1

Filed 7/24/15 In re J.S. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re J.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT 

OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.S. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

E062514

(Super.Ct.No. INJ014621)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Lawrence P. Best, 

Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Linda J. Vogel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant D.S.

Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant J.S.
2

Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel 

for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendants and appellants J.S. (father) and D.S. (mother) appeal from the juvenile 

court’s finding of a substantial risk of detriment to their children’s emotional well-being

under Welfare and Institutions Code1section 366.21, subdivision (f), and from the 

court’s order maintaining foster placement and ordering continued reunification services 

to father. Because the record reveals substantial evidence to support the court’s finding, 

we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This appeal concerns whether the dependent minors in this case, seven-year-old 

twin boys, J.S. and B.S., can safely be returned to their father, who they have not seen in 

two years, without creating a substantial risk of harm to their emotional well-being. Over 

their short lives, the twins have been the subject of three dependency petitions. In 2009, 

they were removed from the custody of mother, who lives in California, and placed with 

father, who had been deported to Mexico. From 2009 to 2012, the twins lived with father 

in Mexico. 

This matter is before us now because father allowed mother to take the twins back 

to California, where she lived with them for nearly a year until she attempted suicide by

overdosing on alcohol and pills in August 2013. For the past year, the twins have lived in 

a foster home with their older half-brother, J.M., mother’s biological son whom the 

 

1

 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

twins’ foster parents adopted. During this time, the twins have had no visits with father 

and only a handful of brief phone conversations, as the twins can no longer speak Spanish 

and father cannot speak English.

1. The prior dependency petitions

The twins first came to the attention of the Riverside County Department of Public 

Social Services (DPSS) in June 2008 when they were 11 months old. Mother and father 

were living in Indio at the time, and mother was arrested for public intoxication and child 

endangerment. Mother had an extensive history with child protective services (she 

herself was once a dependent of the court) and was on probation for drug possession and 

burglary. DPSS filed a dependency petition but the court ultimately dismissed it at 

DPSS’s request.

In December 2008, father was deported to Mexico. The circumstances of his

deportation are not clear from the record. In interviews with DPSS and DIF (Mexico’s 

social services agency), father said he was deported after he contacted police to report 

mother’s neglect of the twins; immigration became involved because he was living with 

mother “illegally.” However, a DPSS report states that in December 2008 the police

were investigating mother’s battery and domestic violence allegations against father.2 At 

the contested 12-month hearing, mother testified that the dispute was a verbal one.

 

2

 In a detention report filed on February 17, 2009, the social worker stated that an 

officer gave her a police report of an incident on December 23, 2008, in which mother 

had been the “victim of battery and domestic violence by [father].” 
4

A few months after father’s deportation, mother was arrested for child 

endangerment, violating her probation, and obstructing a police officer. DPSS took the 

twins and two of mother’s other children into protective custody. One of these children 

was the twins’ older half-brother, J.M., who was subsequently adopted by the same foster 

couple who are currently caring for the twins. DPSS filed a section 300 petition (the 

second as to the twins) alleging, among other things, that mother’s physical abuse of the 

twins and their two half-siblings, and her abuse of methamphetamine and alcohol placed 

the children at a substantial risk of serious physical or emotional harm.. 

Pursuant to the juvenile court’s disposition order, the twins were placed with 

father in Mexico on August 31, 2009. A month later, the juvenile court awarded sole 

legal and physical custody of the twins to father, and terminated the dependency 

proceeding. At some point after the court’s order, mother went to Mexico to live with 

father and the twins. Mother and father’s youngest child, M.M., was also living with 

them in Mexico.3 The family lived together until January 2013, when father allowed 

mother to take the twins back to the United States.

2. The current dependency petition 

In August 2013, mother attempted suicide by overdosing on alcohol and pills. She 

was taken to the hospital after B.S. found her unresponsive in their home. A DPSS social 

worker spoke with mother; the twins had been living with her in Desert Hot Springs.

 

3

 M.M., who was five years old at the time of the contested 12-month hearing, 

still lives in Mexico with father. 
5

Mother would not reveal where the twins were, and the social worker was unable to 

locate them to take them into protective custody.

