Court Opinion

ID: 9386831
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-13 19:02:42.823379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:08.785538
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/13/23 In re Ceasar L. CA2/3
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 THREE

 In re CEASAR L., et al., Persons                                 B318616
 Coming Under the Juvenile Court
 Law.
 ____________________________________                             (Los Angeles County
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                               Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP03306A-
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND                                       B)
 FAMILY SERVICES,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,

          v.

 ROSE C.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Commissioner.
Affirmed.
      Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Kelly Emling, Deputy County Counsel
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                   ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

       Rose C. (mother) appeals from a February 1, 2022 order of
the juvenile court denying her Welfare and Institutions Code1
section 388 petition. Mother contends the juvenile court abused
its discretion by denying her petition because she demonstrated
changed circumstances and that granting her reunification
services was in her children’s best interests. We find no error,
and thus we will affirm.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      This is mother’s second appeal in this dependency matter.
In an opinion dated January 17, 2023 (case No. B314515), we
affirmed orders sustaining the juvenile dependency petition,
removing mother’s children from her care, and denying mother
family reunification services. We repeat the case history
discussed in our first opinion to the extent it is relevant to the
present appeal.
I.    Prior juvenile dependency proceedings.
      Ceasar L. (born in January 2008) and Gabriel C. (born in
March 2010) are the children of mother and Ceasar L., Sr.
(father). In October 2008, a petition was filed in Orange County
juvenile court alleging, among other things, that father hit,
slapped, and threw mother; mother and father had a violent

1    All subsequent undesignated statutory references are to
the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                 2
altercation while father was driving a car in which nine-month-
old Ceasar was a passenger; mother became intoxicated to the
point of passing out and then violently attacked a stranger and
father; and mother had an unresolved history of alcohol and
marijuana abuse.
      In June 2016, the juvenile court sustained a petition
pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j) alleging that
mother had been diagnosed with untreated major depression, had
previously slapped Ceasar in the face, had a history of domestic
violence with father, and had physically abused Gabriel by
striking him in the face. The children initially remained in
mother’s custody under DCFS supervision, but were removed and
placed with the maternal grandmother in September 2016 after
the court sustained an amended petition pursuant to section 300,
subdivisions (a), (b), and (j), alleging that mother physically
abused Gabriel, had a history of physically assaulting the
maternal grandmother and maternal aunt in the children’s
presence, and had recently struck the maternal grandmother and
attempted to burn her with a cigarette in the children’s presence.
Gabriel was returned to mother’s custody in June 2018, and
Ceasar was returned to mother’s custody in April 2019.2
      Ceasar made further reports of physical abuse by mother in
February, July, and August 2019. Those reports were
investigated and closed as inconclusive.

2    Father appears not to have been part of that proceeding
because he was serving time in state prison.

                                3
II.   Current petition.
       In May 2020, DCFS received a report that mother had hit
Ceasar and been arrested for public intoxication. A children’s
social worker (CSW) interviewed Ceasar, who said that on the
day mother was arrested, she had gotten drunk, hit Ceasar on
the chest, stomach, and face, and had an altercation with his
uncle. Ceasar was afraid of mother and did not feel safe at home.
During a subsequent interview Ceasar said his mother drank
secretly at night and “threw tantrums” daily. Ceasar said he felt
numb when mother threw tantrums, and he recently had locked
himself in his bedroom and jumped down from his second-floor
bedroom window to escape her.
       Gabriel reported that mother drank beer after the boys
went to sleep and had been drinking the day she was arrested.
That day, mother smacked Ceasar with an open hand on his face,
chest, and stomach and screamed “the ‘B-word.’ ” Gabriel said
that when mother drank, which happened “kind of often,” she
screamed at the boys and sent them to their room. Gabriel
thought mother “ ‘may have a little drinking problem,’ ” which
made him feel sad and scared. After mother’s arrest, she
screamed at Ceasar, told him he was “ ‘just like [his] dad,’ ” and
called him the “b-word.”
       The maternal aunt said she had been very concerned about
the boys since mother regained custody of them a year earlier.
According to the aunt, the children reported that mother got
drunk constantly and locked them in their bedroom. The
maternal aunt believed the boys were afraid of mother and did
not want to live with her. The paternal grandmother gave a
similar report, saying that Ceasar had recently run away from
home because he was afraid mother was going to hit him.

