Court Opinion

ID: 9408203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-11 19:05:45.459979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:42.659571
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/11/23 Alexis S. v. Superior Court CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

ALEXIS S.,                                                     B325906
         Petitioner,
                                                               Los Angeles County
                                                               Super. Ct. No. 21CCJP05523A
         v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY,
         Respondent;

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
         Real Party in Interest.

      ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary
writ. Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Juvenile Court Referee. Petition
denied.
      Children’s Law Center and Michael Ono for Petitioner.
      No appearance for Respondent.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County
Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
      Children’s Law Center, Kristin Hallak and Christopher
Kim for Petitioner
      Alexis S. (Mother) petitions for extraordinary relief from
juvenile court orders terminating reunification services and
setting a permanency planning hearing for her one-year-old
daughter, Ellie G. We deny the petition on its merits.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I.    Mother’s Juvenile Court History
        Mother, born in 2000, became a dependent child of the
court at age 10 due to her parents’ domestic violence and drug
abuse. Mother was placed with the maternal great-grandmother,
and her cousin Y.L. later became her foster parent.
        Mother and Antonio H. had two children while Mother was
still a minor: Au.H., born in 2017, and Ay.H., born in 2018.
Au.H. and Ay.H., were found to be subject to juvenile court
jurisdiction in 2018 due to sustained allegations of domestic
violence between their parents, the parents’ substance abuse, and
their father’s mental and emotional problems. Mother did not
reunify with the children. Mother contended DCFS
underreported her visitation with Au.H. and Ay.H., and she
alleged the children’s caregiver prevented her from visiting them.
Mother attributed her inability to reunify with her children to
depression and trauma. Mother’s parental rights to Au.H. and
Ay.H. were terminated October 19, 2021.
        In November 2020, Mother and Jose G. (Father) had a
daughter, Gracie G. According to Mother, Father was angry,
controlling, and engaged in ongoing, extensive domestic violence.
The violence began early in the relationship with pushing and
shoving, paused while Mother was pregnant, and escalated once
Gracie G. was born. Father once dragged Mother and Gracie G.
into a car and punched Mother in the face with a closed fist,

                                 2
causing her to bleed. Mother remained in her relationship with
Father.
       Gracie G. was detained from both parents in 2021 due to
Father’s domestic violence and Mother’s mental health issues.
Gracie G. was placed with Y.L. in May 2021, and over the
following 10 months, Mother visited her twice and telephoned her
twice. Father never visited. As of May 2021, Mother was not
enrolled in any services.
       In November 2021, the court found true under Welfare and
Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1) that
Mother and Father had a history of violent altercations, including
an incident in which Father dragged Mother into a car, hit her in
the face with a closed fist, and grabbed Gracie G. from her arms;
on prior occasions, Mother and Father had pushed each other;
and Mother’s older two children were presently receiving
permanent placement services due to violent altercations
between Mother and Antonio H. Under section 300, subdivisions
(b)(1) and (j), the court found true that Mother had a history of
substance abuse rendering her incapable of providing regular
care and supervision for Gracie G. and leading to the dependency
proceedings and permanent placement services for Au.H. and
Ay.H. Finally, under section 300, subdivision (b)(3), the court
found true that Mother had a history of mental and emotional
problems, including depression, such that she could not provide
regular care and supervision to Gracie G., and she had failed to
regularly participate in treatment and take her prescribed
psychotropic medication.

1     Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.

                                3
      Mother was ordered to complete a drug and alcohol
program with aftercare, a domestic violence support group,
weekly drug testing, parenting education, and individual
counseling. Father was ordered to participate in drug testing
upon suspicion of substance use, a 52-week domestic violence
program, anger management, parenting education, and
individual counseling. Neither parent complied with the court-
ordered case plans.
      The parents were granted separate monitored visitation.
Neither parent visited Gracie G. or inquired into her well-being.
Instead they created obstacles to receiving services, such as
opposing the DCFS staff monitoring visits.
II.   Ellie G.’s Birth and Disappearance
      Ellie G. was born in late October 2021. Mother and Father
concealed the pregnancy. Mother told a relative she was not
pregnant and attributed her weight gain to abstention from
drugs. (According to the relative, Mother had also denied
previous pregnancies.) She denied being pregnant to her
therapist. DCFS learned of Ellie G.’s birth from an anonymous
relative. The relative heard about the baby from the maternal
grandfather and had seen her photograph, but the maternal
grandfather later claimed the baby had died, did not exist, or was
someone else’s.
      Mother and Father discontinued their programs near the
time of Ellie G.’s birth and dropped out of touch with DCFS.
Mother stopped visiting Gracie G. in August 2021 and began to
avoid the social worker assigned to her case. The social worker
on Gracie G.’s case last spoke with the parents a few weeks
before Ellie G.’s birth, after which time she did not hear from
Father and Mother did not respond to messages. Father

