physical abuse allegation had been stricken, “[t]hat issue 

was rectified at the last trial” and the case plan “was sufficient and the ruling by the Court 

clear, such that all parties knew what the issues were that needed to be resolved.” The

Department referred grandmother to services designed to remedy the problems identified 

by the court, as demonstrated by the social worker’s regular contact with service 

providers, including therapist Prasad, and actions taken to address grandmother’s 

complaints regarding counseling. And, unlike the previous service period, Prasad 

questioned grandmother and attempted to educate her on the issues of neglect and failure 

to protect. The court also found grandmother was included in all child family team 

meetings. In making its findings, the court found all witnesses credible except for 

grandmother, whose credibility the court questioned. 

The court terminated grandmother’s services, finding reasonable services were 

provided to grandmother by the Department, grandmother made minimal progress in her 

services, and return of the minor to grandmother would create a substantial risk of 

detriment to the minor’s safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. The 

court set a review hearing pursuant to section 366.3, subdivision (d) as to the minor, and 

set a section 366.26 hearing as to N.M. 
18

II. DISCUSSION

A. Sufficient Evidence to Support Removal Order

Grandmother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s order 

removing the minor from her custody. In particular, she argues there was insufficient 

evidence to support the court’s finding that removal was necessary given her inability to 

recognize her deficits in parenting or demonstrate any ability to rectify those deficits was 

not supported by sufficient evidence. We disagree.

To support an order removing a child from parental custody, the court must find 

clear and convincing evidence “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical 

health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor 

were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the minor’s physical 

health can be protected without removing the minor from the . . . guardian’s . . . physical 

custody.” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1); see In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 

193.) “ ‘The jurisdictional findings are prima facie evidence that the child cannot safely 

remain in the home.’ ” (In re John M. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1126.) 

Removal findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence test, drawing all 

reasonable inferences to support the findings and noting that issues of credibility are 

matters for the trial court. (In re Heather A., supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at p. 193.) 

Here, there is ample evidence to support the court’s order of removal. The minor 

and his twin sibling, both of whom had intellectual disabilities, were detained based on 

sustained allegations of grandmother’s failure to respond to the minor’s educational 

needs (as demonstrated by the minor’s significant absences from school and 

grandmother’s failure to attend IEP meetings or sign the necessary IEP documentation), 

failure to protect, and failure to provide adequate care, supervision, and protection. 

Grandmother, with the assistance of her attorney, submitted a waiver of rights indicating

she read the amended petition, understood its contents, and submitted on the basis of the 
19

social worker’s report. She confirmed having told the court she read and understood the 

amended petition during her testimony at the 18-month review hearing. 

The record makes plain that, from the beginning and after the start of the 

proceedings, grandmother disputed jurisdiction despite having signed a waiver, and 

claimed the amended petition was “all lies.” For example, grandmother repeatedly 

denied there were any problems or issues with her parenting and steadfastly refused to 

take responsibility for the minor’s removal from her custody. She claimed the officer 

who initially responded to the home bribed the minor with candy to entice the minor to 

say grandmother hit him, then denied making that statement. She denied having anger 

issues and questioned why her participation in the anger management program was 

necessary. She claimed she already possessed the skills taught in some of her classes. 

She claimed she was always present and never left the minor and N.M. unsupervised but, 

when asked what she would do differently, she contradicted herself by saying she would 

never leave the children unsupervised. 

Grandmother often made excuses or blamed others for her predicament. While 

she eventually admitted the minor missed 38 days of school, she told Prasad the absences 

were due to the minor’s teacher instructing her to keep the minor home due to his 

behavioral issues, and then denied ever having made that statement to Prasad. Despite 

corroborated evidence that grandmother refused to sign the minor’s IEP paperwork and 

refused to attend IEP meetings, grandmother claimed she only missed one IEP meeting, 

denied refusing to attend meetings or sign the paperwork, blamed her failure to sign the 

paperwork on the minor’s failure to provide it to her, and claimed she was meeting the 

minor’s educational needs. Finally, when asked what she understood about the 

allegations in the amended petition, grandmother said, “[N]o one has ever listened to 

anything I’ve said from day one. [¶] . . . [¶] Nobody listened to nothing. Everybody was 

just going on their own understanding of—whatever the kids said.” There is sufficient 

evidence to support the court’s findings regarding removal.
20

Grandmother argues the court’s findings are flawed because they were based on a 

case plan and the opinions of service providers and social workers which were 

themselves premised on the erroneous belief that the physical abuse allegation was 

sustained. We disagree. While it is clear that the physical abuse allegations remained in 

the Department’s reports well after those allegations were stricken from the amended 

petition, and that social worker Ralph and therapist Prasad labored for some time under

the misguided belief that those allegations had been sustained, the record makes plain that 

the court was well aware those allegations had been stricken and focused strictly on the 

remaining sustained allegations of failure to protect and failure to provide care, 

supervision, and protection. 

