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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 Code1 

section 388 to modify a previous order. We affirm. 

BACKGROUND 

The family has a long and highly 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 alleged 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 children to lick up spilled liquids, and Mother’s boyfriend had tagged gang 

graffiti on Michael’s chin and legs; Mother’s boyfriend had cut Michael’s left arm with 

scissors (Father supplied a videotaped interview 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 petition also alleged that Father, who had been 

in a relationship with Mother for three to four years, had no contact with the children for 

over a year and a half. After he reestablished 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 emotionally, to be under 

considerable stress, and to exhibit psychosomatic symptoms,” which endangered S.B.’s 

and Michael’s physical and emotional health and placed Michael and S.B. at risk of 

emotional and psychological damage. The juvenile court found that Father was the 

presumed father of both children. The court detained the children from Mother (ordering 

reunification services), and released them to Father (ordering family maintenance 

services), ordering that Father and Mother were 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 Welfare 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 the petition had not been proven, 

and sustained as amended the allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) to 

state that “[o]n several occasions” Mother and her boyfriend “inappropriately disciplined 

the children” causing them unreasonable pain and suffering, and Father “continues to 

engage in communication and behavior in the presence of the children” which alienated 

S.B. from Mother, and caused S.B. to decompensate 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 throughout the case.” The court declared the 

children dependents, removed them from Mother’s custody and made a home of parentfather order, and ordered individual counseling for the children (S.B.’s counseling was to 

address “custody issues and alienation issues”). The court also granted family 

maintenance services to Father, who was ordered to attend a fatherhood group, individual 

counseling for anger management, and a parents beyond conflict program. Mother was 

ordered to attend parenting classes, joint counseling with S.B., and individual counseling, 

and was to receive reunification services and monitored visitation. 

 In March 2010, the court liberalized Mother’s visitation to unmonitored visits. In 

May 2010, DCFS’s assessment was that the children loved both Mother and Father and 

wanted them in their lives, although the parents 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 visitation in June. A status review 

report filed in July 2010 stated that the children appeared “safe, secure, and comfortable 

in their mother’s home as well as under their father’s care,” and recommended that 

Mother continue to receive family reunification services and begin unmonitored 

overnight visitation. 
4

 On August 11, 2010, DCFS filed an ex parte application requesting that Mother’s 

visitation revert to monitored. The local police department had made an emergency 

response referral, stating that it received a report that when the children returned to Father 

from a day visit to Mother, Michael had a scratch near his right eye and a laceration on 

his lower lip. Michael told the police that Mother hit him with an open hand when he 

urinated on the toilet seat. When the social worker saw Michael the next day, he said the 

same thing; the social worker did not see an abrasion on his lip, and observed a 

discoloration of the skin under his eye. The juvenile court ordered that visitation be 

monitored with discretion to liberalize after a full DCFS investigation “to be completed 

out of the presence of the father,” and ordered that Father “not question the children after 

their visit with Mother, or have anyone else question them.” 

 A status review report filed on September 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 about the August allegation 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 told that the referral was being closed as 

inconclusive and that Mother’s visits would once again be unmonitored, he stormed out 

of the office, cursing and slamming doors. With the children standing at his side, Father 

yelled at the social worker trying to give him instructions regarding 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 they had not heard any threats, so the police did not make a 

report. Other children’s social worker’s (CSW) 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 table and snap his neck,” which Father said 

he should have done to the children’s mother. 

 Father had been attending therapy, where he was respectful and candid. Mother 

had also attended therapy, where she had appropriately addressed anger issues; and 

Mother’s monitored visitation with the children had gone well, with Mother in tune with 
5

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, and 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 intensive anger management therapy. 

 At the six-month review hearing on September 10, 2010, Father’s counsel stated 

that Father wanted the court to place the 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 weekend visits for Mother. The 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 father,” and wavering 

about where they wanted to live, appearing anxious and confused. The parents were 

unable to communicate amicably. Father had been arrested for making a terrorist threat 

(to his former brother-in-law) and later released. Mother had had a daughter with her 

boyfriend, who had participated in voluntary family maintenance services with Mother. 

S.B. had expressed some hesitancy 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 Mother’s home, with 

Father having visitation after school twice a week and alternate weekends. Both children 

stated they wanted to return 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 preservation services, and when the 

services were in place, the children would be released to both parents with a shared 

custody agreement (with Mother having alternating weeks). In April 2011, the court 

ordered Evidence Code section 730 evaluations of Father, Mother, and the children, and 

continued the section 366.22 hearing until the evaluations were complete. 

