Filed 6/27/23 In re D.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.B. et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

 B318484

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. 20LJJP00294)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed. 

Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy 

County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________

T.B. (mother) appeals from orders of the juvenile court 

terminating jurisdiction over three of her children and granting 

sole physical custody to the children’s fathers. Mother argues the 

juvenile court failed to make findings regarding the children’s 

best interests, and the evidence showed it was in their best 

interest for mother to share physical custody with the fathers.

Mother fails to show an abuse of discretion. The record 

indicates the children were thriving in their fathers’ custody, 

whereas mother’s care of the children was characterized by a lack 

of cooperation with court orders and multiple additional referrals 

to respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services (DCFS). Accordingly, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

We limit this summary to the information relevant to the 

issues on appeal. It is not intended to be comprehensive.

Mother has four children: minor 1, born 2006; minor 2, 

born 2013; minor 3, born 2018; and minor 4, born 2019. Father 1 

is the father of minor 1, and was not party to the dependency 

proceedings. Father 2 is the father of minor 2. Father 3 is the 

father of minors 3 and 4.1

1 Given the many parties to this case, several of whom 

have the same initials, we designate the parties thusly to 

minimize confusion and preserve the anonymity of the children.
3

1. Petition and detention hearing

On April 26, 2020, DCFS received a report that mother and 

father 3 had engaged in a violent altercation in front of the 

children. 

Mother told an investigating social worker she was a single 

mother living with the children. Father 3, a truck driver, had his 

own residence but stayed with mother and the children on 

weekends. Mother reported that fathers 1 and 2 did not have 

visits or contact with their children, minors 1 and 2. Mother 

did not believe in immunizing the children and therefore was 

homeschooling minors 1 and 2. Mother did not work and received 

food stamps and other governmental financial aid. 

Describing the reported violent incident, mother stated that 

she and father 3 had gotten into an argument while driving, and 

she had pulled the car over. Mother and father 3 then got out 

and continued the argument while standing in front of the car. 

Father 3 tried to take the car keys from her, and the two “began 

scuffling.” Mother reported father 3 put her in a headlock and 

she bit him trying to escape. Minor 2, who was in the car, called 

the police. 

Father 3 presented a different version of the incident, 

stating mother hit him repeatedly, and he struck her once in the 

face to stop her from hitting him. He then tried to take the key 

from the ignition, and mother started biting him. Father 3 also 

described an earlier incident in which he had told mother he 

wanted to break up, and she “barged” into the house where he 

was and struck him in the head. Father 3 stated mother had a 

temper, and “goes from 0 to 100 in seconds.” Father 3 stated 

mother did not physically discipline the children, but “yells over 

the simplest thing.” Father 3’s roommate told the social worker 
4

he believed mother had “mental issues,” and father 3’s mother 

stated mother had “an anger problem” and confirmed father 3’s 

report that mother had struck him when he told mother he 

wanted to break up. 

The detention report attached a police incident report 

regarding the altercation between mother and father 3. 

According to the incident report, mother told the police father 3 

punched her twice in the face while she was still driving, and she 

pulled over. Father 3 then put mother in a headlock, and she bit 

him to try to get free. Minor 2 told the police he called 911 after 

father 3 punched mother in the face and put her in a headlock. 

Father 3 told police he tried to take the keys from the ignition, 

and mother hit and bit him. A police officer observed mother’s 

cheek was bruised and swelling and her left hand was abraded. 

Father 3’s right arm was bruised, red, and abraded. Minor 2 and 

the other two children present were uninjured.

DCFS filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code2

section 300 alleging under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1)

that mother and father 3 “engaged in a violent verbal altercation 

in the presence of the children.” The petition alleged father 3 

punched mother twice in the face while she was driving and put 

her in a headlock, after which she struck and bit him repeatedly 

as he continued hitting her. The petition further alleged mother 

had struck father in the head on a prior occasion.