The court, in its March 11, 2019 ruling, noted grandmother minimized and made 

excuses for the fact that the minor missed approximately 44 days of school and found 

grandmother’s explanations failed to account for the missed school and demonstrated 

grandmother’s failure to meet the minor’s special needs. The court found grandmother 

continued to “minimize or outright deny” the failure to protect allegations by refusing to 

acknowledge any risk of potential harm in her home, and denied the minor’s young aunt 

injured the minor rather than demonstrating how she would protect the minor in the 

future. The court further found grandmother insisted she supervised and protected the 

minor at all times yet acknowledged she worked outside of the home. The court stated 

grandmother’s plan to ensure adequate supervision of the minor and not leave him 

unsupervised was unpersuasive given grandmother’s claims that she was doing that all 

along, yet the minor and his sibling were removed from her care. 

The record also makes plain that, while Prasad mistakenly believed the physical 

abuse allegations had been sustained, she also based her opinions and conclusions in part 

on the sustained allegations of failure to protect and failure to provide care and 

supervision. For example, Prasad reported grandmother failed to demonstrate the 

capacity and ability to complete her case plan objections and provide for the minor’s 
21

safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs. Contrary to 

grandmother’s claim that she “admitted where she was at fault—allowing the children to 

miss a significant amount of kindergarten,” Prasad noted that, when asked about her 

failure to attend IEP meetings or sign important documentation related to the minor’s IEP 

plan, grandmother claimed she only missed one IEP meeting and blamed her failure to 

sign documents on the minor’s failure to give the documents to her. 

Prasad further noted that grandmother made excuses for the minor’s numerous 

absences from school, claiming the teacher instructed her to keep the minor home. She 

also noted grandmother’s contradictory statements regarding leaving the minor and N.M. 

unsupervised. Prasad concluded grandmother “appeared unable to see the connection 

between the [minor’s] special needs, the importance of an IEP, and her role as a parent to 

advocate for his education need, indicating she had poor understanding of this topic.” 

Prasad stated grandmother blamed others for her predicament, including blaming 

the minor’s teacher “for not being able to handle his disruptive behaviors in class, 

resulting in his absences,” blaming the police department “for trying to evict her from her 

housing,” blaming social worker Ralph “for being disrespectful, making up lies in court 

reports, missing monthly appointments, and having a biased agenda to terminate her 

services,” blaming the receiving home “for not supervising [the minor and N.M.], 

resulting in scratches, bruises, and [the minor] breaking his elbow,” blaming the 

visitation monitor “for being the relative of the children’s foster parent,” blaming mother 

“for medically neglecting the children,” and blaming Prasad “for being on the phone 

during sessions, rolling eyes at her, providing her with packets in lieu of actual sessions.” 

Given grandmother’s lack of insight and accountability, Prasad concluded the risk 

of returning the minor to grandmother was high. 

Grandmother takes issue with what she characterizes as “changing requirements” 

for her case plan following the 12-month review hearing. We are not persuaded. The 

“changing requirements” grandmother complains about arose when grandmother was 
22

referred to a parenting class for children ages zero to five but chose to participate in a 

different parenting class instead. As social worker Ralph testified, because grandmother 

had already completed a significant amount of the class, she was encouraged to finish 

that class but also instructed to complete the class to which she was referred. 

Grandmother also takes issue with the fact that there was no documentation of an 

updated case plan in the record. The Department argues any error in providing 

grandmother with an updated case plan was harmless. We agree with the Department. 

At the 12-month review hearing, the court found reasonable individual counseling 

services had not been provided and the Department failed to include grandmother in any 

child family team meetings. The court ordered six months of additional individual 

counseling services. The court further ordered that visits were to remain supervised and 

no conjoint counseling would occur unless and until grandmother gained insight into how 

her actions led to CPS involvement. Grandmother was present with counsel at the 

hearing. Social worker Ralph testified she explained the case plan to grandmother 

immediately after the 12-month review hearing and discussed the case plan with 

grandmother at subsequent child family team meetings. 

The court’s removal order was supported by substantial evidence.

B. Sufficient Evidence of Reasonable Services

Grandmother contends the court’s finding of reasonable services was not 

supported by substantial evidence. The claim lacks merit.

“Reunification services must be ‘designed to eliminate those conditions that led to 

the court’s finding that the child is a person described by Section 300.’ (§ 362, subd. (c).) 

Accordingly, a reunification plan must be appropriately based on the particular family’s 

‘unique facts.’ ” (In re T.G. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 687, 696-697.)

“[The Department] ‘must make a good faith effort to develop and implement a 

family reunification plan. [Citation.] “[T]he record should show that the supervising 

agency identified the problems leading to the loss of custody, offered services designed to
23

remedy those problems, maintained reasonable contact with the parents during the course 

of the service plan, and made reasonable efforts to assist the parents in areas where 

compliance proved difficult . . . .” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘The standard is not whether 

the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether 

the services were reasonable under the circumstances.’ [Citation.] ‘The applicable 

standard of review is sufficiency of the evidence.’ ” (In re T.G., supra, 188 Cal.App.4th 

at p. 697.)

