Filed 2/6/14 In re S.B. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re S.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B246181 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK77749)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
MICHAEL B., Sr.,
Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Veronica McBeth, Judge. (Retired judge of the L.A. Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen D. Watson, Senior Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________ __________2 Michael B., Sr. (Father), the father of S. B. and Michael B., Jr. (Michael), appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying his petition under Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 388 to modify a pr evious order. We affirm.
BACKGROUND The family has a long and hi ghly contentious history in juvenile court. In June 2009, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j) on behalf of S.B. and Michael, then six and two years old respectively. The petition alle ged that Andrea M. (Mother) struck the children with belts while her boyfriend held them down; Mother and her boyfriend had engaged in mutual domestic violence in front of the children; Mother and her boyfriend
had forced the childre n to lick up spilled liquids, and Moth er’s boyfriend had tagge d gang graffiti on Michael’s chin and legs; Mother’s boyfriend had cut Mich ael’s left arm with scissors (Father supplied a videotaped in terview with the children describing how Michael received the cut and the graffiti); and Mother had told S.B. to lie to authorities about the physical abuse of Michael. The pe tition also alleged that Father, who had been in a relationship with Mother fo r three to four years, had no contact with the children for over a year and a half. After he reestablishe d contact in Spring 2009, Father “engage[d]
in communication and behavior in the presence of the children that is alienating the child [S.B.] from her mother, causing [S.B.] to decompensate emoti onally, to be under considerable stress, and to exhibit psychoso matic symptoms,” whic h endangered S.B.’s and Michael’s physical and emotional health and placed Michael a nd S.B. at risk of emotional and psychological damage. The ju venile court found that Father was the presumed father of both children. The cour t detained the children from Mother (ordering reunification services), and released them to Father (ordering family maintenance services), ordering that Father and Mother we re not to discuss the case or mention the other parent in the children’s presence, and “[n] o videos or tapes are to be made of what

1 All statutory references are to the Welf are and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.3 the children say.” The children were placed in individual therapy, Mother’s visitation was monitored, and her boyfriend was to have no contact with the children. At the disposition hearing in November and December 2009, the juvenile court
concluded that the levels of physical abuse alleged in th e petition had not been proven, and sustained as amended the allegations unde r section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) to state that “[o]n several occasions” Mother an d her boyfriend “inappr opriately disciplined the children” causing them unreasonable pain and suffering, and Father “continues to engage in communication and be havior in the presence of the children” which alienated S.B. from Mother, and caused S.B. to decomp ensate emotionally, experience stress, and exhibit psychosomatic symptoms, endangering both children’s physical and emotional
health. The court stated that Father’s “communication is entirely inappropriate and Mother has been consistently appropriate thro ughout the case.” Th e court declared the children dependents, removed them from Moth er’s custody and made a home of parentfather order, and ordered individual counseli ng for the children (S.B.’s counseling was to address “custody issues and alienation issu es”). The court also granted family maintenance services to Father, who was orde red to attend a fatherhood group, individual counseling for anger management, and a pare nts beyond conflict program. Mother was ordered to attend parenting classes, joint coun seling with S.B., and individual counseling,
and was to receive reunification se rvices and monitored visitation. In March 2010, the court lib eralized Mother’s visitation to unmonitored visits. In May 2010, DCFS’s assessment was that the ch ildren loved both Mother and Father and wanted them in their lives, although the parent s should work on their strained relationship with each other. DCFS recommended family maintenance services for both Mother and Father, with joint custody. Mother received more visitati on in June. A status review report filed in July 2010 stat ed that the children appeared “safe, secure, and comfortable
in their mother’s home as well as under th eir father’s care,” and recommended that Mother continue to receive family reuni fication services a nd begin unmonitored overnight visitation.4 On August 11, 2010 , DCFS filed an ex parte applic ation requesting that Mother’s
