Court Opinion

ID: 9390794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 17:02:51.845942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:36.782297
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/28/23 In re J.M. CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 In re J.M., a Person Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.
                                                                 D081059
 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH
 AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
 et al.,                                                         (Super. Ct. No. J520689)

           Plaintiffs and Respondents,

           v.

 T.S.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Michael P. Pulos, Judge. Affirmed.
         Marisa L. D. Conroy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant T.S.
         Gary S. Plavnick, for Respondents To.S. and Ta.S.
         Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy
County Counsel, and Evangelina Woo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff
and Respondent, San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency.
                               INTRODUCTION
      Maternal aunt T.S. (Aunt T.), appeals an order denying her request for
placement of minor J.M. with a permanent plan of adoption after the
termination of the parents’ reunification services and immediately before the
court selected a permanent plan for the child. She contends the juvenile
court abused its discretion in denying her request for placement and erred in
determining that the relative placement preference under Welfare and

Institutions Code1 section 361.3 did not apply at the late stage of this case.
The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency)
supports Aunt T.’s position. To.S. and Ta.S. (Caregivers) disagree. They
contend the court correctly determined the relative placement preference did
not apply and it was not in J.M.’s best interests under section 388 to change
placement. They further contend that even if the relative placement
preference did apply, the court properly determined that placement with
Aunt T. was not appropriate after considering the factors set forth in section
361.3. We agree with the Caregivers that the court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Aunt T.’s request for placement. We, therefore, affirm
the order.

1     Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code
unless otherwise stated.

                                       2
             FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
A.    Initiation of Dependency Proceedings
      J.M was born addicted to methamphetamine and opiates due to
Mother’s daily use of heroin and sporadic use of methamphetamine
throughout her pregnancy. She used heroin within six hours of J.M.’s birth,
and used methamphetamine within two days of his birth. J.M. required
treatment in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) with low dose
methadone and morphine for his withdrawal symptoms. He also needed
feeding assistance through a nasal tube.
      About a week after J.M.’s birth, a social worker spoke with Aunt T. who
lived in another state. Aunt T. said she “would get involved if the Agency
removes the baby.” Aunt T. was aware of the Interstate Compact on
Placement of Children (ICPC) process for investigating homes for out of state
placement (Fam. Code, § 7900 et seq.). She was “willing to go through the
process if needed.” Aunt T. did not like Father and described him as a
“constant liar.” M.S. (Mother) told the social worker that she did not have a
good relationship with Aunt T. and she did not want Aunt T. involved with
her child.
      A social worker contacted the Caregivers about placing J.M. with them
after his discharge from the hospital. The Caregivers met J.M. when he was
eight days old and visited him in the NICU several times a week. They fed
and burped J.M. and changed his diapers and bedding. They held him and

2      A more detailed factual summary of the issues requiring detention are
set forth in our unpublished opinion affirming the court’s jurisdictional
finding and detention from J.R.’s (Father) care. (In re J.M. (Nov. 5, 2021,
D079061) [nonpub. opn.].) In this opinion, we focus on the facts related to
J.M.’s placement during and after the reunification period.

                                      3
rocked him to sleep. Caregiver Ta.S. attended J.M.’s physical and
occupational therapy sessions.
      Toward the end of March 2021, the Agency filed a petition on J.M.’s
behalf under section 300, subdivision (b) alleging he suffered, or that there
was a substantial risk he would suffer, serious physical harm or illness
without the juvenile court’s protection due to Mother’s continued substance
abuse and Father’s inability to protect J.M. The juvenile court made a prima
facie finding that J.M. was a person described by section 300, subdivision (b)
and found that care in the parents’ home was contrary to his welfare. The
court ordered J.M.’s continued detention in the hospital until his release.
Thereafter, the court ordered he be placed out of the parent’s home at a
temporary emergency shelter, in an approved foster home, or with a relative.
      In early April 2021, Aunt T. told the social worker that family members
on both sides of J.M.’s family wanted her to take J.M. because she was in the
best position to care for him while the parents got the help they needed.
Aunt T. thought the parents were minimizing concerns and enabling one
another in their drug use. The social worker informed Aunt T. that Mother
did not want her to participate in a scheduled family meeting and the Agency
had to follow her wishes. Aunt T. asked for updates about the child. A
couple of weeks later, Aunt T. told a social worker she would still like to be
considered as a placement option. She was concerned about the child going to
a foster home or to friends of the parents who would not set boundaries with
the parents.
      In another conversation, the social worker informed Aunt T. that she
would start paperwork for an ICPC evaluation, but that even if her home
were evaluated and approved, the court would not automatically place the
child with her. The Agency needed to consider factors such as visitation and