 The lengthy evaluation by Dr. Michael Ward, dated June 27, 2011, reported that 

while both children appeared to be functioning and developing well, each (and especially 

S.B.) showed emotional distress regarding the case. Both parents were defensive, with 

father slightly more defensive. The maternal side of the family was much less likely to 

disparage the other side and more willing to share custody; the paternal side tended to be 

“rigid, inflexible, intolerant, vitriolic, and overly moralistic and judgmental about others,” 

while the maternal side was much more reasonable. Neither parent posed a risk of 

physical abuse of the children. “[T]his is much more like a typical Family Law case than 

a typical Dependency Court case that deals with abuse and/or neglect, with the notable 

exception of emotional abuse,” which the added counts recognized came from Father and 

his family. The case began with Father’s videotaped interview of S.B. Such a “‘parental’ 

interview” always raised more questions than 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 losing him. Father and his family had been putting incredible pressure 

on them, talking about Mother “in greatly exaggerated, 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 placed with Mother, with 

continued therapy for the parents and the children. 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 counsel 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 DCFS recommended home of parents with fifty-fifty shared 

custody. The court concluded that “50-50 relationships 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 primary custody to Father and both parents 

sharing legal custody, admonishing Father not to speak negatively about Mother in the 

children’s presence, and giving Mother alternate weekend visits and Wednesday 

overnight visits. Mother’s former boyfriend, now her husband, 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 husband gave Michael a sparkler to hold, and Michael accidently 

burned the back of his leg; Mother did not seek medical treatment for the burn. Mother 

acknowledged that she should not have let Michael hold the sparkler. She stated that it 

did not appear serious and she put ointment on the burn, but the children returned to 

Father’s home the next day, so she did not have a chance to follow up. The referral was 

closed as the family was already receiving family maintenance services. Another report 

in February 2012 indicated that both parents were in compliance with the orders of the 

court, and that the parents and children remained in individual and family counseling. 

Both children continued to display emotional distress as a result of attempting to please 
8

both parents, and in-home services were necessary as a result of the continued issues with 

conflict resolution. Mother “has demonstrated new skills consistent with case plan 

objectives”; Father “remains in compliance with case plan recommendations and court 

orders.” DCFS continued to recommend that 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 altercation 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 team decision making meeting determined that 

the children were safe in Mother’s home pending the investigation, and a safety plan was 

in place with follow-up visits. The court directed the parties to notify it if there was any 

substance to the allegation. The section 364 hearing was calendared for May 10, 2012. 

(An interim review report filed May 10, 2012 advised that the investigation had been 

closed as inconclusive for physical abuse and unfounded for general neglect, as 

examination by a doctor on the date of the 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-ordered visitation, made sure the children went 

to counseling and medical appointments, and was an active volunteer at school and 

extracurricular events. Father stated: “Continued court supervision is no longer 

necessary. We request the court terminate the jurisdiction of the dependency court and 

maintain the previously ordered custody arrangement as the exit order.” This would 

provide the children with stability after three years of court supervision. 
9

 DCFS filed an opposition to the section 388 request and continued to recommend 

return of the children to Mother’s care, stating that both children had been interviewed 

and expressed a desire to stay permanently with Mother. 

 In September 2012, DCFS filed an interim 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 (emotional abuse). An August 14, 2012 referral 

alleging that Michael had been sexually abused by Mother’s husband was pending; 

during the investigation, Father had videotaped the social worker’s interview with the 

children and violated visitation orders. The children’s statements about where they 

wanted to live varied depending 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 with his father “‘then we’ll go to like 

foster home. Is that true?’” S.B. also stated that she had told the social worker she 

wanted to live with Father “‘because of the camera. I only said those things because they 

were recording.’” The children were guarded and tense when interviewed at Father’s 

home. 

 An ex parte application stated that when the social worker went to Father’s home 

to interview the children about 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 explained 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 workers were dishonest. The social worker 

explained that videorecorded interviews could be perceived as skewed, and asked to 

interview the children outside the home; Father said no. Before the family left, Father 

told paternal grandmother to turn on the camera, as the social worker knew it was there. 