On May 14, 2020, the juvenile court found DCFS had made 

a prima facie showing the children were persons described under 

section 300. The court further found there were reasonable 

2 All undesignated statutory citations refer to the Welfare 

and Institutions Code.
5

services available to prevent detention, and ordered minors 1 and 

2 released to home of parents, and minors 3 and 4 released to 

home of mother. Father 3 was granted monitored visitation with 

minors 3 and 4. The court ordered family preservation services.

2. Adjudication and disposition

On June 3, 2020, the juvenile court found father 3 was the 

presumed father of minors 3 and 4, and ordered minors 3 and 4 

released to both parents over DCFS’s objection. A last minute 

information filed on or about the same date reported that father 2 

was incarcerated as of March 2014, with a parole date in June 

2020. A later report indicated father 2 was released on June 18, 

2020. DCFS could not locate father 1. 

At the time of the jurisdiction/disposition report, all four 

children were residing with mother. The report stated that 

mother “disagree[d]” with the section 300 petition’s allegations, 

and was no longer in a relationship with father 3 nor did she 

communicate with him. She denied any prior incidents of 

domestic violence. Father 3 also disputed the petition’s 

allegations, stating that mother had struck him, and he hit her 

by accident when trying to defend himself. Acknowledging his 

statement in the detention report that mother had hit him on a 

previous occasion, he said that previous incident also was “ ‘more 

of an accident.’ ”

A last minute information filed October 28, 2020 reported 

that mother had cancelled four sessions with the family 

preservation services provider, and was not very engaged in those 

services, although her engagement had improved in the prior two 

weeks. Mother had not cooperated with a domestic violence 

program intake assessment and had declined to provide DCFS 

with information necessary to provide additional referrals. 
6

Additionally, DCFS had been unable to assess the children’s 

health and developmental status because mother had declined to 

provide DCFS with the names of the children’s health care 

providers or consent to release of medical records. 

A supplemental report filed December 3, 2020 stated that 

minor 2 had missed 25 days of school and had completed only 

eight assignments. Minor 2’s teacher had spoken with mother 

many times and mother did not agree with the teacher that there 

were any problems, and often would not answer her phone when 

the teacher called. Mother also did not respond to mental health 

service referrals for the children.

A last minute information filed February 25, 2021 stated 

that mother had declined family preservation services and 

was not cooperating with signing necessary release documents. 

Mother also was not cooperating with mental health and regional 

center workers who were attempting to establish services for the 

children. DCFS had discussed this with mother but she “ha[d] 

not changed her behavior.” 

A supplemental report filed March 1, 2021 stated that a 

paternity test confirmed that father 2 was minor 2’s biological 

father. Father 2 said he was having trouble setting up visits with 

minor 2 because mother made it difficult and only wanted to 

argue with him when he called. 

The report further stated that mother had ceased 

participating in family preservation services, but had enrolled in 

a parenting course. Father 3 had not yet enrolled in any 

programs. Minor 1 was receiving Cs, Ds, and Fs in school and 

had a grade point average of 1.00, with excessive absences. 

Minor 2’s attendance, however, had improved.
7

The juvenile court held an adjudication hearing on 

March 3, 2021. The court sustained the allegations in the 

petition against mother and father 3. The court ordered mother

and father 3 to complete domestic violence and parenting 

programs, and to participate in individual counseling. The court 

removed minors 1 and 2 from the homes of their fathers and 

placed them in the home of mother. The court ordered minors 3 

and 4 to home of parents, i.e., mother and father 3. The court 

ordered mother and father 3 to make the children available for 

unannounced home visits from DCFS. 

3. Family maintenance period

On March 29, 2021, a caller reported to DCFS that minor 2

appeared to be participating in online school in a closet, and 

mother resisted speaking with the caller about it or allowing 

minor 2 to speak with the caller. Minor 2 was not completing his 

schoolwork and was “failing.” On April 2, 2021, DCFS received 

another report of educational and medical neglect of a child, 

although the record does not indicate to which child the report 

referred.

On April 20, 2021, a caller reported to DCFS that the caller 

had observed minor 2 sitting next to his mother with a visible 

black eye. Minor 2 told the caller he was not allowed to speak to 

the caller. Caller further stated that four days earlier, someone 

had thrown a juice bottle at minor 2 while he was engaged in 

online learning, striking him in the face.