visitation revert to monitored. The local police department had made an emergency response referral, stating that it received a repor t that when the children returned to Father from a day visit to Mother, Michael had a scra tch near his right eye and a laceration on his lower lip. Michael told th e police that Mother hit him with an open hand when he
urinated on the toilet seat. Wh en the social worker saw Michael the next day, he said the same thing; the social worker did not see an abrasion on hi s lip, and observed a discoloration of the skin under his eye. Th e juvenile court ordered that visitation be
monitored with discretion to liberalize after a full DCFS i nvestigation “to be completed out of the presence of the father,” and ordere d that Father “not question the children after their visit with Mother, or ha ve anyone else question them.” A status review report filed on Septem ber 10, 2010 contained a long interview with paternal grandmother who stated that the social workers lied and were all against Father. When interviewed by a social worker abou t the August allegati on about injury to Michael, Michael said, “it was fake, that he scratched his lip” and S.B. said that it was “made up.” On August 31, when Father was to ld that the referral was being closed as
inconclusive and that Mother’s visits woul d once again be unmonitored, he stormed out of the office, cursing and slamming doors. W ith the children standing at his side, Father yelled at the social worker trying to give him instructions rega rding the visits, and threatened: “‘When you clock out, I’ll be waiting for you. ’” He refused to allow a security guard to escort him from the building, so the police were called; the receptionists in the lobby told the police th ey had not heard any threats, so the police did not make a report. Other children’s social worker’s (C SW) reported that Father had become angry and agitated during an earlier meeting, and had told one CSW that “he (Father) was a lethal weapon and he could jump across the ta ble and snap his neck,” which Father said
he should have done to the children’s mother. Father had been attending therapy, wher e he was respectful a nd candid. Mother had also attended therapy, where she had appropriately addresse d anger issues; and
Mother’s monitored visitation w ith the children had gone well, with Mother in tune with5 the children’s emotional needs. Nevertheless, “this is a ‘custody battle’ and as such should be in Family Law Court. Father is very angry and does not want mother to have the children.” Father was very noncompliant , and “has threatened and intimidated every CSW that has had any connection to the case , to the point that CSW[’]s are seeking restraining orders against Father.” DCFS recommended that Mother begin to have unmonitored overnight and weekend visitation, an d that the situation be reexamined in a few months for the possible return of the children to Mother. DCFS also recommended
that Father be ordered to attend in tensive anger management therapy.
At the six-month review hearing on September 10, 2010 , Father’s counsel stated that Father wanted the court to place th e children with Mother, because DCFS scrutiny was “just too much;” Mother’s counsel responded that Father “is trying to bully everyone and he states, ‘I will get them.’” The juvenile court noted that Father’s behavior towards
the social workers and his attitude toward authority had been a concern since the beginning. The court ordered family preservation services for both Mother and Father, and unmonitored overnight and w eekend visits for Mother. Th e court later declined to issue a restraining order against Father, but ordered him to stay away from the CSW
whom Father had threatened to “clock.” In December 2010, DCFS filed a status review report describing the children as “torn between visiting with their mother and residing with their fa ther,” and wavering about where they wanted to live, appearing anxious and c onfused. The parents were unable to communicate amicably. Father had be en arrested for making a terrorist threat (to his former brother-in-law) and later rele ased. Mother had ha d a daughter with her boyfriend, who had participated in voluntary family maintenance services with Mother. S.B. had expressed some hesita ncy about returning home to Mother if her boyfriend was there; Michael had shown no concern, and DCFS recommended that the boyfriend be
allowed to be in the home when the children were present. Visitation with Mother was going well, and DCFS recommended the children be returned to Mo ther’s home, with Father having visitation after school twice a w eek and alternate weekends. Both children stated they wanted to re turn to live with Mother.6 The court held a combined hearing under sections 366.21 subdivision (f) and 366.22, ordering that Mother be referred to family preser vation services, and when the services were in place, the children would be re leased to both parents with a shared custody agreement (with Mother having alte rnating weeks). In April 2011, the court
ordered Evidence Code section 730 evaluations of Father, Mother, and the children, and