                                4
Grandmother believed mother abused Ceasar, had a drinking
problem, and used drugs. Further, she said mother had always
“had something against” Ceasar and had said she did not want
him because he was just like his father.
       Mother denied having a substance abuse problem, saying
she drank beer infrequently and did not use drugs. She denied
hitting the children and said the maternal grandmother had been
calling DCFS for years because she wanted Ceasar to live with
her.
       A juvenile dependency petition filed in June 2020 alleged
that the children were juvenile court dependents pursuant to
section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j) because on May 20,
2020, mother and the maternal great-uncle “engaged in violent
and assaultive behavior” in the children’s presence (counts a-1, b-
2); mother previously physically abused Ceasar, and on May 20,
2020, she struck Ceasar on his face, chest, and stomach, putting
both children at risk of harm (counts a-2, b-3, j-1); and mother
had a history of substance abuse and was a current abuser of
alcohol, which rendered her incapable of providing regular care of
the children (count b-1).
       At the June 25, 2020 detention hearing, the court found a
prima facie case for declaring the children juvenile court
dependents, but it released the children to mother with orders
that she avoid corporal punishment, cooperate with unannounced
visits by DCFS, drug test, and participate in family preservation
services.
III.   Amended petition and detention.
       In early December 2020, DCFS received a report that
Ceasar had called 911 after mother hit him in the face. Ceasar
told a CSW that mother was not home when he woke up but

                                 5
returned home at about noon visibly drunk. Mother sent the
boys to the store and was agitated when they returned. She tried
to hit Gabriel, who blocked her hits, and then sent the boys to
their bedroom. Subsequently, mother told Gabriel to leave the
bedroom and punched Ceasar in the face with a closed fist.
Ceasar ran out of the house and called law enforcement. Mother
was arrested, and the children were brought to the maternal
grandmother. Ceasar said everything was fine at home when
mother was not drunk, but her drinking and aggression had
gotten worse since the DCFS case was opened.
       Gabriel said he had not seen mother hit Ceasar, but he
heard Ceasar saying, “Mom, stop.” Gabriel denied that mother
physically abused either child. Mother denied hitting Ceasar, but
admitted drinking the night before while the children were
asleep. She said she drank once or twice a week because she was
“ ‘bored,’ ” but insisted that the children never saw her drink.
She believed Ceasar had a “vendetta” against her because he was
raised primarily by the maternal grandmother. She “expressed
frustration with the attention given to her relapse, citing that she
is not an alcoholic and . . . is a good parent to her kids.”
       The juvenile court authorized the children’s removal from
mother on December 17, 2020, and it made detention findings on
December 24, 2020. Mother was granted monitored visits with
Gabriel and monitored visits with Ceasar in a therapeutic
setting. The court ordered individual counseling for both boys.
       DCFS filed a first amended petition on December 30, 2020,
which added allegations of the most recent physical abuse of
Ceasar to counts a-2, b-1, b-3, and j-1, and added a new count b-4,
which alleged that father had an unresolved history of substance