                                        4
reunification when evaluating an out-of-state placement. Aunt T. said she
had a friend in the northern California area who was willing to open her
home as a halfway point for visitation. Aunt T. also reported that the
parents were communicating and exchanging money through a payment
application.
      Aunt T. called the social worker in early May 2021 to say she was upset
that a friend of Mother’s attended a child and family team meeting and Aunt
T. was not permitted to do so. She thought the friend overstepped boundaries
and that Mother was using the friend “to get back” at Aunt T. The social
worker explained the Agency was working with Mother and needed to honor
Mother’s wishes if she did not want Aunt T. in the meeting. Aunt T. believed
the parents were still in a relationship even though they said they were not
together. She thought they would run away together with the child if Father
got custody.
      At the suggestion of the parents, the Agency spoke to several family
friends who lived in another California county about potential placement of
J.M. The friends understood Aunt T. wanted to be assessed for placement
and they thought she should be a priority over them. The social worker said
that the ICPC process is lengthy and that the Agency needed to consider
visitation and reunification efforts. The friends were willing to take the child
temporarily if their home were approved. The social worker did not believe
their home could be approved before J.M. was released from the hospital or
that the friends could be timely trained to administer the child’s methadone
treatments.
      J.M. went to the confidential resource family home of the Caregivers at
the end of May 2021when he was released from the hospital. The Caregivers
received training and certification for approval to take J.M. home on a

                                       5
controlled substance. They continued administering methadone treatment
until J.M. was weaned from the treatment when he was between four and
five months old.
      In June 2021, a few days before the contested jurisdiction and
disposition hearing, Mother sent the social worker a message saying she
wanted J.M. to stay with Caregiver Ta.S. Mother opposed J.M. moving out of
state even if an ICPC was approved for Aunt T. Mother requested a “do not
move” order.
      At the contested hearing, the court made a true finding on the petition
and ordered J.M.’s continued detention with the Caregivers. It ordered the
Agency to initiate an ICPC with Aunt T.’s state and to set a special hearing if
it was approved. The court and counsel discussed whether the ICPC should
be expedited or proceed in the regular course. After concluding an expedited
ICPC was not necessary, the court commented, “We’ll see where the parents
are at . . . that time. And if visitation is going strong and parents are
working aggressively on their case plan and the services, then, you know,
maybe the move is not appropriate and reunification is around the corner for
the parents. I mean, I hope that’s the case for the parents and for this child
as well.” Both said they preferred J.M. to stay in the current foster home.
B.    Six-Month Review Period
      Among J.M.’s medical issues, he suffered from “reflux, frequent spitting
up, and constipation.” The Caregivers provided a special formula to assist
with digestion. As he grew older, he continued to have trouble with feeding
and sleeping. He also had some sensitivity to texture and sound. A
Developmental Screening and Enhancement Program evaluation in August
2021 noted areas of developmental concern including fine motor, gross motor,
and personal social skills. Areas of social-emotional/behavioral concern

                                        6
included the inability to self-sooth, eating and sleeping concerns,
toileting/elimination concerns, as well as extreme and/or lack of emotions.
He qualified for occupational and physical therapy and infant development
services.
      The Caregivers enrolled J.M. in a daycare group where medically
fragile and typical children grow, play, and learn together. The program
included skilled nursing care, activities, childcare and preschool, assistive
technology, and a sensory integration room.
      By December 2021, J.M.’s alertness and appearance improved. He
smiled, cooed, and brought objects to his mouth. He interacted with the
family cat by kicking his legs with excitement and shouting. The Caregivers
expressed some concerns that he “zones out and stares off.” She tried
rubbing his feet, calling his name, and holding him to snap him out of it.
      Mother continued to oppose placing J.M. with Aunt T. In September
2021, she told the agency that she did not want Aunt T. involved in J.M.’s
life, much less considered for a permanent option. She described Aunt T. as
harmful to “children, elderly, and a racist.”
      The Caregivers loved J.M. and said they would be happy to adopt him if
necessary. They offered encouragement and involved the parents by sending
pictures and updates. They also helped build a relationship with extended
family members.
      In December 2021, the Agency recommended termination of the
parents’ reunification services because the parents were not making progress
in addressing the protective issues that brought the family into the
dependency proceedings. Mother had not addressed her substance abuse
issues and continued to struggle with substances. Father had minimal
communication with the Agency and did not work on his case plan objectives.

                                        7
      The Agency submitted an ICPC packet in late January 2022 to assess
Aunt T.’s out-of-state home. Aunt T. had not spoken to Mother for several
months. She believed Mother was using drugs and experiencing
homelessness.
      J.M. still had difficulty with feeding and toileting issues. He remained
underweight in comparison to his peers.
      Aunt T. and her boyfriend visited J.M. in person for the first time in
February 2022. She had two several-hour visits over two days and the
Caregivers arranged for a third visit at a park before Aunt T. left town.
C.    Termination of Services
      The court held the contested six-month review hearing on February 15,
2022. The Agency and minor’s counsel recommended termination of the
parents’ reunification services. The parents requested continuation of
services. Father’s counsel cited the pending ICPC approval process for Aunt
T. as a factor in favor of continuing services since the Agency was still
evaluating permanency options.
      The court declined to continue services for six more months indicating
it could not find such an extension appropriate when weighing the parents’
progress against the child’s best interests. The court terminated
reunification services and stated J.M.’s current placement was “necessary
and appropriate” even though the Agency was working on an ICPC for other
options. The court set a permanency hearing for June 2022. The court
deferred ruling on the Caregivers’ de facto parent request.
D.    Permanency Planning Period
      Aunt T. and maternal grandmother visited J.M. for three nights in
March 2022. The Caregivers provided all necessary items for J.M. to be
comfortable and provided Aunt T. with a schedule for his eating and sleeping