continued the section 36 6.22 hearing until the eval uations were complete. The lengthy evaluation by Dr. Michael Wa rd, dated June 27, 2011, reported that while both children app eared to be functioning and developing well, ea ch (and especially S.B.) showed emotional distress regarding the case. Both parents were defensive, with father slightly more defensive. The maternal side of the fa mily was much less likely to disparage the other side and more willing to sh are custody; the paternal side tended to be “rigid, inflexible, intolerant, vitriolic, and overly moralistic a nd judgmental about others,”
while the maternal side was much more reasonable. Neith er parent posed a risk of physical abuse of the children. “[T]his is mu ch more like a typical Family Law case than a typical Dependency Court case that deals w ith abuse and/or neglect, with the notable exception of emotional abuse,” which the adde d counts recognized came from Father and his family. The case began with Father’s videot aped interview of S.B. Such a “‘parental’ interview” always raised more questions th an provided answers. The children were “all over the place in terms of what they say and depending on whose influence they were
under at the time.” While Father was not an out-of-control, aggressive man and the children were not physically afraid of him, the children were anxious and fearful of disappointing and lo sing him. Father and his family ha d been putting incredible pressure on them, talking about Mother “in greatly ex aggerated, inappropriate, and almost vile terms,” and “that’s the emotional abuse.” The evaluation recommended that to put a stop to at least some of the emotional abuse, the children should be plac ed with Mother, with continued therapy for the parents and the childre n. This would help the children to stop worrying and allow them “to enjoy what’s left of their childhood.”7 August 31, 2011 order
The court held a section 364 review hearing for Father, and a section 366.22 hearing for Mother, on August 31, 2011. Dr. Ward testified that he recommended Mother have primary custody, to minimize the likelihood that S.B. and Michael would experience emotional abuse. Mother’s coun sel argued for primary custody to Mother with regular visitation for Father; Father’s counsel argued that Father should retain primary custody and Mother have visitation on alternating weekends , with the children’s counsel in agreement; and DC FS recommended home of parent s with fifty-fifty shared custody. The court concluded that “50-50 re lationships only work . . . from this court and the family law court when the parents are able to get along well and that is not the situation we have here and I do not agree with the department at all in that respect.” The court made a home of parents order, with pr imary custody to Father and both parents sharing legal custody, admonishing Father no t to speak negatively about Mother in the children’s presence, and giving Mother a lternate weekend vis its and Wednesday overnight visits. Mother’s fo rmer boyfriend, now her husban d, was allowed to return to
Mother’s home but could not be left alone with the children, parents and relatives were not to make disparaging remarks, and therapy was to continue. An interim review report in December 2011 reported that the visitation schedule was going well. Mother had moved into an apartment with her husband, where the
children had their own room. A referral in September of general neglect by Mother was
substantiated: Mother’s husba nd gave Michael a sparkler to hold, and Michael accidently burned the back of his leg; Mother did not se ek medical treatment for the burn. Mother acknowledged that she should not have let Mich ael hold the sparkler. She stated that it did not appear serious and sh e put ointment on the burn, but the children returned to Father’s home the next day, so she did not have a chance to follo w up. The referral was closed as the family was already receiving fa mily maintenance services. Another report in February 2012 indicated that both parent s were in compliance w ith the orders of the court, and that the parents and children remain ed in individual and family counseling. Both children continued to display emotional distress as a result of attempting to please8 both parents, and in-home services were necessa ry as a result of the continued issues with
conflict resolution. Mother “has demonstrat ed new skills consistent with case plan objectives”; Father “remains in compliance with case plan recommendations and court
orders.” DCFS continued to recommend th at Mother be granted primary custody. On March 15, 2012, the children’s counsel filed a “walk on request” alleging that Michael had injured his head during an alterc ation between Mother and her husband. On March 29, DCFS informed the court that the referral remained under investigation, and would likely be closed as inconclusive; a te am decision making meeting determined that