After she was discharged from the hospital, mother called the social worker to 

inform her that she was in custody of the twins. She agreed to “hand the children” to 

DPSS, and asked that they be placed with father in Mexico. The social worker contacted

father and, with the assistance of a translator, notified him of the upcoming detention

hearing. He told the social worker that he wanted custody of the twins. 

DPSS filed a third section 300 petition as to the twins, alleging they were at 

substantial risk of serious physical or emotional harm due to mother’s mental health 

condition, attempted suicide, and extensive history with DPSS. The petition also alleged

father failed to protect the twins by allowing mother to take them to the United States

despite her history of substance abuse and child neglect. 

During an interview with the social worker, the twins reported that they used to 

live in Mexico and that father had let mother take them to the United States. While living 

in Mexico, they had witnessed physical violence between their parents. J.S. said that he 

had tried to intervene at times to protect mother, but father would push him away, and 

B.S. said that father would continue to hit mother even when they tried to stop him. 

The social worker also interviewed mother, who admitted that she and father had 

engaged in domestic violence when they were living in the United States and Mexico,

and that the twins had witnessed some of these incidents. She reported that she had 

suffered injuries from being hit by father. She said that father had dragged her by her 

clothes and hair, restrained her with a rope, and kicked her with a steel toed boot, causing 
6

a vein in her leg to rupture. Based on this new information, DPSS filed an amended 300 

petition, adding the allegation that mother and father had engaged in domestic violence in 

the twins’ presence.

Early on in their foster placement the twins had a phone call with father, but it did 

not last long. The twins walked away from the phone, saying that they did not speak 

Spanish. At that point, it was unclear to the social worker whether the twins had 

forgotten how to speak Spanish or were choosing not to. 

At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the court found that the twins were 

dependents under section 300, subdivision (b), and ordered them removed from mother 

and father’s custody. The court provided reunification services to father but denied them 

to mother. Father’s case plan required him to participate in counseling and a parenting 

education program. The twins’ counsel informed the court that the twins “do not want to

visit [father] and are refusing to visit.” The court ordered monthly visits with father at 

the United States/Mexico border, as well as a study of father’s home, to be performed by 

DIF. The court stated that if there was an issue with the twins not wanting to visit father, 

DPSS could bring it to the court’s attention at a later time. 

a. The twins’ first year of out-of-home placement 

Sometime after the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, a different social worker 

began working on the twins’ case. In December 2013, the twins were placed with a 

different foster couple, J.Y. and J.S., who were in the process of adopting the twins’ older 

half-brother, J.M. Around that same time, mother remarried and moved to Twenty-nine 

Palms. 
7

Before the six-month review hearing, the social worker filed a status report 

recommending that the twins remain with their foster parents. He stated that father had 

demonstrated a disregard of the juvenile court’s and DPSS’s previous concerns about 

mother by allowing her to live in his home as soon as the twins were placed in his care, 

and by allowing her to take the twins back to the United States. By the time of the sixmonth review hearing, father’s home had been assessed and approved. The juvenile 

court ordered DPSS to provide an additional six months of reunification services to 

father, and it authorized in-home visits. Shortly after this hearing, the court granted the 

foster parents’ motion for de facto parent status.

In the months leading up to the 12-month review hearing, father completed his 

reunification plan, which included a psychological evaluation, counseling, and a 

parenting program. The psychological evaluation described him as “emotionally stable, 

able to control impulses, and stable in the community.” Additionally, DIF’s home study

had found that father had made plans for the twins’ care during the hours he worked, and 

had arranged for their schooling and medical insurance coverage. However, not a single 

visit took place between father and the twins. The social worker cited father’s job at the 

meatpacking plant as the reason for the scheduling difficulties. 

In a status report prepared for the 12-month review hearing, the social worker 

recommended against returning the twins to father’s custody based on “[father’s] 

availability and challenges with making visits.” The social worker stated that father “has 

only been available on the weekends, which doesn’t work for the Department.” He also

stated that, due to the lack of visits, he had no way to assess father’s relationship with the 
8

twins. The twins had been living in the home of their foster parents for almost a year, 

and were physically and developmentally healthy and doing well in school. They had 

bonded to their foster parents and their half-brother. They had told the social worker that 

they were happy in their foster home and wanted to be adopted, and the foster parents 

were willing to adopt them. The social worker stated that it was not in the best interest of 

the twins “to be suddenly thrown into an environment where they don’t know anyone, 

can’t speak the language, no one is able to help them make the adjustment, and they are 

somehow expected to just make an adjustment without any assistance.” He 

recommended that the juvenile court terminate father’s reunification services and set a 

section 366.26 hearing to consider adoption.