                                        8
routine. After the visit, J.M. appeared fussy and “wanted to be held all the
time.” He also started to exhibit separation anxiety.
      Aunt T. came to San Diego for overnight visits with J.M. in April 2022.
The Caregivers again provided items for J.M.’s comfort. Aunt T. described
the visit as “perfect.” She reported giving J.M. cough syrup directly from the
bottle because she did not have a spoon. Aunt T. said J.M. slept for nearly 12
hours for three nights in a row, which the social worker said he had never
done since he was born due to his ongoing medical needs. After the visit,
Aunt T. sent the social worker an email describing the Caregivers as “very
controlling” and “lying.” She said she felt “betrayed” by the Caregivers and
Ta.S.’s “stubbornness to continue to pursue adoption is scary to my family
and I . . . we don’t understand how a person could willingly want to keep a
child from is bio family like that.” Aunt T. said her ICPC was nearly
complete and only a home walkthrough remained. The social worker
informed Aunt T. that this was not accurate based on the ICPC updates
provided to the social worker.
      On April 22, 2022, Aunt T. told the social worker that Mother did not
want the Caregivers to have her child. She said Mother felt stuck in
California because of her son. Aunt T said, “We need [J.M.] to be with my
family so my sister can come home and my parents can help her get clean so
she can have a chance at knowing her son.” The Agency expressed concern
about the “true reasoning” behind Aunt T.’s request for placement of J.M.
      That same day, Mother sent a social worker a message saying she
wanted Aunt T. to take J.M. She said, “I don’t want to stay down here when
I’m out of my program because I have no reason to.” When the social worker
asked if Mother was aware that the Caregivers were willing to adopt J.M.,
Mother said she wanted J.M. to go to her sister out of state “because that’s

                                       9
where I’m going.” She said he did not want her son to “live a life without
knowing family and without knowing me.”
      The social worker informed Aunt T. in early May 2022 that the Agency
was recommending J.M. remain in his placement with Caregivers with a
permanent plan of adoption. Aunt T. did not ask questions privately about
the recommendation. At a child and family team meeting held a few hours
later, Aunt T. said she was worried about J.M. not being part of the biological
family. She said Mother wants to have a relationship with J.M. and she
would be able to do so if he was placed with family.
      The social worker supervised a virtual visit between J.M., Aunt T., and
Aunt T.’s boyfriend. The Caregivers and Aunt T. encouraged J.M. to engage
in the call. The boyfriend made no effort to engage with J.M. and walked
away from the screen about two minutes into the call.
E.    Initial Section 366.26 Report and Addendum
      The Agency submitted its report for the permanency hearing in May
2022. It recommended termination of the parental rights and adoption by the
Caregivers as the best permanent plan for J.M.
      J.M., who was now over a year old, continued to have extensive medical
needs. He had ongoing issues with his digestive system, slow weight gain,
and skin issues. He continued to participate in occupational and physical
therapy as well as infant development services. The Caregivers reported he
made progress in reaching his milestones with these support services. He
was also evaluated every six months by a High Risk Infant Clinic to monitor
his development due to his drug exposure in utero.
      J.M. was happy, smart, and playful. He was thriving in his current
placement with the support of Caregivers. He enjoyed bonding with his
foster sibling.

                                      10
      J.M. enjoyed attending a specialized daycare where he was exposed to
educational activities and socialized with other children. After two overnight
visits with Aunt T., J.M. had a difficult time separating from the Caregivers.
The daycare staff reassured J.M. that the Caregivers would return for him.
They expressed concern to the Caregivers and said they would support him
with regulating his emotions.
      Aunt T. had been involved in the case since the beginning and
expressed a willingness to take placement for J.M. However, until recently,
Mother objected to Aunt T’s involvement and refused to allow Aunt T. to take
placement or to be part of child and family team meetings. Aunt T. did not
yet have ICPC approval because Aunt T. and her boyfriend still had pending
items to complete.
      The Agency’s report analyzed the section 361.3 factors for preferential
consideration of a relative’s request for placement but concluded continued
placement with the Caregivers was in J.M.’s best interests. They were the
only caregivers he had ever known and they were consistently committed to
meeting his many difficult medical and developmental needs since birth.
      Mother only recently expressed a preference to place J.M. with Aunt T.,
apparently because Mother wanted to live near the family. Caregivers
expressed concern that J.M. would experience emotional detriment by moving
him from their home.
      The Agency had concerns about the moral character of Aunt T., based
on Mother’s initial statements about her and based on Aunt T.’s reports
about his eating and sleeping behavior during visits that were inconsistent
with his history. Additionally, Aunt T.’s boyfriend, who resided in the home,
had not shown a level of commitment to caring for J.M. Aunt T.’s first visit