                                4
attended his first parenting session on October 24, 2021, but he
did not mention his newborn baby; he failed to appear for his
next three sessions and did not respond to calls from the service
provider. Mother tested negative for drugs three times in
October 2021, but then failed to appear for tests in November
2021. She stopped attending therapy sessions after October 28,
2021, and her therapist was unable to reach her.
      DCFS spent months searching for Ellie G. and her parents,
unable to reach them by telephone or email. Y.L. did not know
where the parents were. A social worker attempted to contact
the family at the address Father had provided, a reported
paternal family home, but the person with whom she spoke
denied Mother or Father lived there and did not know of a baby
named Ellie. However, a neighbor confirmed the family lived
there. Eventually, DCFS spoke with Francisco, Father’s brother,
who rented a room at the house. Francisco said Father
occasionally stayed with him, but he had not seen Father in two
weeks. He had met Mother once or twice but did not know much
about her, and he denied knowledge of a new baby or how to
reach Father. The social worker gave Francisco a business card
and asked him to give it to Father as soon as possible. Francisco
replied, “I’ll call him to give him the message, I mean I’ll give it to
him when I see him.”
      DCFS learned Mother was receiving benefits for Ellie G.
Her address on file was the Department of Public Social Services
(DPSS) office because she claimed homeless assistance.
III.   Petition and Detention
      On December 3, 2021, DCFS filed a dependency petition
alleging that Ellie G. came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile
court under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j) because

                                  5
Mother and Father had a history of violent altercations.
Specifically, Father had dragged Mother into a vehicle, punched
her, and given her a bloody nose; he held Mother hostage; and he
grabbed Gracie G. from Mother’s arms. DCFS alleged domestic
violence between Mother and the fathers of her children had led
to Gracie G. becoming a dependent child and Au.H. and Ay.H.
receiving permanent placement services. DCFS alleged the
violence placed Ellie G. at risk of serious physical harm, damage,
and danger. Additionally, DCFS alleged under section 300,
subdivisions (b)(1) and (j) that Mother’s history of substance
abuse and mental and emotional problems endangered Ellie G.
and placed her at risk of serious physical harm, damage, and
danger.
       Ellie G.’s whereabouts were unknown when the petition
was filed, but she was believed to be with Father and Mother. In
December 2021, the court ordered that Ellie G. be detained,
issued arrest warrants for the parents, and ordered a protective
custody warrant for Ellie G.
       In January 2022, DPSS confirmed Mother and Father were
receiving benefits for themselves and Ellie G., using the DPSS
office as their address. Mother and Father told DPSS they were
staying in a shelter but they did not know its name.
       In February 2022, DCFS learned Mother, Father, and Ellie
G. were receiving services from a homeless services agency. The
agency summoned the family for a February 4, 2022, meeting,
where DCFS social workers were waiting for them. Mother and
Father denied knowing about the court proceedings involving
Ellie G. and refused to give her to DCFS. Law enforcement
assistance was needed to take Ellie G. into custody. She was
placed with her sister Gracie G. in Y.L.’s home.

                                6
IV.   Investigation
       A DCFS social worker contacted Mother and Father on
February 8, 2022, asking them to let her know by 4 p.m. if they
could meet the following day. The parents did not respond, but
the next day they asked for a same-day meeting at 2:30 p.m.
DCFS considered this behavior an example of the parents’
attempts to manufacture situations in which they could claim
DCFS failed to work with them.
       When DCFS met with the parents on February 9, 2022,
Father attempted to control Mother and the conversation,
interrupting her whenever she spoke. When asked for Ellie G.’s
immunization record, Mother said she would send the record to
the social worker, but Father announced that it was DCFS’s
responsibility to find Ellie G.’s records. Mother disclosed the
name of the clinic where Ellie G. received her immunizations only
after Father directed her to do so.
       Mother asked about reunification with Ellie G., but Father
interrupted, telling Mother they were not there to discuss that
topic. The social worker raised the allegations of the petition and
the parents’ lack of compliance with previous case plans. Father
said, “Well I think we are all good here. Let’s go.” “Let her [the
social worker] do her job and give us the paperwork.”
       The social worker asked Mother if she had questions.
Appearing timid and with a flat affect, Mother said no. Father
told Mother to ask her question, and Mother wanted to know why
DCFS detained Ellie G. when she was well cared for. Father
interrupted, saying, “You know it’s because of our history.”
       The social worker explained the importance of
communicating with DCFS and noted Mother and Father had
concealed Mother’s pregnancy and avoided DCFS. She