The foster parents filed a caregiver information form stating that they had 

“religiously attempted to contact the father early on,” but, due to language barriers, father 

was unable to communicate with the twins. Mother had offered to be a translator and the 

foster parents had given her their number to set up conference calls with father. Mother 

had set up such calls in the beginning, but ultimately did not follow through. During the 

year the twins had been in the foster parents’ care, they received only one call from 

father. The twins returned father’s call but, as of the time of filing, had been unable to 

reach him.

At the original 12-month review hearing the court set a contested 12-month 

hearing, at mother’s request, for December 1, 2014. About a week later, the twins finally 

had a phone conversation with father; however, it lasted only about three minutes due to 
9

the language barrier. He asked the twins how they were doing and told them he loved 

them.

DPSS filed an addendum report in which the social worker stated that DPSS had

contacted the Mexican Consulate and set up a visit with father at the San Ysidro location 

on the United States/Mexico border for December 4, 2014. The social worker again 

expressed his concerns about returning the twins to father’s custody. He stated that father 

had not demonstrated a bond with the twins and had not been contacting the foster 

parents despite having their phone number. Father was, however, in daily contact with 

mother, who had been denied services and with whom he had a history of domestic 

violence. The social worker also noted that father had asked DPSS about whether he 

would be able to “receive ‘papers’ ” to allow father to be in the United States if the twins

were placed with him. The social worker changed his recommendation from terminating 

reunification services to continuing services to father for another six months. 

b. The contested 12-month review hearing

On December 1, 2014, the juvenile court held a contested 12-month review 

hearing and heard testimony from mother, one of the twins’ foster parents (J.Y.), and the 

social worker. Mother testified that in January 2013 she took the twins with her to 

California after father “let [her] have them” for a “[c]ouple months.” She said that father 

had been lying when he told DPSS that he had only allowed her to take the boys for one 

week. From the time she took the twins to California until they were removed from her 

care in September 2013, the twins did not see their father. They did, however, have 

phone contact with him every other day. 
10

Mother testified that the twins had been bilingual when they were removed from 

her care, but that they can no longer speak Spanish. After the boys were placed in their 

current foster home, there were two occasions when she had called father and translated 

his conversations with the twins. Mother testified that when they had lived together in 

Mexico, father had been a good parent to the twins and the twins had bonded with him 

and their sister, M.S.

Mother testified that DPSS had attempted to contact father, but they would call 

during his work hours when he was unavailable. She also explained that father could not 

attend the December 4, 2014, visit that the Mexican Consulate had set up. The border 

location was a 12-hour round trip from father’s home in Mexicali, he did not have 

transportation, and could not miss an entire day of work.

J.Y. testified that when the twins were first placed with him they were “very 

fearful” and “extremely immature for their age.” The twins’ teacher and principal

approached him with concerns that they were behind in school, and the foster parents 

provided one-on-one tutoring for the twins. By the time of the hearing, the twins were 

happy, confident, and educationally and emotionally on target. They loved to read and 

play soccer with J.M. J.Y. testified that the twins had developed a close bond with J.M.

and that they looked up to him and spent a lot of time playing with him.

J.Y. also testified that he used to have a good relationship with mother, until 

recently, when she “changed 100% what she told [him]” about father, which made him 

“fearful and concerned about where she is coming from.” He said that mother told him 

and J.M. during the foster family’s first visit with the twins that she had “traded” M.M., 
11

for the twins. She also told him that when she had arrived in Mexico to live with father, 

the twins were “filthy” and did not have shoes. She said that father had not been feeding 

the twins properly and would leave them with strangers. During her testimony, mother 

denied having told the foster parents anything negative about father.

J.Y. did not think that the boys had many memories of the time they lived with 

father in Mexico. When he asked them if they remembered Mexico, “they started 

mentioning things that didn’t make sense.” For example, they said that in Mexico they 

would go to “Elmer’s,” which, as J.Y. explained, was a place in California where he 

would take the twins.