                                      11
with J.M. was when he was nearly a year old and she only had four in-person
visits and a virtual visit with J.M. since birth.
      In assessing the ability to provide a safe and secure environment for
the child, the Agency noted that although Aunt T. expressed a desire to be
protective of J.M., she also continuously mentioned he needed to with family
to maintain contact with his biological mother. This concerned the Agency
because Mother still had unaddressed issues with substance abuse.
      Since the ICPC was still pending, the Agency did not have sufficient
information about the background of Aunt T. and her boyfriend. It had
concerns about the veracity of her visitation reports and her motivations to
take J.M. to maintain contact with Mother.
      In an addendum report submitted a few days before the scheduled
permanency hearing, the Agency continued to recommend adoption by the
Caregivers as the best permanent plan for J.M.
F.    Permanency Hearing and Pretrial Conference
      At the scheduled section 366.26 permanency hearing on June 13, 2022,
the court set a contested hearing regarding placement and the termination of
parental rights. Mother’s counsel also requested a hearing regarding relative
placement under section 361.3. The court deferred the request until the trial.
The court granted the Caregivers’ de facto parent request.
      At this hearing, counsel for the Caregivers said Aunt T. received a copy
of the Agency’s section 366.26 report, which he said put the Caregivers “very
far behind the Aunt, as far as knowing what is going on in this case.”
Apparently the court ordered Aunt T. to destroy the copy, but the Caregiver’s
counsel said, “You cannot undo what you did, as far as reading it.” Counsel
asked for an opportunity to review the report.

                                        12
      At a pretrial status conference on August 10, 2022, the Agency
reported that Aunt T.’s ICPC was just approved and they were considering
whether to change the recommendation regarding placement. The court set
the matter for a several-day contested hearing. The court ordered that J.M.
not be moved prior to the contested hearing.
      The Caregivers’ attorney again said Aunt T. had “inappropriately
somehow received a copy” of the section 366.26 report and the Caregivers’
petition to review confidential information was still pending. Counsel again
requested an opportunity to review the Agency’s initial permanency
recommendations.
      Both the Caregivers and Aunt T. filed section 388 petitions requesting
placement of J.M. After making a prima facie finding on both petitions, the
court set an evidentiary hearing along with the scheduled contested hearing.
G.    Addendum Report
      On August 29, 2022, days before the scheduled hearing, the Agency
filed an addendum report changing its recommendation to now place J.M.
with Aunt T. and her boyfriend. Father preferred J.M. to stay with the
Caregivers.
      J.M. continued to have deficits with gross motor, fine motor, problem
solving, and personal social development. He participated in occupational
therapy to address developmental delays. He still had gastroenterology
issues and was referred to a nutritionist. He was on a waiting list for
additional physical therapy sessions.
      Aunt T. participated in regular video visits with her boyfriend often
joining the call. She had several in-person visits in July. She and her
boyfriend were scheduled for a three-day overnight visit.

                                        13
      Aunt T. told the social worker that it was in J.M.’s best interests to be
with his biological family. She said if Mother was able to get clean, she could
potentially have a relationship with J.M. She clarified, however, that she
would not allow Mother to be around J.M. if she used drugs or alcohol.
      Aunt T. felt she could meet J.M.’s needs based on her experience as a
nanny. She had identified a pediatrician and understood the need for
occupational therapy.
      The Caregivers continued to provide for J.M.’s well-being and
facilitated interactions with both maternal and paternal relatives. They
thought it would be best for J.M. to stay with his foster family and continue
care with his service providers.
      The Agency included another analysis of the relative placement factors
under section 361.3. It now concluded it was in J.M.’s best interests to place
him in the relative home of Aunt T. to minimize the core issues of adoption.
The Agency said Aunt T.’s involvement was limited in the first months of
J.M.’s case because Mother initially refused to have Aunt T. involved and
Mother told the Agency that Aunt T. was a “harm to children, elderly and a
racist.” A prior social worker had concerns about incongruent reports of
behavior during J.M.’s initial visits with Aunt T. Now, however, Aunt T. had
an approved ICPC home study from her home state, her boyfriend was
attending most video visits, and they planned another in-person visit with
J.M. together. Although J.M. preferred the Caregivers when transitioning to
visits with Aunt T., the new social worker observed that he moved to Aunt T.
with only brief discomfort. J.M. experienced some dysregulation after
extended visits with Aunt T, but settled back into his home routine.
      The Agency believed Aunt T. had demonstrated the ability to provide a
safe, secure, and stable environment for J.M. through the ICPC evaluation as

                                       14
well as supervised and unsupervised extended visits. Although there was
concern about the deteriorating relationship between Aunt T. and the
Caregivers, the Agency stated it had “resolved concerns” from the prior report
regarding J.M.’s safety and stability in the care of Aunt T. and her boyfriend.
In sum, the Agency believed the relative preference prevailed.
H.    Contested Hearing
      The court conducted an extensive contested evidentiary hearing over
five days.
      Caregiver Ta.S. testified about meeting J.M. at the NICU when he was
just days old. She described J.M.’s various medical issues from birth to the
time of trial along with the care she, her husband, and the medical
professionals provided for J.M. She described her efforts to arrange in-person
visits and other contacts for J.M. and his paternal relatives. She stated she
would continue to make sure J.M. knows his entire family, including
maternal relatives, if he is placed with her.
      Paternal grandmother testified in support of the Caregivers, explaining
the efforts they made to maintain contact with the family. Additionally, the
mother of J.M.’s half-sister testified for the Caregivers. The Caregivers kept
in regular contact with her and invited them for visits to facilitate a
relationship between the children. J.M.’s half-sister wanted to continue
seeing him.
      Social worker L.R., who was assigned the case from March 2022 to the
end of June 2022, testified on behalf of the Caregivers. She prepared the first
section 366.26 report and addendum, which recommended adoption by the
Caregivers. She had no concerns about the excellent care provided by the
Caregivers. She recommended placing J.M. with the Caregivers because it
was the only home he had ever known. He recognized the Caregivers as his