                                 6
abuse and an 18-year history of criminal convictions, including
driving under the influence and corporal injury of a spouse.
IV.   Jurisdiction and disposition hearing.
       In January 2021, Ceasar told a CSW that mother tells him
he is “ ‘stupid and retarded and all the cuss words.’ ” Gabriel
wanted to return to mother’s custody, but Ceasar did not. DCFS
recommended that the court sustain the amended petition and
offer mother reunification services.
       In April 2021, DCFS reported that father had been paroled
and had contacted the children. Mother had not been in contact
with DCFS, had not visited the children since late January, and
missed scheduled drug tests in March and April.
       On April 28, 2021, the juvenile court sustained the petition
with the exception of a single count alleging domestic violence
between mother and maternal great-uncle pursuant to section
300, subdivision (a). With regard to disposition, Ceasar’s counsel
said that Ceasar did not want to reunify with mother, and
counsel therefore requested that family reunification services be
bypassed pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(3). Gabriel’s
counsel similarly requested that mother not be offered
reunification services, notwithstanding Gabriel’s desire to reunify
with mother. Counsel argued: “Although in the most recent
account, Gabriel has not been the victim of physical violence,
mother does routinely involve Gabriel in the dynamic between
herself and Ceasar. . . . [Gabriel] is constantly in the position of
having to deny that he knows what’s going on, whereas it’s clear
that he hears what’s going on, at the very least. And, frankly, I
think a lot of the times he sees it, as well, but denies it. And I
think that’s a very bad sign. I think it shows that Gabriel, like
Ceasar, is very afraid of mother. And I think that Gabriel is

                                 7
acting in a way to protect himself. I’m looking at the jurisdiction
report on page 16 where we have Gabriel denying––he says he
doesn’t know what happens when Ceasar gets in trouble. He
denies knowing whether or not his mother hits Ceasar. And he
says sometimes mother yells at them, but he doesn’t remember
when the last time that happened. And, again, further down, on
page 17, he––he says that he doesn’t know how mother
disciplines his older brother. And according to the detention
report, he says––the child stated that when mother drinks, she
screams at him and his brother Ceasar and sends them both to
their room. The child stated that this happens kind of often. So I
think, Your Honor, that this is a very abusive situation both for
Ceasar and for Gabriel. . . . And so, Your Honor, I am joining
with [Ceasar’s counsel] and asking the court [to] deny mother’s
family reunification with respect to Gabriel, as well as Ceasar.”
The court continued the hearing and asked the children’s
attorneys to brief the issue of reunification services.
       DCFS reported in July 2021 that mother was attending
individual counseling, anger management and parenting classes,
and Alcoholics Anonymous. Mother had missed most of her
scheduled drug tests, but had one negative test in June 2021.
She had resumed visiting the children in late May, and although
visits reportedly went well, Ceasar continued to say he did not
want visits with mother.
       At the July 6, 2021 disposition hearing, mother testified
that she was attending anger management classes, parenting
classes, individual counseling, and Alcoholics Anonymous,
through which she was learning why she became so easily
frustrated and to be less reactive with her children. She said
visits with Gabriel were “great,” and visits with Ceasar were “a

                                 8
work in progress, but [were] getting better.” Mother denied that
she was an alcoholic and insisted she had been testing negative
for drugs and alcohol for a year.
       At the conclusion of mother’s testimony, DCFS and both
parents’ attorneys requested that the parents be granted
reunification services. Ceasar’s counsel asked that mother be
denied reunification services, noting that the juvenile court had
twice sustained allegations of physical abuse of the children, the
children had again been removed from mother’s custody, and
reunification was not in Ceasar’s best interests. Counsel noted,
moreover, that mother had previously been granted services and,
even after completing services, had abused Ceasar while under
the influence of alcohol: “[P]rior to the December 7th incident,
. . . mother was continuously participating in [Alcoholics
Anonymous], yet, she comes home drunk, assaults [Ceasar],
assaults Gabriel, and then appears on the stand saying she’s not
an alcoholic. To me, after having three-plus years of family
reunification and family maintenance services, it’s hard to argue
that she has responded to any services.” Further, “Ceasar today
does not want to visit with his mother, does not want to have a
relationship with her. The visits sometimes occur in the family
home, [in] maternal grandmother’s home. Ceasar locks himself
in his room. He doesn’t want to have anything to do with her. So
I would request the court not grant family reunification services
based on [section] 361.5(b)(3).”
       Gabriel’s counsel joined in Ceasar’s counsel’s argument,
and further noted that mother had only recently engaged in
services, had missed a substantial number of drug tests, and had
only recently begun visiting the children. Additionally, counsel
said, while it was clear that mother loved her children, “what has