J.Y. testified that although he spoke “[v]ery little” Spanish, he initially tried 

speaking it with the twins, while also teaching them English. Ultimately, he stopped 

speaking Spanish with the twins, which was an unconscious decision on his part. He also 

attempted to call father during the beginning of the twins’ placement. Father’s line had 

no option for leaving a voice message. J.Y. was able to reach father on a few occasions, 

but mother would report back to J.Y. that father had been unable to understand him. 

Father had J.Y.’s cell phone number, but father called J.Y. only once during the past year, 

right after the original 12-month hearing. During the year the twins had been in his care, 

he estimated they spoke with father six times. The twins would “become very frustrated” 

during these calls because they could not speak Spanish.

During the social worker’s testimony, the juvenile court questioned him about his 

attempts to arrange phone and in-person visits with father. After a short time, it became 

apparent to the court that DPSS had not put forth sufficient effort to contact father, and 
12

the court stated that it was clear that DPSS had failed to provide reasonable services to 

father. 

The court then asked the social worker whether there would be a detriment to the 

twins if they returned to father in Mexico. The social worker provided two reasons why 

he believed returning the twins would create a substantial risk of detriment. First, 

because the twins no longer spoke Spanish, they would not be able to communicate a 

medical need if one were to arise when they were in father’s custody. Second, because 

there had been no visits, he had not been able to assess the relationship between father 

and the twins. He did not know how father would interact with the twins or whether the 

twins would suffer any emotional impacts when visiting with father. For example, he

was concerned that the twins would suffer emotional harm if they were returned to 

father’s custody because they had expressed that they did not want to live with father and 

wanted to be adopted by their foster parents. 

After testimony and counsel’s oral argument, the juvenile court ordered that the 

twins remain in foster placement on the ground that returning them to father’s custody 

would create a substantial risk of harm to their emotional well-being. The court based its 

detriment finding on the following grounds: (1) the twins are young and have not seen 

father for two years; (2) they do not speak the same language as father; (3) they have 

been living in a different culture; and (4) they are bonded to their half-brother.

The juvenile court found that father had made satisfactory progress in his case 

plan, and that there was a substantial probability the twins would be returned to him 

within six months. However, the court also found that DPSS had failed to provide 
13

reasonable reunification services to father and to comply with the case plan to return the 

children to his custody. As a result, it provided father with six more months of 

reunification services. 

The court stated, “The issue for me is the department has screwed up. The remedy 

for that is not to punish the kids in some way. And I think that [at] this point today these 

kids are not ready to go to father in Mexico. I’ll say because of the department’s screwups.” The court expressed its frustration with the amount of time DPSS’s had spent on 

contacting father and told DPSS that it expected to “see more effort [by] the department 

to set [visits] up.” The court ordered DPSS to arrange weekly contact between the twins 

and father by telephone or Skype, and to be more active in contacting Mexican officials 

to arrange in-person visits.

ANALYSIS

1. Mother has standing on appeal

As an initial matter, we reject DPSS’s argument that mother lacks standing on 

appeal because she had been denied reunification services, was no longer in a relationship 

with father, and had remarried. In general, a parent’s standing to appeal a judgment in a 

dependency matter is construed liberally. (In re H.G. (2006) 146 Cal.App.4th 1, 9.) 

Where parental rights have not yet been terminated, the parent retains a fundamental 

interest in a dependent child’s companionship, custody, management, and care. (Ibid.) 

Here, mother’s parental rights have not been terminated, and her interest in reversing the 

court’s order is to retain those rights.
14

2. The court’s detriment finding is supported by substantial evidence

Father and mother argue that insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court’s 

finding that returning the twins to father’s custody would create a substantial risk of 

detriment to their emotional well-being under section 366.21, subdivision (f). We 

disagree.

“At a status review hearing, the court must return the child to the physical custody 

of his or her parent unless the Agency proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that 

return to the parent would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, 

or physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 

Cal.App.4th 1415, 1423-1424, citing § 366.21, subd. (f).) The goal of the reunification 

period is to “preserve the family whenever possible.” (Tracy J., at p. 1423.) However, a 

parent’s interest in the care and custody of a child cannot be maintained at the expense of 

the child’s well-being. (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 50.) 