                                       15
parents and Caregiver Ta.S. was very open about maintaining contact with
J.M.’s relatives. Mother’s change of heart about placing J.M. with Aunt T.
impacted the permanency assessment. L.R. was concerned that Aunt T.
would allow Mother unfettered access to J.M.
      The Caregivers also presented testimony from a social worker with
expertise in attachment and trauma who opined that J.M. was developing a
secure attachment to the Caregivers. If J.M.’s attachment to the Caregivers
was disrupted, the expert opined that he would be traumatized and could
have significant difficulties developing a secure attachment to subsequent
parents and affect his social and emotional development, mental health, and
future relationships. The expert also expected to see significant regression in
J.M.’s development and behavior both in the short and long term.
      A psychologist who testified on behalf of Mother said a child could
develop a secure attachment with someone after a few visits and can have a
secure attachment to multiple people. She did not have specific concerns
about J.M. experiencing trauma from transitioning from one healthy
experience to another.
      A visitation monitor testified about his observations of two visits
between Aunt T. and J.M. He had no concerns. He agreed that it was his job
to collect evidence to support a case. Aunt T. said she wanted to try different
foods for J.M. to increase his protein intake. The worker took this as a
suggestion. The worker did not know if J.M. had special diet restrictions.
      Social worker S.C., who was first assigned to the case in July 2022,
testified for the Agency. She changed the Agency’s recommendation for
placement from the Caregivers to Aunt T. after reviewing the concerns
expressed by the prior social worker. She observed a lengthy visit between

                                      16
Aunt T. and J.M. in early July and a transition to a visit with Aunt T. in
August. She also observed remote visits since her assignment to the case.
      Social worker S.C. did not believe the incongruent information about
early visits with Aunt T. was concerning because S.C. had a long interview
with Aunt T. and the Agency obtained an approved ICPC after the Agency
asked for these concerns to be explored.
      S.C. agreed the Caregivers provided excellent care for J.M. and said he
was a securely attached child “completely due to the devotion of the
[C]aregivers.” She believed he could form a secure attachment to his
biological family and that it was in his best interests to be placed with them
based on the core issues of adoption.
      Social worker S.C. acknowledged that Mother did not want Aunt T. to
be involved with J.M. for the first year of this case. She did not know why
Mother changed her mind about placing J.M. with Aunt T. because Mother
never responded to the social worker’s contacts.
      Aunt T. testified on her own behalf. She said she asked for placement
of J.M. within days of when he was born and asked for an ICPC evaluation.
She understood Mother did not want her involved and respected Mother’s
wishes during the reunification period.
      Aunt T. reached out to a medical facility in her state where she
believed providers could care for his needs. However, she acknowledged she
did not have full information about J.M.’s medical needs. She understood he
was a failure to thrive child, he was receiving occupational therapy, and he
was on a waiting list for physical therapy. She said she learned information
about J.M.’s needs from the Caregiver’s testimony at trial.
      She testified she tried different foods with J.M. during her visits with
him based on information she obtained from two physicians for whom she

                                        17
works as a nanny. She acknowledged they are not J.M.’s doctors. When
asked how she would handle behavioral issues or trauma that might occur if
J.M. were removed from the Caregivers’ home, she did not have a plan, but
said she would ask for help from a pediatrician or other providers.
         Aunt T. had no contact with J.M.’s father, but she did have a
relationship with J.M.’s paternal grandmother. She did not plan to maintain
contact between J.M. and his half-sibling.
         On the last day of trial, Mother’s counsel reported that Mother changed
her position again “midway through trial, after careful consideration and
listening to the evidence.” Mother now believed it was in J.M.’s best interests
to stay with the Caregivers.
         After considering the evidence and closing arguments by the parties,
the court gave an oral summary of its ruling and issued a 30-page written
order denying Aunt T.’s request for placement of J.M. The court determined
the relative placement preference did not apply at this stage of the
proceedings and Aunt T. was required to establish a change in placement was
in J.M.’s best interests under section 388. The court denied Aunt T.’s section
388 petition because it found she failed to make the appropriate showing.
The court alternatively determined that placement with Aunt T. was not
appropriate considering the relative placement preference factors in section
361.3.

                                        18
                                  DISCUSSION
A.    Overview of Relevant Statutes
      We begin our discussion by describing the relevant statutes that guide
our analysis.
      1.    Section 361.3
      Generally, “[w]hen a child is removed from parental custody, the
Legislature prefers placement with the child’s relatives, whenever possible.”
(In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1049.) After removal,
section 361.3, subdivision (a) requires “preferential consideration shall be
given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the
relative[.]” The statute defines “ ‘preferential consideration’ ” to mean “the
relative seeking placement shall be the first placement to be considered and
investigated.” (§ 361.3, subd. (c)(1).) “The intent of the Legislature is ‘that
relatives be assessed and considered favorably, subject to the juvenile court’s
consideration of the suitability of the relative’s home and the best interests of
the child.’ ” (In re Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708, 719 (Isabella G.).)
      To determine whether placement with the relative is appropriate, both
the Agency and the court must consider the placement factors listed in
section 361.3, subdivisions (a)(1) through (8). These factors include the best
interests of the child, the parent’s wishes, placement of siblings in the same
home, the “good moral character of the relative and any other adult living in
the home” including criminal history, the nature and duration of the
relationship between the child and the relative, and the ability of the relative
to provide for the child’s needs safely and securely and to facilitate
reunification efforts with the parents and visitation with other relatives.
(§ 361.3, subd. (a)(1)–(8); Isabella G., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 719, fn. 9.)