On April 21, 2021, a DCFS social worker and sheriff’s 

deputy inspected mother’s home. Minor 1 reported no abuse and 

said he felt safe in the home. Minor 2 reported no physical 

discipline and said he was “fine.” The social worker observed a 
8

small scratch or scar on minor 2’s forehead, but no bruising or 

trauma to his eyes.

Social workers and a deputy visited mother’s home again 

on April 23, 2021 with an investigative search warrant, with the 

goal of the social workers speaking to the children outside of 

mother’s presence. Mother became agitated and yelled at the 

social workers. A social worker nonetheless spoke with minor 2 

privately, although minor 2 noted mother was watching him and 

“appeared . . . scared of his mother if he was talking to [social 

workers].” Minor 2 again denied any physical abuse, and said his 

little brother (minor 3) had thrown the bottle at him, but it did 

not hurt. Minor 2 denied being put in a closet. The social worker 

also spoke with minor 1, who also denied any physical discipline 

or domestic violence. 

On May 7, 2021, DCFS obtained a removal warrant for the 

children based on mother’s failure to comply with court orders. 

DCFS removed the children on May 12, 2021, placing minors 1 

and 2 in a foster home, and minors 3 and 4 with their paternal 

grandmother at father 3’s request. 

DCFS filed a new detention report describing the March 

and April referrals and investigation described above. The report

stated that mother had not allowed the court-ordered 

unannounced home visits, and had been “disrespectful and 

verbally assaultive” to DCFS social workers. Mother had 

declined or not followed through with services for the children, 

including mental health, regional center, and school services. 

She had failed to provide medical information about minor 1’s 

diabetes, and had not responded to requests from minor 2’s 

school. DCFS stated that mother was “unable to demonstrate 

that the children’s medical, developmental, mental health and 
9

educational needs are being met.” On several occasions, mother 

refused to discuss her case plan with DCFS or sign consent forms 

for her children to obtain services. 

DCFS also filed a supplemental dependency petition under 

section 387 alleging mother was noncompliant with court orders, 

specifically by failing to participate in programs and counseling, 

provide DCFS with the children’s health and medical updates, 

and sign consent forms for the children’s services. 

A last minute information filed May 19, 2021 indicated 

that, after removal of the children, mother had not responded to 

DCFS’s requests to obtain the children’s medication and 

computers for online school.

That same day, the juvenile court ordered the children 

detained from mother, with family reunification services and 

monitored visitation for mother. 

4. Second adjudication

DCFS filed a jurisdiction and disposition report on June 4, 

2021. According to the report, mother denied that minor 2’s 

school had reached out to her repeatedly about minor 2’s behavior 

and academic performance, stating the school had contacted her 

only about immunizations, and on one occasion minor 2’s teacher 

contacted her when minor 2 became upset when the teacher did 

not call on him. Mother denied placing minor 2 in a closet, and 

believed minor 2’s teacher had “developed false perceptions about 

her.” Mother believed her children were turning in their school 

assignments, and her focus was ensuring they turned in their 

assignments as opposed to ensuring they checked in for online 

learning on Zoom.

Mother said she was unaware she had to sign any 

documents for her children to receive services, but she was 
10

willing to do so. She stated she had provided DCFS with the 

children’s medical documents and verification of her participation 

in a parenting program, and did not know why the detention 

report said otherwise. She believed the social worker assigned to 

the case had “ ‘created a false narrative.’ ” Mother’s resistance to 

home visits arose from her discomfort with that social worker. 

Mother stated she had enrolled in a number of services and 

would provide DCFS with confirmation. 

Father 3 said he had no concerns about the children’s 

safety with mother. Father 2 stated mother had not allowed him 

to visit with minor 2 since July 4, 2020, and would not allow him 

to speak with minor 2 on the phone. 

Minor 1 stated he was happy and safe when living with his 

mother, and denied domestic violence or physical discipline.

Minor 2 gave similar statements. 