“[T]he question whether to return a dependent child to parental custody is not 

governed solely by whether the parent has corrected the problem that required court 

intervention; rather, the court must consider the effect such return would have on the 

child.” (In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 901.) If returning the child will 

create a substantial risk of detriment to his or her physical or emotional well-being, 

“placement must continue regardless of whether that detriment mirrors the harm which 

had required the child’s removal from parental custody [under section 300].” (Id. at 

p. 900.) 
15

We review a court’s detriment finding for substantial evidence. (Tracy J. v. 

Superior Court, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 1424.) Substantial evidence is “credible 

evidence of solid value such that a reasonable trier of fact could make the findings 

challenged.” (In re Brian M. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1398, 1401.) On review, we do not 

reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses, but view the entire record 

in the light most favorable to the judgment, accepting favorable evidence as true and 

rejecting unfavorable evidence. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53.)

In this case, the twins have not seen father in two years and no longer speak the 

same language as he does. The sheer fact that the twins can no longer communicate with 

father poses significant issues for the twins’ physical and emotional well-being, the most 

pressing of which is the risk that father would be unable to provide for the twins in the 

event of an emergency. Additionally, the record indicates that when the twins were 

removed from mother’s bilingual home and placed in an English-only foster home, they 

were behind emotional and developmental targets. During the year they lived with their 

current foster parents, the twins adjusted to their new home, became fluent in English, 

and made educational and emotional improvements. The juvenile court could reasonably 

find that another abrupt communication change—this time placement in a home where 

the twins would be unable to communicate with father until they relearned Spanish or 

father learned English—was likely to be emotionally detrimental to the twins. 

Furthermore, because there have been no in-person visits and only a handful of 

brief phone conversations, it was impossible for the juvenile court to assess the 

relationship between father and the twins. Visitation is a key aspect of the reunification 
16

stage because it informs the court about the existence and extent of the parent-child bond 

and whether the parent can appropriately care for his or her child. (In re Julie M., supra, 

69 Cal.App.4th at p. 49 [“An obvious prerequisite to family reunification is regular visits 

between the noncustodial parent or parents and the dependent children ‘as frequent[ly] as 

possible, consistent with the well-being of the minor’ ”].) Here, visitation is especially 

vital to assess the parent-child relationship because the twins do not wish to live with 

father, and the last time they lived with him they saw him hit mother on multiple 

occasions.

The court’s detriment finding is not based on father’s lack of progress or 

participation in reunification services. In fact, the court found that father had made 

satisfactory progress. Father had completed his parenting program, been psychologically 

assessed and cleared, and was living in an appropriate home to care for small children.

Rather, the court’s finding is based on how placement will affect the twins, an assessment 

it is required to make. (In re Joseph B., supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p. 901 [“the court must 

consider the effect . . . return would have on the child”].) While DPSS, not father, is to 

blame for the lack of visitation,4the fact remains that the twins had not seen father for 

two years and, as a result, the court had no evidence before it to indicate the nature of 

father’s relationship with the twins. On the other hand, the evidence DPSS presented to 

the court constitutes substantial evidence that an abrupt change of custody would create a

significant risk of emotional harm to the twins. 

 

4

 DPSS concedes it failed to provide reasonable reunification services.
17

Father argues that an imperfect bond between a parent and child is not a sufficient 

ground for finding detriment, and he cites to several cases for support. However, all of 

the cases he cites are inapplicable because in each case there were at least some visits 

with the parent and, thus, the court had evidence of the parent-child relationship when 

making its detriment finding. (See In re David B. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 768, 773, 777-

778; In re E.D. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 960, 966; In re Z.K. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 51, 

59; In re Patrick S. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1258-1259.) For example, in In re 

E.D., the child had had “visited extensively with father,” had attended counseling and 

therapy sessions with him, and “was eager to live with [him] permanently.” (E.D., at 

p. 966.) Similarly, in In re David B., the father had attended 18 months of steady 

supervised visitation and the agency found that his parenting skills improved over the 

course of those visits. (David B., at pp. 773, 777-778.) Here, on the other hand, the twins 

have not had a single in-person visitation with father in the past two years, and thus there 

is no evidence of the parent-child bond, imperfect or otherwise. 