                                        19
      The preferential consideration under section 361.3 “does not create an
evidentiary presumption in favor of a relative, but merely places the relative
at the head of the line when the court is determining which placement in the
child’s best interests.” (In re Sarah S. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 274, 286 (Sarah
S.).) The Agency’s assessment of the relative is “subject to the juvenile
court’s consideration of the suitability of the relative’s home and the best
interests of the child.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 320; Cesar V.
v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1033 [juvenile court exercises
its independent judgment concerning the relative’s request for placement].)
      The plain language of section 361.3 “provides for preferential
consideration of a relative’s request for placement of a child with the relative
early in dependency proceedings, before the disposition order.” (In re J.Y.
(2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 473, 477.) It specifies that the relative placement
preference also applies “after disposition, if the child’s placement must
change.” (Id. at p. 478, citing § 361.3, subd. (d).) Courts, including this court,
have held the “relative placement preference under section 361.3 applies
throughout the reunification period.” (In re Maria Q. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th
577, 595 (Maria Q.).)
      Section 361.3 may apply after the reunification period “where the
relative has made a timely request for placement during the reunification
period and the child welfare agency has not met its statutory obligations to
consider and investigate the relative seeking placement.” (Maria Q., supra,
28 Cal.App.4th at p. 595, citing In re Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708,
723 (Isabella G.).)
      In Isabella G., we held “that when a relative requests placement of the
child prior to the dispositional hearing, and the Agency does not timely
complete a relative home assessment as required by law, the relative

                                       20
requesting placement is entitled to a hearing under section 361.3.” (Isabella
G., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 712.) In that case, the grandparents
requested placement before the detention, jurisdictional, and dispositional
hearings. (Id. at p. 722.) The agency did not conduct a home assessment of
the grandparents and erroneously told them the child’s placement could not
be changed for a year. (Id. at pp. 722–723.) Relying on this
misrepresentation, the grandparents waited a year before requesting
placement again, shortly before the 12-month review hearing. (Ibid.) When
the Agency still did not assess the grandparents’ home for placement, the
grandparents again requested placement after the court terminated
reunification and set a section 366.26 hearing. After the grandparents
retained counsel and filed a section 388 petition, the Agency finally conducted
a home assessment and approved the placement in less than three weeks.
(Id. at p. 723.) Under the facts of that case, we concluded the court
prejudicially erred in not evaluating the grandparents’ timely request under
section 361.3. (Id. at pp. 723–725.)
      Once the case reaches the stage to select a permanent plan under
section 366.26, however, the directive in section 361.3, subdivision (a) to give
“preferential consideration” to a relative does not apply to override the
statutory permanency preferences in section 366.26. (Maria Q., supra, 28
Cal.App.5th at p. 596.) Still, in assessing a relative’s request for a plan of
legal guardianship or a permanent placement plan “(other than adoption,
which has its own criteria) . . . the juvenile court must consider the relative
placement factors listed in section 361.3.” (Id. at pp. 596–597; see § 366.22,
subd. (c)(1)(D).)

                                       21
      2.    Section 388
      Section 388 provides, in pertinent part: “Any . . . person having an
interest in a child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . may,
upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in
the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the
juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of
court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court. The
petition shall be verified and, if made by a person other than the child . . .
shall state the petitioner’s relationship to or interest in the child or the
nonminor dependent, and shall set forth in concise language any change of
circumstance or new evidence that is alleged to require the change of order or
termination of jurisdiction.” (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).)
      Courts have described section 388 as an “ ‘escape mechanism’ ” for
parties and interested individuals to seek modification of a juvenile court
order before termination of parental rights. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5
Cal.4th 295, 309 (Marilyn H.).) “Such a motion may be brought pursuant to
section 388 at any time after the minor has been declared a dependent child
of the juvenile court.” (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.) A party
bringing a petition pursuant to section 388 “has the burden of showing, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that (1) there is a change of circumstances or
new evidence, and (2) the proposed change is in the child’s best interests.”
(In re Jackson W. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 247, 257.)
B.    Standard of Review
      We review the juvenile court’s placement orders under section 361.3 for
abuse of discretion. The court is given wide discretion and its determination
will not be disturbed absent a manifest showing of abuse. (Sarah S., supra,
43 Cal.App.4th at p. 286; see Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318 [“when