                                9
she done to actually show that love . . . to show that she’s
progressed in the services that she’s received? It’s very clear that
mother hasn’t in any way, shape, or form responded to any of the
services that were given to her or learned from them, hasn’t
accepted any responsibility or learned from them.”
        In a lengthy oral decision from the bench, the juvenile court
concluded that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(3) applied and that
offering mother reunification services was not in the children’s
best interests. The court explained: “Ceasar and Gabriel have
two separate dependency cases in L.A. where they were declared
dependents due to mother’s physical abuse, first for physically
abusing Gabriel and placing Ceasar at risk. After mother had
the children returned to her, she was under the influence of
alcohol, abusing the children, as well as being violent with adult
relatives and strangers. The continued abuse of the children led
to DCFS opening a new case and removing the children again
from mother due to additional physical abuse, this time for
abusing Ceasar and placing Gabriel at risk. Thus, the [section]
361.5(b)(3) [family reunification] bypass provisions for previous
removal does apply in this case. [¶] . . . [¶]
        “Here, [family reunification] services seem unlikely to be
successful . . . [because] mother was abusing the children while
under the influence of alcohol and has a long history of violent
behavior towards the children, adult relatives, and strangers and
is still in denial that she’s an alcoholic. [¶] . . . [¶] As Ceasar’s
attorney pointed out, . . . at least part of the best interests
analysis must be finding that further reunification services have
a likelihood of success. There must be some reasonable basis to
conclude that reunification is possible before services are offered
to a parent who need not be provided them. Ceasar’s counsel

                                 10
argued that it is futile to offer mother family reunification
services due to Ceasar and mother not having a strong bond,
mother believing that Ceasar has attachment problems with her,
and mother feeling like Ceasar does not love her. . . . Gabriel’s
counsel argued that there’s no reasonable basis for successful
reunification between mother and Gabriel because mother is in
the grip of her addiction and has shown little insight into her
violent behavior. And after receiving 46 months of either family
maintenance or [family reunification] services in the last
60 months, mother has failed to make any meaningful progress.
Children have compelling rights to be protected from abuse and
neglect and to have a placement that is stable and permanent
and which allows the caretaker to make a full emotional
commitment to the child.
       “Gabriel’s counsel acknowledged that [Gabriel] loves his
mother but that he is also bonded to the maternal grandmother,
who has repeatedly been his caregiver as a result of mother’s
issues. And Gabriel’s counsel added that mother’s current efforts
are poor in that she has not maintained contact with DCFS
consistently, has not visited the children consistently since the
end of January 2021, and has failed to submit to testing
consistently, has a long history of violence and alcohol abuse. In
considering these factors, the evidence presented supports a
finding that ordering [family reunification] services for mother is
not in the children’s best interests as the facts do not indicate a
likelihood of successful reunification.
       “The burden of proving that reunification services are in
the [children’s] best interest[s] rests on the party seeking
services. Here, mother has not submitted evidence to support a
finding that it would be in the children’s best interest to provide

                                11
her with [family reunification] services. While DCFS has
recommended that [family reunification] services be provided to
mother again, it has not provided any supporting evidence that
the court can rely upon that mother is likely to take advantage of
the services and successfully reunite with the children. Neither
mother nor DCFS has met the burden of proving that, despite the
bypass provisions, offering mother [family reunification] services
would be in the children’s best interest.”
      Based on the foregoing, the court ordered the children
removed from mother, denied mother reunification services, and
granted mother monitored visits with the children.
V.    Prior appeal.
      Mother appealed from the jurisdiction and disposition
orders. In an opinion filed January 17, 2023, we concluded there
was abundant evidence that mother had physically abused
Ceasar over the course of many years and had a severe,
untreated addiction to alcohol. Accordingly, we found that the
orders sustaining the dependency petition and removing the
children from mother’s care were supported by substantial
evidence. We also found the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion by denying mother reunification services pursuant to
section 361.5, subdivision (b)(3), and by concluding that the
Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply to this case.
VI.   Mother’s section 388 petition.
      Mother filed a section 388 petition to change order in
December 2021. She asked the court to order reunification
services or return the children to her care, and to permit her
unmonitored visits. In support, she said she had completed
domestic violence and anger management programs, was