The single case father cites that involved no visits between the father and son, 

In re John M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1564, is inapplicable because the father was a 

nonoffending parent and because it involved an earlier stage of dependency (initial 

placement after a finding of jurisdiction). (Id. at pp. 1567-1568.) As the California 

Supreme Court has recognized, “[i]n any custody determination, . . . ‘[w]hen custody 

continues over a significant period, the child’s need for continuity and stability,’ ” as 

compared to a parent’s interest in caring for his or her child, “ ‘assumes an increasingly 

important role.’ ” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317, italics added.) 
18

Moreover, despite father’s contentions, the fact the lack of visits was DPSS’s fault

is irrelevant to the detriment analysis. The statutorily required remedy for an agency’s 

failure to provide reasonable services is the provision of more services rather than return 

of the child to parental custody. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1) [if reasonable services have not 

been provided to the parent the court must continue the case for up to six months].) 

Father also argues that the court’s finding was in error because returning the twins 

to his custody would not create a substantial risk of emotional harm. He points out that 

the twins are already familiar with him and the culture in Mexicali because they had lived 

with him for over three years before mother took them back to California. He also argues 

that the twins can learn Spanish the same way they recently learned English. These

arguments ignore our task in a substantial evidence review, which is to draw all 

inferences in support of the finding, not look for reasons why the finding should not 

stand. Here, substantial evidence of a substantial risk of detriment exists in the record—

namely, the twins cannot currently speak Spanish, have not seen father in two years, do 

not remember much of living with him in Mexico, and saw him abuse mother. We must 

review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s finding. (In re Diamond H.

(2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1127, 1135, disapproved on other grounds in Renee J. v. Superior 

Court (2001) 26 Cal.4th 735.)

Next, both father and mother take issue with various aspects of the court’s 

detriment analysis. First, they argue that the court improperly considered the twins’ bond 

with their half-brother, J.M. Mother incorrectly contends that the court could not 

consider the twins’ relationship with J.M. because he was not a dependent of the court. 
19

While section 366, subdivision (a), requires a court to consider a child’s relationship with 

any siblings who are also dependents of the court, nothing in the dependency statutes or 

case law prohibits a court from considering a child’s relationship with any nondependent 

siblings. Rather, “a court is authorized to evaluate the appropriateness of keeping 

siblings together, and to consider sibling relationships as one factor, among many, when 

determining detriment for purposes of its placement decisions.” (In re Luke M. (2003) 

107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1422.) Father incorrectly contends that a court cannot consider a 

sibling bond unless that bond is “ ‘much closer than in normal sibling relationships’ ” in 

that it helps the siblings to “ ‘survive.’ ” The case father cites as support sets forth no 

such rule; rather, it held that the bond between the dependents and their half-siblings was 

so unusually strong that it alone supported the detriment finding. (Id. at pp. 1426-1428.) 

Here, the bond between the twins and their half-brother was one of several factors 

supporting the court’s detriment finding. 

Second, parents argue that the court improperly considered the twins’ relationship 

with their foster parents and their desire to be adopted. However, the record 

demonstrates that the court explicitly refused to consider the twins’ desire to remain in 

their foster home as a basis for finding detriment. When mother’s counsel raised the 

issue of the children’s desire to be adopted as an inappropriate basis to find detriment, the 

court responded, “I’m not putting much stock [i]n that.” 

Third, parents argue that the court failed to consider the extent of father’s

participation in reunification services. In fact, the opposite is true. In chiding DPSS for 

failing to provide reasonable services, the court explicitly found that father had been 
20

making satisfactory progress in his reunification plan. Moreover, a parent’s full 

compliance with the case plan is just one fact among many for the court to consider at a 

postdispositional review hearing. Compliance does not create a presumption that the 

child should be returned to parental custody. (See, e.g., Armando D. v. Superior Court

(1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1011, 1020-1021 [despite finding that father complied with the 

case plan, juvenile court properly terminated reunification services].) 

Lastly, mother argues that the court also failed to consider the barriers to visitation 

father faced as a deportee, as section 366.21, subdivision (f), requires. While section 

366.21 does require the court to consider the fact that father is a deportee, this 

consideration pertains to the issue of father’s case plan compliance, not to the issue of 

detriment. (See § 366.21, subd. (f) [in determining whether a parent “participate[d] 

regularly and ma[d]e substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs . . . the 

court shall consider . . . deported parent’s . . . access to those court-mandated services”].) 

DISPOSITION

The court’s order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST

J.

CODRINGTON

J.