the children were safe in Moth er’s home pending the investiga tion, and a safety plan was in place with follow-up visits. The court direct ed the parties to notify it if there was any substance to the allegation. The section 3 64 hearing was calendare d for May 10, 2012. (An interim review report filed May 10, 20 12 advised that the i nvestigation had been closed as inconclusive for physical abus e and unfounded for general neglect, as examination by a doctor on the date of th e referral had shown no injuries, swelling, or discoloration to Michael.) May 3, 2012 section 388 request On May 3, 2012, Father filed a section 388 request to change court order, asking the court to change the August 31, 2011 order (ordering the children to home of parents, with primary custody to Father and joint legal custody with visitation for Mother) by terminating jurisdiction and making the order the exit order. As for what circumstances had changed after the August 31, 2011 order, Father stated that the children had been detained in June 2009, and since then had been residing with Father, where they had “flourished”; Father had adhered to court-orde red visitation, made sure the children went to counseling and medical appointments, a nd was an active volunteer at school and
extracurricular events. Fath er stated: “Continued court supervision is no longer necessary. We request the court terminate th e jurisdiction of the dependency court and maintain the previously ordered custody a rrangement as the exit order.” This would provide the children with stability after three years of court supervision.9 DCFS filed an opposition to the secti on 388 request and continued to recommend
return of the children to Moth er’s care, stating that both children had been interviewed and expressed a desire to stay permanently with Mother. In September 2012, DCFS filed an inte rim review report listing more referrals alleging abuse of the children. A July 12, 2012 referral alleging that the children were victims of abuse and neglect by Father was concluded as unfounded (physical abuse and general neglect) and inconclusive (emotiona l abuse). An August 14, 2012 referral alleging that Michael had been sexually abused by Mother’s husband was pending; during the investigation, Father had videotap ed the social worker’s interview with the
children and violated visitation orders. Th e children’s statements about where they wanted to live varied dependin g upon where they were asked; if asked while at Mother’s, they would say her home, and if asked while at Father’s they would answer his home.
Michael had talked about video recordings and said: “‘If we tell people then we’ll get in trouble’” and if he didn’t say he wanted to live w ith his father “‘then we’ll go to like
foster home. Is that true?’” S.B. also st ated that she had told the social worker she
wanted to live with Father “‘b ecause of the camera. I only sa id those things because they were recording.’” The children were guarded and tense when interviewed at Father’s
home. An ex parte application stat ed that when the so cial worker went to Father’s home
to interview the children abou t the sexual abuse allegation, she asked to interview the children privately and Father said that he and others present would leave the house. When the social worker explai ned that the children did not like to be interviewed with cameras present, Father denied that the children were aware that they were being
recorded. Father said the surveillance was for DCFS, as “‘99% (of DCFS) does what’s better for the mother,’” and all social work ers were dishonest. The social worker explained that videorecorded interviews c ould be perceived as skewed, and asked to
interview the children outside th e home; Father said no. Befo re the family left, Father told paternal grandmother to turn on the came ra, as the social worker knew it was there. The CSW took a photograph of the camera lo cated on the book case behind a picture10 frame, and then interviewed the children. Father later stated that there was “more than one camera in the home.” The application stated that Mother had agr eed to a safety plan
to have her husband leave Mother’s home du ring the investigation, and requested that
Father “not intimidate or co erce[] the children by use of surveillance,” and that all
interviews with the children be conducted outside his presence and without surveillance in a neutral setting. At a hearing on September 12, 2012, the juvenile court informed the parties (with the children outside the courtroom) that in a conversation in the judge’s chambers, Michael told the judge that Mother’s husband “awakens him at night and takes him outside, pulls his pants down and played with his private parts; [¶] and that he is afraid of him, that their mother won’t a llow them to lock th e door, that was adde d by [S.B.]. They are very upset. They both cried and said th ey thought I sh ould know that .” The court ordered day visits only in a neutral sett ing and no contact by Mother’s husband. At a hearing on October 26, 2012, S.B. te stified that she did not want Mother to know what she was saying becau se Mother would get mad. She did not miss Mother and liked living with Father because “he is nice to us.” Father never asked about her visits with Mother; she liked visiti ng Mother. She did not like th e overnight visits because Mother’s husband “was a little mean to my brother.” The court noted that S.B. was “traumatized by this whole situation it is so clear,” and “the more you asked, the more she cries.” Upon questioning by the court, S.B. stated that she did not like to spend the night at Mother’s house because Mother and he r husband were always mean and fighting. Michael testified that he loved Mother, his vi sits were “good,” and he wished he could see her more often. At Mother’s house, Mother’s husband would wake him up at night and “throw[] me in the room.” Mother’s husband also took him out in the backyard at night and exposed his private parts, which made him “sad . . . [b]ecause you are not suppose to be doing that.” Mother and her husband argued and once he saw them throw things. At the continued hearing on December 5, 2012, a social worker who had been on the case for two years testified that he had se en the children in the homes of both Mother11 and Father. The children’s behavior in Fa ther’s home had become more nervous and tense, and they did not want to talk to the social worker. In the home of Mother, the children were more playful but we re still guarded. S.B. told the social worker she wanted