Here, there is substantial evidence the Department provided reasonable services to 

grandmother. Pursuant to the sustained allegations in the amended petition, the minor 

and his sibling were removed from grandmother due to grandmother’s failure to 

supervise and protect the minor or provide the minor with medical, mental health, and 

behavioral care necessary to address his special needs and regulate his behavior. The 

allegations referenced the minor’s 48 unexcused absences from school within a sixmonth period, grandmother’s failure to attend the minor’s IEP meetings or sign IEP 

documentation, and grandmother’s prevention of the minor’s access to ALTA Regional 

Services, and the allegation that she left the minor with inadequate caregivers not capable 

of supervising or protecting him. 

Grandmother’s case plan required her to participate in specialized parenting 

education for special needs children, anger management, individual counseling, and 

conjoint counseling. Contact with grandmother proved to be challenging for several 

months until she eventually began to respond to voicemail messages and meet with her 

social worker. 

At the 12-month review hearing, the court found the Department referred 

grandmother to services designed to remedy the issues leading to removal, but the 

services provided were not reasonable. In that regard, the court found the delay in 

individual counsel, for which the Department and grandmother were both responsible, 

resulted in grandmother’s rushed completion of six of the 10 required classes within a 
24

three-day period and did not allow for the time required to provide grandmother with the 

necessary skills and insight. The court found the therapist’s conclusion that grandmother 

benefited from those services unavailing. The court further found that, despite the social 

worker’s concerted efforts to identify and obtain authorization for a parenting program 

for special needs children and the consequent late referral to an appropriate parenting 

class, grandmother failed to engage in the recommended service and instead chose to 

participate in a different class. The court also found the Department failed to include 

grandmother in child family team meetings. The court concluded the services provided 

were not reasonable, found grandmother’s progress in services was minimal, and ordered 

six additional months of services. The court ordered the case plan to include individual 

counseling that “needs to be specific in regard to the parenting deficits that were 

demonstrated,” and encouraged grandmother to participate in services provided to the 

minor and N.M., particularly educational services, and demonstrate her ability to 

regularly attend and participate in those services. Finally, the court admonished 

grandmother to regularly communicate with the Department and attend every visit 

available to her. 

According to the Department’s January 2019 addendum report, grandmother was 

provided with and completed her parenting program and participated in all child family 

team meetings. She also participated in individual counseling with therapist Prasad. 

After 10 sessions, Prasad assessed grandmother’s prognosis as poor due to grandmother’s 

habit of blaming others, her continuing assertion that there were no issues with her 

parenting skills or her disciplinary practices or supervision of the minor and his sibling, 

and the fact that grandmother maintained the jurisdiction/disposition report was “all lies.” 

Grandmother again focuses on the fact that the Department’s reports erroneously 

included the stricken allegations of physical abuse and argues services were unreasonable 

because that information was provided to Prasad, who then relied on it to formulate the 

basis of her conclusions about grandmother. We disagree.
25

Prasad acknowledged her mistaken belief that the allegation of physical abuse 

against mother had been sustained. She testified that even, without the physical abuse 

allegations, there would be a risk to the minor and N.M. pursuant to the remaining 

sustained allegations based on grandmother’s lack of progress and insight. 

Grandmother argues she was forced to choose between telling the truth (i.e., 

denying the physical abuse allegations) or going along with incorrect and unfounded 

information. She ignores the remaining issues of failure to protect and failure to provide 

appropriate care, which Prasad addressed in counseling and which grandmother 

persistently and repeatedly denied. Prasad taught grandmother relaxation techniques to 

help deal with stress and the responsibility of parenting two special needs children. She 

attempted to discuss with grandmother the portion of the report regarding the failure to 

supervise and impress upon grandmother the pattern of leaving the minor and N.M. in 

situations that exposed them to risk. Prasad repeatedly observed grandmother blaming 

others and attempted to redirect grandmother to focus on herself and be more reflective, 

to no avail. When Prasad addressed issues related to the minor’s school and IEP, 

grandmother blamed the minor’s many absences on the teacher and claimed she was 

meeting the minor’s educational needs. Grandmother similarly blamed any neglect of the 

minor’s medical needs on mother. Most importantly, grandmother claimed the entire 

jurisdiction/disposition report, as well as the allegations in the amended petition, were 

“all lies.” 

Finally, grandmother repeats her argument that there was no updated written case 

plan listing all of the services she was required to complete. Contrary to grandmother’s 

assertions, the case plan following the 12-month review hearing differed little from the 

prior case plan. As we previously discussed in subpart I of this opinion, grandmother and 

her counsel were present at the 12-month review hearing when the court ordered 

additional services and specified what those services were to entail, namely, individual 

counseling focused on the deficits in grandmother’s parenting, completion of the 
26

appropriate parenting class, and grandmother’s participation in child family team 

meetings. Thereafter, social worker Ralph explained the case plan to grandmother on 

several occasions. Any error in providing grandmother with an updated case plan was 

harmless. 

The juvenile court’s order finding grandmother was provided with reasonable 

services is supported by substantial evidence.

III. DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.

/S/

 

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

 

MAURO, Acting P. J.

/S/

 

MURRAY, J.