Filed 11/12/13 In re Allen P. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re ALLEN P., JR., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. AMANDA D., Defendant and Appellant. D063989
(Super. Ct. No. EJ3597)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Sa n Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Affirmed.

Andrea R. St. Julian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.2 Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Patrice Plattner-Grainger, De puty County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Amanda D. appeals a juvenile court orde r requiring her visitation with her son, Allen P., Jr., (Allen) be supervised. She c ontends substantial evidence does not support the order. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND On February 17, 2012, the Tulare County social serv ices agency petitioned under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, su bdivisions (a) and (b) on behalf of twoyear-old Allen on the basis of domestic violen ce between Allen's father, Allen P., Sr., (the father), and Amanda. The father had th rown a remote control device across a room and struck Allen's sister, th ree-year-old Madison D., on her face, causing bruising. Amanda had a history of obtain ing restraining orders against the father and then allowing him back into the family ho me. The petition also allege d there had been juvenile dependency proceedings concerning A llen's sibling, Levi D ., in 2005. Amanda successfully reunited with Levi, but then had not protected him from physical abuse by the father, and the father had struck Levi in the head multiple tim es. The petition also alleged Amanda had neglected Levi's hygiene and medical needs, had been unable to manage his out-of-control beha vior and had not attended co njoint therapy or followed treatment recommendations for him. Each parent had been arrested for inflicting corporal injury on Levi and ha d served time in custody. Levi was living with a relative in
Texas.3 When police officers took Madison into protective custody, Amanda became combative and was arrested for resisting arre st. Allen was visiting the father in San Diego County at the time. 1 The father brought him to Tulare County so he could be taken into protective custody. The court or dered Allen detained in out-of-home care and ordered supervised visits for each pare nt. The social worker recommended denying reunification services for Amanda because she had received many months of services in Levi's case. The social worker recommende d offering six months of services to the father. On March 28, 2012, the Tula re County Juvenile Court fo und the allegations of the petitions to be true. It declared Allen a de pendent of the court and ordered reunification services for the father, but denied them for Amanda. The social worker reported Amanda a ppeared to have difficulty controlling her anger. She yelled and used derogatory name s during telephone calls with the social worker. She had weekly supervised visits w ith Allen and repeatedly tried to bring her boyfriend or other individuals to the visits . Madison and Allen' s relative caregivers reported Madison and Allen acted up after visits with Amanda. Allen and the father had visits only ab out once each month because of the distance between San Diego County and Tulare County. Their visits were appropriate and

1 Amanda and the father ha d been awarded joint legal custody of Allen; Amanda was given physical custody and the father ha d one week of unsupervised visitation each month.4 progressed to being unsupervised. The father also participated in a 52-week domestic violence prevention program. In June 2012, Amanda's parental rights to Levi were terminat ed. In August, she lost her parental rights to Madison. Meanwhil e, the father made progress in services and had positive visits and telephone conversations with Alle n. In September, Allen was placed with him in the home of the paternal grandparents. In Oc tober, the San Diego County Juvenile Court accepted transfer of the case from the Tulare County Juvenile Court. Amanda moved from Tulare County to Southern California a nd had weekly visits with Allen. The grandparents reported she had difficulty taki ng on a parental role and did not have control over Allen during visits. In January 2013, the fath er began an in-home parenting program. He also continued his participation in the domestic violence program. He was employed and spent his free time with Allen. In February , Amanda moved to the State of Washington for a short time, but then returned to Califor nia. Her visits with Allen became more regular, and Allen was excited when they got to see each ot her. Staff at the visitation center reported their visits we re positive and affectionate. The social worker reported Amanda had been offered 43 months of services in Levi's cases. Amanda's therapist in Tulare County reported she had been diagnosed with "Depressive Disorder" and "Borderline Pers onality Disorder with Dependent Personality Traits" and with seizures. The therapist said Amanda was resistant to therapy. At a review hearing on April 30, 2013, Am anda's counselor tes tified he worked as a therapeutic behavioral specialist and superv ised cases and trained therapists for an5 agency in Temecula. He also was Amanda's pastor. He was not a licensed social worker or a credentialed therapist. He had met w ith Amanda for one hour each week for about four months and said they were addressing her issues of depression and anxiety. He said she had become less emotional and was calm er than when their counseling sessions began. He said he was aware she had lost two children to adoption but, in his opinion, she had never posed a risk to them, and he di d not see a problem with her having Allen in her care without supervision. He was not aware she had been diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, and he had not received copi es of the juvenile court documents concerning Levi and Madison or the earlier re ports concerning Allen. Amanda testified she received disability in come for a seizure disorder, with which she had been diagnosed in 2007 . She took medication for the seizure disorder and for depression. She said she did not know she had been diagnose d with a borderline personality disorder. She said she had addr essed some of her past domestic violence issues with her counselor and would rely on him for help with anger issues. After considering the evidence and argu ment by counsel, the court found the father had made substantive progress with th e provisions of his case plan, Amanda had made some progress, and there no longer was a protective issue. The court advised Amanda to participate in therapy with a lic ensed therapist, complete a domestic violence program and develop a safety plan for what to do if she had a seizure when Allen was in her care. It awarded Amanda and the father jo int legal custody, the father sole physical custody, ordered supervised visitation fo r Amanda and termin ated jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION6 Amanda contends substantial evidence does not support the order requiring her visitation be supervised. She argues her vis its with Allen have been positive, and there was no substantial evidence she had a border line personality diso rder, no showing how such a diagnosis would pose a danger to Allen and no evidence her se izure disorder ever interfered with her ability to care for him. She also argues since Allen's dependency began because of the father's domestic violen ce and Allen now has b een placed with the father, it makes no sense to restrict her visitation. Legal Principles In making visitation orders, the juvenile court must consider the child's best interests. ( In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) It must consider the totality of the child's circum stances when making decisions regarding the child. ( In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 201.) The cour t's orders regardi ng visitation may be reversed only upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. ( In re Emmanuel R. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 452, 465.) " 'The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more infe rences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing cour t has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.' [Citation.]" ( In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318- 319.) Application Amanda has not shown the court abused its discretion by requiring her visits with Allen continue to be supervis ed. She had previously been arrested and served time in custody for inflicting corporal injury on a child. She yelled at the social workers,7 showing she had difficulty controlling her an ger. She shouted at Allen during some visits, and when Allen and Madison were fi rst removed from her care, their caregivers reported they showed negative behavior after visits with her. She had been offered many months of services in Levi's cases, but re unification was not successful, and her parental rights to Levi and Madison had been terminated . Her previous therapist had said she was resistant to therapy, and her previous parenting instructor was worried about her ability to implement the skills presented in class. Th e court expressed concern that her borderline personality disorder condition was difficult to tr eat and encouraged he r to participate in therapy with a licensed therap ist, complete a domestic violence program and develop a safety plan for what actions would be taken if she had a seizure when Allen was in her

care. Amanda has not shown the court abused its discretion by requiring her visits with Allen continue to be supervised.
DISPOSITION The order is affirmed.

NARES, J. WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

IRION, J.