                                        22
a court has made a custody determination in a dependency proceeding, ‘ “a
reviewing court will not disturb that decision unless the trial court has
exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or
patently absurd determination [citations].” ’ ”].) “The reviewing court should
interfere only ‘ “if we find that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably
in support of the trial court’s action, no judge could reasonably have made the
order that he did.” [Citations.]’ ” (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057,
1067.)
      Similarly, we review the grant or denial of a section 388 petition for
abuse of discretion. (In re Shirley K. (2006) 140 Cal.App4th 65, 71.)
C.    Application
      1.    The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Declining to Apply the
Relative Placement Preference After Termination of Reunification Services

      In this case, the court considered Aunt T.’s request for placement after
termination of the parents’ reunification services and “moments away from a
contested section 366.26 hearing” where the Agency recommended
termination of the parental rights and a permanent plan of adoption for J.M.
      The court interpreted Isabella G. and subsequent cases to mean that
the relative preference of section 361.3 may apply after reunification services
have ended only where “the failure to assess . . . was really a failure to
consider, investigate, or assess the relative at all.” In other words, if the
agency “ignored” or “disregarded” a timely request from a relative for
placement during the reunification period, the court may make an exception
and apply the relative placement preference after termination of reunification
services. (Maria Q., supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 593; Isabella G., supra, 246
Cal.App.4th at p. 723.) As the juvenile court said, this interpretation leaves
room for the possibility that an Agency can fall short of its duties to complete
aspects of a section 361.3 evaluation without entirely ignoring a relative
                                        23
placement request. In such situations, the Isabella G. exception would not
apply. We agree with this interpretation.
      The court here determined the Isabella G. exception did not apply
based on the facts of this case. Aunt T. told the Agency at the beginning of
the case she was willing to undergo the ICPC process for approval, if
necessary. Months later, well after the disposition hearing and after J.M.
was placed with the foster parents, Aunt T. said she would like to be
considered for adoption, should that be needed. Aunt T. said she “knew
reunification was first and most important” but they wanted to be prepared
and asked for an ICPC to be prepared. At trial, Aunt T. clarified that she did
not initially ask for placement of J.M. because she respected her sister and “it
was within the reunification” and she “wanted [Mother] to do well and do
better so she could have her son back.” She said she started pushing for
placement roughly six months later.
      Although the Agency did not formally evaluate Aunt T. for placement
during the reunification period, they were in regular contact with her. Based
on the court’s review of the entire record of the case, the court concluded the
Agency implicitly determined Aunt T. was not a suitable placement for J.M.
      The court’s order looked at the events leading up to the jurisdiction and
disposition hearing “through the lens of the factors outlined in section 361.3.”
First, given J.M.’s medically fragile state and his significant health needs in
the first months of his life, including the need for extended care in the NICU,
it was not in his best interests to place him with Aunt T. in another state.
(§ 361.3, subd. (a)(1).)
      Second, the parents’ wishes weighed against placement with Aunt T.
(§ 361.3, subd. (a)(2).) Mother said she was not close with Aunt T., described
their relationship as “rocky,” and adamantly opposed Aunt T.’s involvement

                                       24
with J.M. The court observed that the day before the contested jurisdiction
and disposition hearing, Aunt T. told the social worker she wanted a
“stalking order” to protect herself against Mother and would want someone
present to monitor visits with Mother for safety reasons. Aunt T. also said
she did not like Father from the start and called him a “constant liar.”
Father said he had only met her once for a few hours and did not know how
she could have come to this conclusion.
       The third factor, which requires consideration of the proximity of the
natural parents to placement “to facilitate visitation and family reunification”
(§ 361.3, subd. (a)(3); Fam. Code, § 7950, subd. (a)), “cut heavily against
placement” with Aunt T. because the parents lived in San Diego and Aunt T.
lived in another state, which would make visitation and reunification
difficult.
       Additionally, the seventh factor evaluates the ability of the relative to
not only provide a safe, secure, and stable environment for the child with the
necessities of life, but also to facilitate reunification efforts with the parents,
including visitation. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7).) The social worker explained to
Aunt T. early in the case that even if an ICPC were approved, the child would
not automatically be placed with her because the Agency had to consider
factors such as visitation and reunification when there was an out of state
placement.
       The juvenile court concluded that even though some factors weighed in
favor of placement with Aunt T. at the time of disposition, “the overwhelming
balance weighed against the placement.”
       Contrary to the contentions of Aunt T. and the Agency, the court did
not improperly evaluate the section 361.3 factors at the time of disposition
rather than when she filed her section 388 petition. The court engaged in

                                         25
this exercise to show the Agency did not ignore Aunt T.’s requests, but at
least implicitly examined the relative preference factors early in the case and
determined it was not appropriate to place J.M. out of state with Aunt T.
      Although the court was not pleased that the Agency waited for months
to begin the ICPC process after the court ordered it, the court said, “everyone
understood” at the disposition hearing “and, indeed quite likely throughout
any plausible reunification period” that placement with Aunt T. in another
state “was simply not appropriate under the factors in section 361.3 given the
circumstances of this particular family and the needs of [J.M.].” Therefore,
the court concluded that the Isabella G. exception did not apply to require
consideration of the relative placement preference after termination of
reunification services. Based on our own review of the record, we conclude
the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in making this determination.
     2.     The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Aunt T.’s
Request to Modify Placement Under Section 388