                                7
emphasized the importance of bonding with a child in order to
reunify and noted the parents had not been consistent in Gracie
G.’s life. Father said, “Well you have to understand this is my
second daughter. I don’t know if you’ve ever lost a wallet, but
this hurts a thousand times more than losing a wallet.”
       The social worker requested statements from the parents
about the allegations and their social history, but Father said
they would not provide information to DCFS. At Father’s
instruction, Mother refused to sign consent forms for services for
Ellie G. Father ended the meeting.
       On February 9, 2022, Y.L. told DCFS Mother had disclosed
that Father beat her up, and Father had admitted it. Y.L.
described Mother as “a troubled girl who doesn’t want help,” and
said she was “very easily influenced” by Father.
       In the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing report filed
February 10, 2022, DCFS advised the court Mother and Father
had not contacted DCFS to visit Ellie G. DCFS stated it was
concerned that Mother and Father refused to allow DCFS to
monitor visits and demanded to choose their own monitors. The
parents’ preferred monitors were unsuitable: paternal uncle
Francisco G. had misled DCFS by denying knowledge of Ellie G.,
and the maternal great grandmother had told DCFS she believed
the children should be with their parents and was unable to
provide her own address to DCFS.
       On February 9, 2022, staff at the shelter where the family
had been living told DCFS that even before Ellie G. was detained
they had been planning to terminate the family from the program
because they had violated shelter policies. The parents had
changed the locks to their room so the staff could not perform
room checks, and they used a communal restroom for personal

                                8
storage. They discarded the shelter’s furniture, put their own
furniture in the home, and caused a great deal of property
damage.
      When Ellie G. was removed from the parents’ care, they no
longer qualified to stay in a family shelter. Father falsely told
the shelter DCFS was doing a home inspection at the shelter that
weekend and would return Ellie G. to the parents if their housing
was appropriate. The shelter had planned to arrange alternative
housing for Mother and Father, but they lost their spot when
they failed to appear for their appointment. They then refused to
move out of the shelter, claiming they had tenants’ rights and
would obtain legal assistance. Father was “increasingly
aggressive” and assaulted a staff member during the attempt to
have the parents removed from the shelter. Mother appeared
sweet and cooperative but changed her stance when Father
interrupted and disagreed with her.
      On the night of February 9, 2022, Mother and Father broke
into their former bedroom at the shelter with two men,
frightening other residents. The residents reported Mother and
Father had been dealing drugs from their home, and it was
believed they broke in to retrieve drugs. Father and Francisco G.
called the police, claiming they were being unlawfully removed
from the home. It appeared to the shelter that Father was
making calculated claims about being kicked out of the home,
and Mother appeared to side with Father. Mother was observed
to have a fresh black eye.
      The shelter staff explained to the police that Mother and
Father were ineligible for housing once Ellie G. was removed
from their custody. With law enforcement help, the parents

                                9
agreed to leave the shelter, and they reported they would stay
with family members.
       DCFS sent Mother and Father a text message on February
10, 2022, asking where they were living. Neither parent
responded.
       Mother and Father continued to want to visit together
despite being told it was not permitted. Mother was 20 minutes
late to her two-hour visit on February 14, 2022. Ellie G. initially
cried, and Mother fed her in the car seat by propping a bottle. On
February 18, Mother visited Ellie G. for one hour and Father
visited her the other hour; however, Father wanted to cut his
visit short because he was overwhelmed. With assistance from a
human services aide (HSA) Father completed his one-hour visit.
Mother was present and assisted Father in putting Ellie G. and
Gracie G. in the car.
       Both parents visited Ellie G. on February 28, 2022. During
their separate visits, both claimed Ellie G. was being overfed.
       At the arraignment on March 1, 2022, the court granted the
parents monitored, separate visitation. The court set the
adjudication hearing for March 22, 2022, and ordered DCFS “to
interview the parents and include the results of the interview in
the report.” Also at the arraignment, DCFS asked both parents
for information about their participation in programs, but they
did not provide any information.
       On March 7, 2022, Mother visited for two hours but Father
did not show up. Father refused to respond to messages about
visitation and appeared for visits when he felt like it. DCFS sent
Mother a text message on March 9, 2022, asking for updates on
her program progress. Mother said she would provide
confirmation from Single Parents of Power, but she did not do so.