to live with Mother but did not want Father to know, b ecause he would get upset, and
Michael told the social worker that Father told him that if Michael said anything inappropriate, DCFS would take them to a foster home and they would not see Mother and Father again. The social worker re commended the children return to home of Mother, based on the 730 report and his obser vations. At Father’s home, the children were very constricted and almost fearful, making eye contact with Father for approval before answering. At Mother’s, Mother was mostly not around when he was talking with
the children. The children ac ted more normal and at ease around Mother, but even there
Michael told the social worker that Father told him he records everything that the children say, even in Mother’s home. Both Father an d Mother bickered and harassed
each other. Both children be haved normally with Mothe r’s husband, and Michael was very playful. Father was hard to deal with and aggressive. The social worker had no
concerns about the children’s safe ty with Father or with Mother.
At a further continuation on December 13, 2012, emergency response social worker Maryin Quezada testified that in July 2012 she investigated a referral of physical and emotional abuse and genera l neglect against Father, whic h alleged that he hit the children and told them they would be placed in the foster care system if they told anyone they wanted to live wi th Mother. Quezada ha d interviewed the children at both parents’ homes, and they were mu ch more relaxed and childlike at Mother’s. In the interview in Mother’s home, both children told Quezada in separate interviews that they lied at Father’s home about wanting to stay with Fa ther, because they knew there were cameras
in the home. Father had also to ld them if they said they wa nted to live with Mother, they
would be in foster care and Mother’s husband would beat th em. S.B. begged Quezada
not to interview her at Father’s home. Quezada concluded that the referral was
unfounded because the statements were inconsistent, although the children were bothered
about the cameras.12 Quezada also responded to the sexual abus e referral regarding Mother’s husband.
She went to Father’s home because the childre n were there and interviewed them outside of Father’s presence, but with the cameras on because Father refused to allow interviews
of the children outside the house. S.B. told Quezada that Mi chael told her about Mother’s husband taking Michael outside and asking him to take down his boxer shorts.
Michael was uncomfortable and hid behind an ottoman while talking to Quezada, telling
her that Mother’s husband took him outside in the middle of the night and exposed himself. Quezada did not come to a conc lusion about the allegation because “the
children’s statements could have been coerced inadvertently by the cameras.” She made an arrangement with Mother to bring her the children so she could in terview them at the DCFS office, but Father refused to allow Mother to take the children during her
visitation. At a forensic interview in Se ptember, Michael gave more details. When Quezada interviewed him privately at a public library, he denied the allegations. In consultation with her supervisor, Qu ezada deemed the referral unfounded. DCFS recommended that the parents shar e custody and Mother have primary custody. The children’s counsel recommended that the court terminate jurisdiction and leave the current order in place, with child ren in the home of Father with unmonitored day visits with Mother. Mother’s counsel recommended that the case be closed and the children be placed with Mother. Father’s counsel stated that Father recorded because he had no faith in the department , and recommended that Father retain primary custody, with day visits to Mother. The juvenile court stated that it had ne ver seen a case in which the children said everything they say would be videorecorded, and “the pres ence of those cameras in the
house and the behaviors that surround it const itute a very serious threat of damage to