The CSW took a photograph of the camera located on the book case behind a picture 
10

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 agreed to a safety plan 

to have her husband leave Mother’s home during the investigation, and requested that 

Father “not intimidate or coerce[] 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 allow them to lock the door, that was added by [S.B.]. They 

are very upset. They both cried and said they thought I should know that.” The court 

ordered day visits only in a neutral setting and no contact by Mother’s husband. 

 At a hearing on October 26, 2012, S.B. testified that she did not want Mother to 

know what she was saying because 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 visiting Mother. She did not like the 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 her husband were always mean and fighting. 

Michael testified that he loved Mother, his visits 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 seen the children in the homes of both Mother 
11

and Father. The children’s behavior in Father’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 were still guarded. S.B. told the social worker she wanted 

to live with Mother but did not want Father to know, because 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 recommended the children return to home of 

Mother, based on the 730 report and his observations. 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 acted 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 and Mother bickered and harassed 

each other. Both children behaved normally with Mother’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 safety 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 general neglect against Father, which 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 with Mother. Quezada had interviewed the children at both parents’ 

homes, and they were much 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 Father, because they knew there were cameras 

in the home. Father had also told them if they said they wanted to live with Mother, they 

would be in foster care and Mother’s husband would beat them. 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 abuse referral regarding Mother’s husband. 

She went to Father’s home because the children 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 Michael 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 conclusion 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 interview them at the 

DCFS office, but Father refused to allow Mother to take the children during her 

visitation. At a forensic interview in September, Michael gave more details. When 

Quezada interviewed him privately at a public library, he denied the allegations. In 

consultation with her supervisor, Quezada deemed the referral unfounded. 

 DCFS recommended that the parents share custody and Mother have primary 

custody. The children’s counsel recommended that the court terminate jurisdiction and 

leave the current order in place, with children 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 never seen a case in which the children said 

everything they say would be videorecorded, and “the presence of those cameras in the 

house and the behaviors that surround it constitute a very serious threat of damage to 

those children.” Neither child was at substantial 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 make 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 asking questions; both parents loved 
13

the children. Although the court had been concerned about Mother’s household, he also 

saw rigidity in Father, who had been out of the children’s lives until the last few years 

and “does not have the flexibility to nurture these children.” The court declined to grant 

the section 388 request, because it would not be in the children’s best interests to make 

the current order permanent. 

 Both sides had made unsubstantiated complaints, but the court wanted the children 

to grow emotionally and mature. They were able to act like children 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 been 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 were true: “I think these children are under 

such pressure to make both [of] you feel happy 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 holiday schedule to be worked out. The court would then 

terminate jurisdiction. 

 At a further hearing on December 19, 2012, the court signed the family law order 

granting joint physical and legal custody (with primary physical custody 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 ordered the children to 

the 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. 

 2 Father filed his notice of appeal before final judgment, following the 

December 13 hearing. We granted Father’s motion to take additional evidence on appeal, 

which attached the December 19 order as an exhibit. 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 parent or other person 

having an interest in a child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court ... or the child 

himself or herself ... through a properly appointed guardian may, upon grounds of change 

of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court ... to change, modify, or set aside any 

order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” When the 

placement of the minor children is in issue, “the burden of proof is on the moving party to 

show by a preponderance of the 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 discretion of the juvenile court, and the trial court’s ruling should 

not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established.” (Id. at 

p. 318.) 

 Father had the burden to show a legitimate change of circumstances. His section 

388 petition, however, did not allege new evidence or changed circumstances since the 

order eight months earlier in August 2011 placing the children in the parents’ homes, 

with primary custody to Father and joint legal 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 discern, how circumstances 

(including his behavior) changed since the order issued in late August 2011. Even if he 

had demonstrated a change since the prior order, we see no abuse of discretion in the 

court’s conclusion that Father’s proposed change was not in the best interests of the 

children. As the lengthy history of the family’s DCFS involvement demonstrates, each 

parent had shown animosity and negativity toward the other, but there was evidence that 

Father was more negative, rigid, and controlling, and that S.B. and Michael were more 

relaxed and childlike with Mother. The juvenile court, noting that none of the more 

recent referrals alleging abuse had been sustained (and that it did not believe that the 

allegations against Mother’s husband were credible), concluded that both parents could 
15

provide safe homes for the children, but that in the home of Mother, the children could 

“breath[e]” and behave like children. “‘“When two or more inferences can reasonably be 

deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for 

that of the trial court.”’ [Citation.]” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 319.) It 

was not an abuse of discretion to conclude that placement 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.