                                10
      DCFS held a family engagement meeting on March 10,
2022. Father did not respond to the meeting invitation. Mother
participated; she “presented herself as the victim and indicated
that DCFS has never assisted her. Mother indicated she had
been doing ‘everything’ and that she had been testing regularly.”
(Mother had tested negative for drugs three times, on February
18 and 24, 2022, and March 9, 2022, and was a no show for a
March 4 test. She claimed she arrived too late that day to test,
but she never submitted a verification of her late arrival for the
testing agency.)
      Mother skipped her visit on March 11, 2022. She confirmed
her March 14, 2022 visit with the HSA, but when she was late to
the visit she falsely attributed her late arrival to a lack of
confirmation of the visit.
      On March 15, 2022 Mother texted two different DCFS
employees that she had been unable to make it to the drug
testing facility in time to test, requesting that a make-up test be
scheduled for the following day. One responded that a make-up
test would not be scheduled, and the other indicated that a make-
up drug test would have to be approved by a supervisor. Mother
did not respond to either message.
      DCFS reported on March 16, 2022, that the parents
continued to refuse to communicate with DCFS to allow
assessment of their case plan compliance. As neither parent had
visited Gracie G. nor complied with the case plan in Gracie G.’s
case, DCFS considered the prospect of parental reunification with
Gracie G. to be “grim.”
      DCFS concluded the parents “remain in a relationship
which does not appear to be healthy. In the thirty to forty
minutes spent with them [on February 9, 2022, the social worker]

                                11
observed Father to be extremely controlling and would not allow
Mother to speak. The same behavior has been observed by
[another social worker] as well as [shelter] employees. The
parents continue to blame DCFS for their current situation. [¶]
The parents have misled the [shelter] program by informing them
that DCFS was going to return the child to them after a home
inspection. In addition, the occupants of the family shelter have
reported that the parents were selling drugs from the home. The
parents were not forthcoming with [DCFS] on 2/9/22 and refused
to be interviewed. They also refused to sign documentation
needed to provide the child with services. In addition, they
destroyed the shelter’s property and furniture, changed locks and
did not obey house rules. The parents have continued to be
defiant, but then go on to claim that they are the victims. The
parents’ answers and behavior appears to be calculated. Father
has mentioned several times he is going to retain an attorney and
has declined visitation when DCFS does not approve a monitor of
his choice. It does not appear that the parents are willing to
cooperate with DCFS and it does not appear that they have their
child’s best interest at heart.”
       On March 22, 2022, the court found true as to both parents
the allegations under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (j) and
declared Ellie G. a dependent child.
V.    Continuances
     The court set the disposition hearing for April 26, 2022, five
weeks away. It ordered DCFS to assess the maternal great-
grandmother as a monitor for Mother’s visits, help Father find an
appropriate monitor for his visits or provide him visits with an
HSA, and submit a supplemental disposition report.

                                12
       During those five weeks, DCFS advised the court that
Mother’s proposed monitor, the maternal great-grandmother, had
an extensive DCFS history, including a substantiated allegation
of caretaker incapacity and her relinquishment of guardianship
over Mother and Mother’s siblings. Moreover, when interviewed,
the maternal great-grandmother did not understand why Ellie G.
had been detained; she denied Mother had mental health or
substance abuse issues and pronounced Father “a good person.”
       Father had not contacted DCFS. Mother had visited Ellie
G. only once since the adjudication hearing. Mother had one
negative drug test.
       Mother visited Ellie G. on April 18, 2022 and interacted
well with her, changing her diaper, treating her diaper rash, and
feeding her. Mother also visited Ellie G. and Gracie G. on April
22, 2022.
       Mother tested negative for drugs twice and she submitted a
letter indicating her enrollment in domestic violence and
parenting education, and substance abuse programs at Single
Parents of Power Counseling Agency.
       On April 26, 2022, at Mother’s request, the court granted
another six-week continuance of the disposition hearing to June
8, 2022, and ordered DCFS to verify her visitation and
participation in programs.
       In the next six weeks, DCFS informed the court it had been
unable to verify Mother’s participation in programs with the
service provider. Sometimes the agency’s voicemail was full, and
when the social worker left messages or sent email, the agency
did not respond. A second social worker had also tried and failed
to reach Mother’s counselor.