                                12
participating in substance abuse classes and individual
counseling, and had been testing negative for all substances.
       DCFS reported in December 2021 that Ceasar and Gabriel
were well-bonded with the maternal grandmother, who had
expressed interest in becoming their legal guardian. Ceasar did
not want to visit mother and wanted maternal grandmother to be
his legal guardian; Gabriel wanted to continue to have visits with
mother and to return to her care if she was able to complete court
ordered services, but said he wanted maternal grandmother to be
his legal guardian if he could not reunify with mother.
       DCFS reported that mother had completed domestic
violence, substance abuse, and anger management classes, and
she currently was enrolled in parenting classes and individual
counseling. Mother also reported that she was attending a 12-
step program on-line, but when the social worker attempted to
contact mother to discuss the status of her enrollment, mother
did not return the social worker’s calls. Mother’s therapist said
in December 2021 that mother had been inconsistent with her
attendance in the first few months, but now was opening up and
doing well. According to the therapist, mother “has learned how
to deal with aggressive people, how to be a nurturing parent, the
effects of child abuse, how to effectively communicate in all
relationships and the power of not reacting.”
       With regard to drug testing, mother missed all 14 of her
scheduled drug tests between July and October 20, 2021.
Between October 28 and December 7, mother missed one test and
tested negative six times.
       At a February 1, 2022 hearing, Gabriel’s attorney opposed
mother’s section 388 petition, arguing that mother had not shown
changed circumstances or that granting the petition was in

                               13
Gabriel’s best interests. Counsel noted that mother had failed to
show up for most of her drug tests, had not completed a
substance abuse program, and had not really addressed her
substance abuse or anger issues. Further, while Gabriel hoped to
reunify with mother, “he is . . . clear that he does not want to
reunify until and unless mother is sober because when she’s
drinking, she gets mad, and he knows what happens then.” As a
result, counsel did not believe it was in Gabriel’s best interests
for mother to receive reunification services.
       Ceasar’s counsel joined in Gabriel’s attorney’s arguments,
and added that “there’s this layer of dealing with the trauma and
harm that she’s caused both children over the years,” and that
“for Ceasar, this all started [when he was] an infant, before the
age of one. And that is something that will also need to be
addressed by mother for her to really reconcile what her role has
been in all of those things and really deal with it before we can
reach that space of . . . true changed circumstances.” Further,
counsel said, Ceasar “has been very clear from the very beginning
of his detention in December of 2020 that he does not want to be
with mother and he has experienced, repeatedly, what the
circumstances are and what the risks are to him and to his
brother. He continues to be clear about those wishes today—[he]
does not want to reunify with mother [and] does not want to
participate in reunification services with her.”
       Mother’s counsel noted that mother had participated in a
variety of services even though they had not been ordered by the
court, and was holding down a part-time job and attending
school, because “she wants to be able to show that she can
provide a stable environment for her children.” Counsel further
argued that permitting mother reunification services was in the

                               14
children’s best interests. Counsel urged: “[G]ranting mother’s
388 will allow DCFS to work with mother and Ceasar in order for
the mother and son to be able to have visits with each other.
Ceasar is growing up and he will need support from his mother.
Reunification services for mother will enable that relationship
between mother and Ceasar to continue to grow. [¶] [DCFS’s]
report also indicates that visits between mother and Gabriel are
going well. Gabriel wants to reunify with his mother, and the
court granting mother’s 388 will ensure that happens.”
       The court denied mother’s petition. It explained: “I do
commend mother for engaging in these services; however, the
pain and the trauma that she caused these children runs deep,
and all of this information came out in our contested disposition
hearing. And there are many layers to this pain and trauma to
these children caused by mother’s abuse, which was fueled and
contributed to by her aggression and her . . . substance abuse
issues.
       “Mother still has not demonstrated to the court that she is
leading a sober lifestyle. There were many no-shows, and she
was nonresponsive to the social worker with regard to making up
the drug tests or continuing to drug test after a certain point. [¶]
And it’s unclear whether [mother’s therapist] was in receipt of
any of the reports. The focus seems to be more about how she’s
dealing with aggressive people, but mother has the anger issues
and aggressive behaviors towards others, and that, also, still,
doesn’t seem to be fully addressed[.] [Accordingly,] at this time,
the court does not find that she has shown—maybe changing
circumstances—but she’s not shown changed circumstances or
that it’s in the best interests of the children, and the court is
going to deny mother’s 388 at this time.”