Minors 1 and 2’s caregiver reported that mother spoke 

negatively to the children during phone calls. Minor 2 would cry 

when mother called, and minor 1 said he would prefer not to 

speak to mother rather than hear her cry. The caregiver said 

mother told the children the caregiver was “the devil and their 

enemy,” accused the caregiver of brainwashing the children, and 

made other derogatory remarks to the children about the 

caregiver.

A DCFS social worker monitored a visit between mother 

and minors 1 and 2 on June 2, 2021, and reported the visit went 

well and mother’s interactions with the children were 

appropriate. 

On June 14, 2021, the juvenile court sustained the section 

387 supplemental petition “as amended.” Because the record 

before us does not contain an interlineated petition or a reporter’s 
11

transcript from the adjudication hearing, we cannot determine 

the nature of those amendments.

5. Second disposition

A last minute information filed July 20, 2021 reported that 

minors 1 and 2 were in summer school. A DCFS social worker 

reported positive and appropriate visits between mother and the 

children. Mother continued to refuse to sign releases for the 

children’s medical information. Father 3 similarly refused to 

sign, which led DCFS to suspect “that the mother may be 

influencing the father.” 

DCFS reported challenges in obtaining minor 1’s diabetes 

medication from mother. Mother did not respond when a social 

worker reached out to arrange a meeting to obtain the 

medication. Mother later told DCFS she had given the 

medication to the visitation monitor, but the monitor informed 

DCFS mother had given him only enough medication for a few 

days. A DCFS social worker finally picked up the remainder of 

the medication from mother and delivered it to minor 1’s 

caregiver. 

DCFS reported a positive visit between father 2 and 

minor 2. DCFS was in the midst of assessing whether father 2 

would be an appropriate placement for minor 2. 

Another last minute information filed July 22, 2021 stated

mother had completed a parenting class, but only recently 

enrolled in individual counseling and a domestic violence 

program. DCFS was trying to determine if the domestic violence 

program was for perpetrators, as ordered by the court, or for 

victims. 

A last minute information filed six days later reported that 

DCFS had confirmed that mother had participated in several 
12

domestic violence and parenting classes and 12 individual 

counseling sessions. Father 3 had enrolled in a domestic violence 

program, and stated he was scheduled to begin a parenting class. 

The juvenile court held a disposition hearing on August 3, 

2021. Only the minute orders pertaining to minors 1 and 4 

appear in the record, although those orders refer to the other 

children as well. Minor 4 (and presumably minor 3) were 

released to father 3, who was granted family maintenance 

services. Minor 1 (and presumably minor 2) remained “in 

Suitable Placement” under DCFS supervision. Mother was 

granted reunification services as to minors 1 and 2, and 

enhancement services as to minors 3 and 4. The court granted 

father 2 unmonitored visits with minor 2, with occasional 

overnight visits. 

A last minute information filed August 26, 2021 contained 

DCFS’s positive assessment of father 2’s ability to care for minor 

2. The juvenile court released minor 2 to father 2 on September 

3, 2021, with mother to have virtual visits. 

6. Status review reports

DCFS filed status review reports for the children on

January 20, 2022.

3 Mother had provided DCFS with completion 

certificates from her programs and “has been compliant with both 

her [court-ordered] services and the DCFS case plan goals.”

Mother had been cooperative with DCFS, making herself 

available for visits and responding to DCFS communications. 

Mother informed DCFS she had completed a court-ordered 

3 DCFS filed three status reports, one for minor 1, one for 

minor 2, and one for minors 3 and 4. 
13

psychological assessment, but had not yet provided that 

assessment to DCFS. 