those children.” Neither child was at substa ntial risk of harm from either parent, but there was more negativity on Father’s side. The court’s concern was that it could not protect the children in the long term, but “I am going to ma ke a family law order that I think is in their best interests based upon where we are right now in this case.” The children needed stability and no more strange adults aski ng questions; both parents loved13 the children. Although the co urt had been concerned about Mother’s household, he also saw rigidity in Father, who had been out of the children’s lives un til the last few years and “does not have the flexibility to nurture th ese children.” The cour t declined to grant the section 388 request, becaus e it would not be in the childre n’s best interests to make the current order permanent. Both sides had made unsubstantiated comp laints, but the court wanted the children to grow emotionally and mature. They were able to act like childre n at Mother’s house, where “[t]hey have been able to breath[e].” Mother had not been honest about her relationship with her husband, but she had be en a good mother when the case began. If any of the charges had been substantiated, “you would never get your children back again,” but the court did not believe they we re true: “I think these children are under such pressure to make both [of] you feel ha ppy that they will make up any kind of story to do that, and that’s not OK for the kids.” Noting that the parents would be headed into family law court where a judge might change the order, the court ordered that Mother have primary custody, with Father having overnight visitation every Wednesday and every other weekend, with a ho liday schedule to be worked out. The court would then terminate jurisdiction. At a further hearing on December 19, 2 012, the court signed the family law order granting joint physical and legal custody (wit h primary physical cu stody to Mother and visitation for Father), and terminated jurisdiction. 2
DISCUSSION Father appeals the denial of his May 3, 2012 section 388 motion, in which he requested that the court change its August 31 , 2011 order (which or dered the children to the home of parents, with primary custody to Father and joint legal custody with visitation for Mother) by terminating jurisdic tion and making the order the exit order.

2 Father filed his notice of appeal before final judgment, following the December 13 hearing. We gran ted Father’s motion to take additional evidence on appeal, which attached the December 19 order as an exhi bit. We grant Father’s request that we construe his notice of appeal as having been filed upon entry of the judgment.14 Section 388 “provides the ‘escape mechanism’ that . . . must be built into the process to allow the court to consider new information.” ( In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) Section 388, subdivision (a), provides: “Any pare nt or other person having an interest in a child wh o is a dependent child of the juvenile court ... or the child himself or herself ... through a properly appointed guardian ma y, upon grounds of change
of circumstance or new eviden ce, petition the court ... to cha nge, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to termin ate the jurisdiction of the court.” When the placement of the minor children is in issue, “t he burden of pr oof is on the moving party to show by a preponderance of th e evidence that there is new evidence or that there are changed circumstances that make a change of placement in the best interests of the child.” ( In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) “This determination [is]
committed to the sound di scretion of the juvenile court, a nd the trial court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal unl ess an abuse of discretion is clearly established.” ( Id. at p. 318.)
Father had the burden to sh ow a legitimate change of circumstances. His section 388 petition, however, did not allege new evidence or chan ged circumstances since the order eight months earlier in August 2011 plac ing the children in the parents’ homes, with primary custody to Father and joint lega l custody with visitation for Mother. Father instead argued that the children had flourished ever since 2009 when they were initially placed with Father. He makes no argument, and we cannot discer n, how circumstances (including his behavior) changed since the order issued in late August 2011. Even if he had demonstrated a change si nce the prior order, we see no abuse of discretion in the court’s conclusion that Father’s proposed ch ange was not in the best interests of the children. As the lengthy hi story of the family’s DCFS involvement demonstrates, each parent had shown animosity and negativity towa rd the other, but there was evidence that Father was more negative, rigid, and contro lling, and that S.B. and Michael were more
relaxed and childlike with Moth er. The juvenile court, no ting that none of the more recent referrals alleging abuse had been sustai ned (and that it did not believe that the allegations against Mother’s husband were credible), concl uded that both parents could15 provide safe homes for the child ren, but that in the home of Mother, the children could “breath[e]” and behave like children. “‘“When two or mo re inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.”’ [Citation.]” ( In re Stephanie M.
, supra , 7 Cal.4th at p. 319.) It
was not an abuse of discreti on to conclude that placemen t with Mother was in the
children’s best interests.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

JOHNSON, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, Acting P. J.

CHANEY, J.