                               13
       DCFS asked Mother for documentation of her program
participation. Mother said her classes had “been combined” with
prior classes she had taken and she had completed “almost 30”
sessions, with “about 15” left to go before she received her
certificate. Mother told DCFS her therapist was preparing a
progress letter which Mother would send to DCFS that week.
The social worker requested the therapist’s name and contact
information, explaining it was necessary to speak with her
because DCFS did not usually accept combined classes. Mother
did not respond. DCFS was concerned about the absence of
reports and the inability to discuss Mother’s case plan progress
with the service provider.
       Mother visited Ellie G. four times in May 2022 and twice in
June. Mother was appropriate with Ellie G. and attentive to her
needs. DCFS was concerned that although Mother had
previously stated she was no longer in a relationship with Father,
he had continued to visit immediately after Mother and brought
food for her and the children during a visit.
       Father visited Ellie G. on May 9, 2022, and ended the visit
20 minutes early. When he arrived for his visit on May 11, 2022,
and found Ellie G. crying, he became frustrated and angrily left.
       Father did not respond to DCFS’s inquiry about program
participation. Additionally, neither parent had signed referral
documents to allow Ellie G. to be evaluated by the Regional
Center.
       DCFS advised the court it had received a letter from Single
Parents of Power on June 2, 2022. The letter stated Mother had
enrolled on March 31, 2022, for domestic violence for victims,
parenting, and substance abuse counseling, and she was required
to attend weekly sessions. Mother began working with a

                               14
marriage and family therapist trainee, Elizabeth Garcia, on May
9, 2022, and she had completed 10 of 26 sessions in each of her
three programs.
       Two social workers had repeatedly tried to speak with
Garcia but had been unable to reach her. DCFS expressed
concern that it could not “discuss the case with the program nor
provide vital documents/concerns regarding the extensive history
mother has with DCFS.” Moreover, DCFS could not “assess the
knowledge that [M]other has gained in the program as she
continues to be guarded with DCFS.”
       Father refused to communicate with DCFS, so DCFS
lacked information about his compliance with his case plan.
Father had not visited Ellie G. consistently.
       DCFS finally spoke to Mother’s therapist Elizabeth Garcia
before the disposition hearing. Garcia said Mother was engaged
in her therapy; however, Garcia did not know why Mother had an
open DCFS case. The social worker told Garcia she would send
her relevant reports.
       DCFS remained concerned about “the appropriateness of
the program as [M]other began attending in August and then re-
enrolled on 3/31/22. Dates of [M]other’s attendance have not
been provided. DCFS has not been able to discuss concerns and
treatment with the program. DCFS has not been able to discuss
progress made with [M]other and her ability to implement what
she’s learned in her programs.”
       On June 8, 2022, the court once again continued the
disposition hearing for three weeks to June 27, 2022, this time at
the request of DCFS so that it could assess Gracie G’s review
hearing set for June 15, 2022. Father’s counsel requested that
DCFS assess Father’s siblings as potential monitors. The court

                               15
instructed Father’s counsel to submit the siblings’ names to
DCFS and ordered DCFS to assess them as possible monitors. As
ordered, DCFS requested contact information for paternal
relatives so they could be assessed as monitors, but Father did
not respond.
      DCFS also reported it had continued to try to contact
Mother’s therapist Garcia. The social workers sent reports to
Single Parents of Power and attempted to speak with Garcia
about Mother’s progress, but as of June 17, 2022, they had been
unable to reach her.
      Mother visited Ellie G. on June 16, 2022.
      On June 22, 2022, DCFS informed the court that Father’s
reunification services with Ellie G.’s sibling Gracie G. had been
terminated on June 15, 2022. In light of this order, DCFS
recommended Father be denied reunification services with
Ellie G.
      Father submitted a letter stating he had enrolled in a
program for domestic violence offenders, parenting education,
and co-parenting class on June 6, 2022. On June 21, 2022, Dan
Zhu at Single Parents of Power sent an email to DCFS stating
she had begun providing co-parenting sessions to both parents.
However, when DCFS spoke with Zhu, she revealed she had not
met Mother. Zhu had only met with Father, who neither told her
why Ellie G. was detained nor disclosed that his reunification
services had been terminated with Gracie G.
VI.   Disposition Hearing
      The court held the disposition hearing on June 27, 2022.
Mother submitted a June 26, 2022 letter from her therapist
Garcia that Mother had completed 15 of 26 domestic violence
sessions, 13 of 26 parenting sessions, and 13 of 26 substance