Mother’s individual counselor reported that mother “has 

been dedicated to her personal healing process, being a survivor 

of domestic violence and has remained motivated to learn new 

parenting and emotional regulation skills.” The counselor 

reported, however, that mother “is not yet willing to apologize for 

her role in having her children removed from her care.” (Boldface

omitted.) 

a. Status of minor 1

Minor 1 said he enjoyed living with his caregiver but 

“ ‘can’t wait’ to ‘go back to live’ with mother.” Mother’s monitored 

visits with minor 1 were going well, and the monitor and 

caregiver stated they had no concerns about minor 1’s safety with 

mother. DCFS recommended the juvenile court retain 

jurisdiction over minor 1 and that he remain with his caregiver. 

b. Status of minor 2

Minor 2 “appears to be happy and physically healthy under 

the care of his father, who provides [minor 2] with a safe and 

loving home, with no safety concerns observed by [the social 

worker] during monthly visits.” Minor 2 stated he felt safe with 

his father, and enjoyed going to the park with him. He stated 

that he missed his mother and siblings and would like to live 

with them again. DCFS had liberalized mother’s visits with 

minor 2 to unmonitored. 

Father 2 had initiated an evaluation for special education 

services for minor 2, and “[d]ue to father’s persistence, [minor 2] 

was linked to mental health services and meets weekly with [a 

clinician].” Father 2 had discovered minor 2 had difficulties 
14

cleaning himself properly after using the bathroom, but had 

shown improvement after father 2 began working on it with him.

Through the mental health services obtained by father, Minor 2 

was diagnosed with ADHD. 

Father 2 had been diligent in completing his court-ordered 

parenting class and had cooperated with DCFS in making 

himself and minor 2 available for monthly visits from the social 

worker. Father 2 was consistently testing negative for drugs, and 

had complied with all terms of his parole. Father 2 reported that 

he was happy to have minor 2 in his home so they could bond and 

build their relationship. He reported seeing “a lot of growth” in 

minor 2 since minor 2 had started living with him, including 

improving in following instructions, and letting father 2 know 

when minor 2 needed help. 

DCFS recommended the juvenile court terminate 

jurisdiction over minor 2 with a custody order granting joint legal 

custody to mother and father 2, and sole physical custody to 

father 2 with unmonitored visits for mother. 

c. Status of minors 3 and 4

Minors 3 and 4 continued to reside with their paternal 

grandmother at father 3’s request, given his work schedule. The 

children were “well-adjusted” and paternal grandmother 

“provides them with a stable home and healthy environment.” 

The children were “thriving under the care of their paternal

grandmother and father.” The social worker observed the 

children’s excitement when father 3 came home, running towards 

him and jumping into his arms. The social worker had no safety 

concerns. 

Paternal grandmother monitored minors 3 and 4’s visits 

with mother, and reported the children enjoyed their visits very 
15

much and were always excited to see mother. The visits were 

positive and appropriate with no safety concerns. 

Father 3 was consistent in meeting with a family 

preservation counselor every week, and the counselor reported 

father 3 was “open and honest about what brought his family to 

the attention of DCFS.” DCFS reported father 3 was compliant 

with his court-ordered services and case plan goals. He had 

completed parenting classes and had three sessions left in a sixmonth domestic violence course. Although father 3 had not yet 

enrolled in individual counseling, DCFS concluded this was “not 

because of his lack of effort,” but because of problems with 

insurance and obtaining low-cost counseling. 

DCFS’s most recent risk assessment of father 3 rated him a 

low risk due to his “demonstrating new skills consistent with case 

plan objectives and having no new substantiated referrals. 

Additionally, the father has been providing for the child[ren] and 

ensuring that [their] needs are being met since . . . the child[ren 

were] released [to] his care. The father has been compliant with 

all Court ordered services and DCFS case plan goals and 

therefore, there is no need for continued in-home services.” 

DCFS recommended the juvenile court terminate 

jurisdiction over minors 3 and 4 with a custody order granting 

joint legal custody to mother and father 3, and sole physical 

custody to father 3 with unmonitored visits for mother.

d. Last minute information regarding mother’s 

psychological assessment

A last minute information filed February 1, 2022 indicated 

mother had given DCFS her psychological assessment completed 

by a therapist with the Department of Mental Health. DCFS had 

concerns with the validity of the assessment “due to mother’s 
16

responses being inconsistent with information provided to 

[DCFS] by mother and other sources.” 