                                15
      Mother timely appealed from the order denying the section
388 petition.
                         DISCUSSION
      Mother contends on appeal that the juvenile court erred by
denying her section 388 petition. For the reasons that follow, we
disagree.
      Section 388 permits a parent to petition the juvenile court
to modify any order based on changed circumstances or new
evidence. To obtain the requested modification, the moving party
must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence both a
change of circumstance and that the proposed change of order is
in the child’s best interests. (§ 388; In re Alayah J. (2017)
9 Cal.App.5th 469, 478; In re Mickel O. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th
586, 615.)
      The change in circumstance must be such that the problem
that brought the child into the dependency system has been
removed or ameliorated; the change must therefore be significant
or substantial. (In re Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at
p. 615.) Circumstances must have changed and not be merely
changing. (Ibid.) To determine whether this showing has been
made, the court may consider the entire factual and procedural
history of the case. (Id. at p. 616.) Whether to modify an order
under section 388 rests in the juvenile court’s discretion and will
not be disturbed on appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of
discretion. (In re Mickel O., at p. 616.)
      Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by denying
her section 388 petition because she demonstrated changed
circumstances and that granting her reunification services was in
the children’s best interests. With regard to changed
circumstances, mother notes that she had completed domestic

                                16
violence and anger management programs, was participating in
parenting and substance abuse classes, had begun individual
counseling, and had drug tested for DCFS. While there is some
support in the record for mother’s contentions, we note that
mother had only recently begun attending substance abuse
classes consistently, had missed all of her scheduled drug tests
between July and October 20, 2021, and had missed an additional
drug test in November 2021. In short, as the juvenile court
noted, mother had not demonstrated a sustained period of
sobriety.
      As other courts have noted, “[i]n the context of a substance
abuse problem that has repeatedly resisted treatment in the past,
a showing of materially changed circumstances requires more
than a relatively brief period of sobriety or participation in yet
another program.” (In re N.F. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 112, 121;
see also In re C.J.W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1081 [brief
period of sobriety in context of extensive history of drug use did
not demonstrate changed circumstances].) On the present record,
therefore—and in light of mother’s long history of alcohol abuse—
the juvenile court was well within its discretion in concluding
that mother showed, at best, changing, but not changed,
circumstances. (In re Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at
p. 615.)
      Further, as we noted in our prior opinion, the physical
abuse of the children alleged in this case occurred after mother
completed reunification services in the 2016 dependency case,
and even while mother was receiving additional services in the
present case. Against this backdrop, mother’s participation in
additional services, without more, did not conclusively establish
changed circumstances.

                               17
       For the same reason, the juvenile court was well within its
discretion in finding that granting mother reunification services
was not in the children’s best interests. Mother had a history of
physically abusing members of her family, including her children,
when intoxicated, and she had continued to physically abuse
Ceasar even after completing reunification services in the prior
dependency case. Mother’s alcohol abuse had caused significant
upheaval in the boys’ lives as they moved back and forth between
mother’s and grandmother’s homes and spent years as juvenile
court dependents. As a result, Ceasar was adamantly opposed to
returning to mother’s care, and although Gabriel hoped to be able
to reunify with mother, he was clear that he did not want to do so
unless and until mother was sober. Because there was no
compelling evidence that mother had conquered her alcohol
addiction or propensity for physical violence, the juvenile court
did not abuse its discretion in concluding that granting mother
further reunification services, thus further delaying permanency
for the children, was not in their best interests.

                               18
                       DISPOSITION
     The order denying mother’s section 388 petition is affirmed.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

                                         EDMON, P. J.

We concur:

                 LAVIN, J.

                 EGERTON, J.

                              19