      The court then considered Aunt T.’s request for placement within the
context of section 388, which predominantly requires the court to “determine
the child’s best interests.” (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 320.)
      The court carefully considered Aunt T.’s request for placement. It
again used the section 361.3 factors as guideposts for its analysis. This time,
it considered the factors using information from throughout the case,
including information developed at trial. The court ultimately determined
that Aunt T. did not show a change in placement was in J.M.’s best interests.
      The court considered J.M.’s secure attachment to the Caregivers, who
provided the only home he has known in his young life. The Caregivers have
provided for his every need since he was in the NICU, including managing
his withdrawal treatment and addressing his ongoing medical and
developmental needs. The court found that severing this relationship would
                                       26
“undoubtedly cause him detriment and trauma, not just from the loss of these
strong attachments, but from the immediate risk of significant regression” in
his medical and developmental issues.
      Considering J.M.’s psychological, medical, or emotional needs, the court
acknowledged that Aunt T. would provide a biological connection and that
Aunt T. made efforts to visit J.M. and to develop a relationship. However,
the court stated “other immediate considerations outweigh the potential
future benefit of placement with Aunt T.”
      The court was concerned that placing J.M. with Aunt T. would
detrimentally delay care for J.M.’s medical needs. Aunt T. was not fully
aware of his needs even though she had been included in recent child and
family team meetings and had the opportunity to ask about J.M.’s needs over
the prior eight months. The court found it concerning that Aunt T. said she
learned information about J.M.’s medical and nutritional needs from the
Caregiver’s trial testimony even though the social worker reported previously
speaking at length to Aunt T. about his medical issues and requirements for
health care providers.
      The court was also concerned that Aunt T. was not equipped to handle
J.M.’s special needs. The court found several issues with Aunt T.’s credibility
during the trial and questioned whether she would accurately report to the
Agency or the court about J.M’s well-being. The court was concerned this
lack of candor could jeopardize his safety.
      The court examined factors related to the wishes of the parents
(§ 361.3, subd. (a)(2)), the ability to facilitate visitation with the parents and
other relatives (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(3) and (7)(F), to provide a secure and stable
environment for the child (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(A)), and to protect the child
from the parents (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(D)).

                                        27
      Most of the maternal family (who all lived out of state) supported
placement with Aunt T., whereas the paternal family opposed the placement.
The court noted Mother was initially “vehemently opposed” to placement with
Aunt T. She eventually agreed to placement just before the contested
hearing, but on the final day of trial said she no longer supported placement
with Aunt T. and preferred that J.M. remain with the Caregivers. Although
the court weighed certain factors in favor of Aunt T., it expressed serious
concern about the volatility of the family dynamic and the possibility that
J.M. would remain in contact with Mother who still had unaddressed
substance abuse issues.
      The court also commented about the sudden change of the Agency’s
position less than two weeks before the contested permanency hearing. The
court observed the only thing that changed was the ICPC approval and the
social worker assigned to the case. The court did not believe it could infer
that the ICPC reviewers fully considered and resolved the array of concerns
outlined in the first section 366.26 report and rejected the notion that it
should “blindly” delegate the court’s duty to independently review the

evidence.3
      Considering all these factors, the court determined it was not in J.M.’s
best interests to change placement.
      We again find no abuse of discretion. “[T]he court was fully aware of
the difficulty of the choice and, with the parties before it, was best able to
make the hard call of which placement, under the circumstances as they then

3     Although not specifically mentioned by the court in its order, we note
that the social worker thought the Agency’s earlier concerns were resolved
after having a lengthy discussion with Aunt T. on July 18, 2022.
Interestingly, this conversation was after Aunt T. somehow obtained a copy of
the earlier section 366.26 report.

                                        28
existed, was in the minor’s best interest. . . . Faced with the successful
bonding of the minor with the de facto parents, and the uncertainty of how
the minor would respond to removal from the parental figures he had known
since birth, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in concluding
that his continued placement was in his best interest.” (In re M.H. (2018) 21
Cal.App.5th 1296, 1305–1306.) At this stage of the proceeding, “the
overriding focus of dependency proceedings was not on Aunt’s interest in
caring for the [child] but on the [child’s] interests in securing the most stable,
safe and secure permanency plans possible under the circumstances.” (Maria
Q., supra, 28 Cal.App.5th at p. 597.)
     3.    The Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Alternatively
Considering The Relative Placement Preference

      Finally, the court alternatively considered the relative placement
preference under section 361.3 in case it was incorrect in its interpretation of
the Isabella G. exception. It still declined to place J.M. with Aunt T. The
court expressly found that even if Aunt T.’s request was given preferential
consideration, and removing all consideration of J.M.’s current attachment to
his current caregivers, the court would still decline to place J.M. in Aunt T.’s
care for all the reasons outlined in its analysis of the section 388 petition.
      Even when considering a request for a dependent child’s placement
with a relative under section 361.3, the juvenile court is required, first and
foremost, to consider the best interests of the child, including special
physical, psychological, educational, medical, or emotional needs. (§ 361.3,
subd. (a)(1).) The court must also consider whether the relative would
exercise proper, effective care, and control of the child. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)
(B).) Given the numerous concerns the juvenile court identified in its order,
we cannot conclude the court abused its discretion in denying Aunt T.’s
placement under any standard.
                                        29
                              DISPOSITION
     The order is affirmed.

                                            McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

                                  30