Specifically, mother told the therapist she had never used 

alcohol or drugs, but earlier had told DCFS that she drank 

alcohol, just not to excess. Mother also had been arrested in 2011 

for possession of a controlled substance. Mother told the 

therapist she was not employed, but she told DCFS she worked 

full-time as a receptionist. Mother told the therapist she had no 

criminal or legal history apart from an open domestic violence 

case, but DCFS’s review of mother’s criminal history indicated 

she had been arrested 11 times, had spent a combined 71 days in 

jail, and had been on probation for burglary in 2012. Mother told 

the therapist there was no history of incarceration among her 

immediate family, but when DCFS assessed a maternal aunt as a 

potential visitation monitor, DCFS discovered she had “too many 

hits” on the criminal background check. (Boldface omitted.)

The therapist conducting the assessment further noted she 

had conducted the interview with mother over the phone, and 

therefore could not complete mother’s adult mental status exam, 

or evaluate whether mother was under the influence of drugs or 

alcohol. DCFS expressed concern “as to the validity, 

completeness and thoroughness of the assessment.” (Boldface 

omitted.)

7. Review hearing

The juvenile court held a review hearing on February 3, 

2022. The hearing began with argument concerning minor 1 and 

whether he should be returned to mother’s care. Mother’s 

counsel argued mother had complied with her case plan and the 

court should return minor 1 to her. Mother’s counsel contended 

the counselor’s observation that mother was not yet willing to 
17

apologize for her role in having the children removed was 

outweighed by the evidence demonstrating mother’s progress and 

compliance. Anticipating an argument that mother had not 

provided the caregiver with minor 1’s diabetes medication, 

mother’s counsel argued minor 1’s good health disproved that 

allegation. 

Children’s counsel argued mother “is just going through the 

motion[s],” and is “not taking accountability.” Children’s counsel 

contended mother was interfering with minor 1’s relationship 

with his caregiver, talking to minor 1 about the case and telling 

him not to listen to the caregiver. Children’s counsel further 

contended mother was providing minor 1 with his diabetes 

medication only on visits, and not ensuring the caregiver had the 

medication. 

DCFS counsel also argued mother was “going through the 

motions, getting things completed but not really getting why we 

are all here, why [minor 1] has been removed from her.” DCFS 

counsel noted DCFS’s concerns in the last minute information 

regarding mother’s psychological assessment. DCFS requested 

that minor 1 remain with his caregiver and the court order 

continued family reunification services for mother. The juvenile 

court agreed with DCFS, ruling that minor 1 would remain with 

his current caregiver with unmonitored visits for mother. 

The parties then addressed the status of minors 2, 3, and 4. 

The juvenile court incorporated mother’s arguments regarding

minor 1 into her arguments for the other children. Mother’s 

counsel argued that if the court was not inclined to grant mother 

joint physical and legal custody with fathers 2 and 3, then the 

court should issue a home of parents order and retain jurisdiction

so the children could transition back to mother’s care. Mother’s 
18

counsel noted mother’s case progress and the fathers’ statements 

that they had no safety concerns about mother. Mother’s counsel 

further noted father 3, who “was just as much a part of the 

original petition as mother,” had yet to complete his domestic 

violence program or participate in individual counseling. 

The juvenile court granted sole physical custody of minors 

2, 3, and 4 to their respective fathers. Mother was granted joint 

legal custody with the fathers, but the fathers were given tiebreaking authority. Mother was granted unmonitored visits. 

The juvenile court ordered jurisdiction over minors 2, 3, and 4 

terminated, and stayed that order pending receipt of the custody 

orders. 

Mother timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

On appeal, mother contends the juvenile court abused its 

discretion by denying her joint physical custody of minors 2, 3, 

and 4. Mother raises no arguments concerning minor 1. 

When the juvenile court determines supervision of a child 

no longer is necessary, “ ‘[t]he court shall terminate its 

jurisdiction unless the social worker or his or her department 

establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions 

still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction 

under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if 

supervision is withdrawn.’ [Citations.]” (In re T.S. (2020) 

52 Cal.App.5th 503, 513, quoting § 364, subd. (c).) When the 

court terminates jurisdiction, it may issue a custody and 

visitation order under section 362.4. (T.S., at p. 513.) 

“When making a custody determination under section 

362.4, ‘the court’s focus and primary consideration must always 

be the best interests of the child.’ [Citations.]” (T.S., supra, 
19

52 Cal.App.5th at p. 513.) The court “ ‘is not restrained by “any 

preferences or presumptions,” ’ ” and need not, for example, 

award joint physical custody merely because “ ‘neither parent 

poses any danger to the child.’ ” (In re Maya L. (2014) 

232 Cal.App.4th 81, 103.)

We review custody orders issued upon termination of 

jurisdiction for abuse of discretion. (In re C.W. (2019) 

33 Cal.App.5th 835, 863.)

Mother argues the juvenile court never considered the best 

interests of the children because it made no findings on the 

record as to their best interests. Mother cites no authority that a 

juvenile court must make express findings when issuing a 

custody order, and indeed the case law is to the contrary. (See In 

re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 713–714 [“The Welfare 

and Institutions Code does not require a specific statement of 

reasons be given when making a custody order.”].) Mother’s 

argument is further undercut by the fact that she never 

requested the juvenile court articulate its reasons. (Jennifer R.,

at pp. 713–714 [noting the appealing parent did not request a 

statement of reasons].)

Also, the juvenile court did make express findings as to 

minor 1, concluding mother “appears not to be totally grasping

the concepts that are necessary to keep the child safe,” and 

expressing concern that mother was impeding, or had in the 

recent past impeded, minor 1’s access to medication and 

educational services. We reasonably may presume that the 

court’s stated concerns about minor 1’s safety extended to his 

younger half siblings, and informed the court’s determination

that it was not in the children’s best interest to be in mother’s 

physical custody.
20

Mother argues she would be the better custodian for minors

3 and 4 because she was in “full compliance with the case plan,” 

whereas father 3 had yet to complete his case plan, and had 

placed minors 3 and 4 with paternal grandmother rather than 

caring for them himself. She further argues it was in minor 2’s 

best interest to be placed in mother’s custody given mother’s 

compliance with her case plan and the fact that minor 2 had lived 

with her most of his life, and had stated he loved and missed his 

mother. 

We disagree with mother’s implication that the record 

does not support the juvenile court’s conclusion that it was in the 

children’s best interest to be in their fathers’ custody. The 

reports uniformly indicated that minors 2, 3, and 4 were safe, 

happy, and thriving in their fathers’ custody. There had been no 

further referrals since the children were placed with their 

fathers, nor any indication of concerns about safety or other 

issues.

In contrast, when earlier in the proceedings the juvenile 

court had placed the children in mother’s care, that period was 

characterized by mother’s resistance to court-ordered services, 

multiple referrals, and, ultimately, the removal of the children 

from her care at a second detention hearing. Although mother 

had shown improvement in the months prior to the review 

hearing, it is difficult to argue she was the better choice for 

custody when one compares her history throughout the case to 

the history of fathers 2 and 3.

It is true father 3 had not completed his court-ordered 

services, but the juvenile court reasonably could conclude that 

was outweighed by evidence of how well the children were doing 

in his custody. Also, the record contains evidence suggesting 
21

father 3 had made more progress than mother, because his 

counselor reported he was “open and honest about what brought 

his family to the attention of DCFS,” whereas mother’s counselor 

stated mother “is not yet willing to apologize for her role in 

having her children removed from her care.” (Boldface omitted

from second quotation.) Mother argues her case progress 

obviated the need for any express acknowledgement of her role in 

the family’s difficulties, but the juvenile court was entitled to 

conclude otherwise.

It is of no moment that father 3 placed minors 3 and 4 with 

paternal grandmother rather than caring for them himself. If 

anything, it is a sign of responsible parenting that father 3 

determined his work schedule would impede his ability to care for 

the children, and that paternal grandmother was a better choice. 

The evidence of how well the children were doing in their 

grandmother’s care further supports father 3’s decision. 

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s custody orders and orders terminating 

jurisdiction as to minors 2, 3, and 4 are affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J. CHANEY, J.