                               16
abuse sessions. In domestic violence sessions, Mother was
“working on self-esteem and boundaries.” In parenting, she was
working on “emotional intelligence and mindfulness.” In
substance abuse session, Mother was working on “maintaining
sobriety and increasing positivity.” Garcia described Mother as
“engaged, friendly, cooperative, positive, motivated, and open”
during sessions.
      The court granted both parents reunification services.
Mother was ordered to undergo a full drug/alcohol program with
aftercare and weekly random and on-demand testing, a domestic
violence victims support group, parenting education, and
individual counseling to address case issues. Father was ordered
to undergo a 52-week domestic violence program, drug testing
upon reasonable suspicion of substance use, parenting education,
and individual counseling. Each parent was granted monitored,
separate visitation of nine hours per week.
VII. Reunification Services Period
      A.    Mother
            1.     Domestic Violence
       According to Garcia’s progress letter, provided to DCFS by
Mother, as of July 26, 2022, she had completed 26 of her 26
domestic violence sessions. As before, in these sessions Mother
was “working on self-esteem and boundaries.” The letter
contained no information about any substantive progress or
insight made by Mother through the program. As to all three of
her programs, Garcia wrote Mother was “engaged, friendly,
cooperative, positive, motivated, takes accountability and is open
to discussing case issues during sessions.” Mother submitted a

                                17
certificate of completion of the 26-week program dated July 22,
2022.
            2.     Drug and Alcohol Program with Aftercare
       According to Garcia, Mother had completed 16 of 26
substance abuse sessions, and she was still working on
“maintaining sobriety and increasing positivity.” Over the 16
days between July 26 and August 11, 2022, Mother apparently
completed an additional 10 sessions of substance abuse
programming, and she submitted a certificate of completion of
the substance abuse program dated August 11, 2022. DCFS
made multiple attempts to speak to Garcia to confirm Mother’s
completion of the program but was unable to reach her. DCFS
later learned Garcia had left the agency.
       Mother tested negative for drugs May 2, 10, 20, and 26,
2002; she failed to test on May 27, 2022. She had four negative
tests in June 2022. She missed one test and tested negative four
times in July 2022, then missed two tests and tested negative
twice in August 2022. In September 2022, Mother missed a test,
was unable to provide a sample on one occasion, and tested
negative three times. She had four negative tests and one
excused absence in October 2022, and two negative tests in
November 2022.
             3.   Parenting Education
      Mother’s May 2022 progress letter said she had completed
10 of 26 parenting class sessions. Her June 2022 progress letter
said she had completed 13 of her 26 parenting sessions. The
progress letter dated July 26, 2022, stated she had completed
nine of her 26 parenting sessions. No explanation was provided
for the discrepancies.

                               18
      DCFS received an October 12, 2022 letter from Zhu stating
that she began working with Mother on September 8, 2022.
According to Zhu, Mother had completed “the last of her [seven]
parenting sessions” with Zhu and “showed an understanding of
the materials through answering questions and participating in
discussion.” The letter did not describe any progress made by
Mother over the course.
      Mother submitted a certificate of completion of the
parenting program dated September 28, 2022.
              4.    Individual Therapy
       On October 13, 2022, DCFS spoke with Zhu, who was
unable to give DCFS feedback on Mother’s progress because they
had only had one therapy session. Zhu told DCFS Mother had
only undergone one therapy session with her prior therapist,
Garcia.
       As of November 4, 2022, Mother had completed six 1-hour
sessions of individual therapy. Zhu’s progress letter stated that
Mother “has begun addressing underlying issues that have
contributed to DCFS intervention and appears to be motivated
for change.”
       DCFS spoke with Zhu on November 17, 2022. Zhu asked
for an update on Mother’s case and reported Mother was
discouraged that her visits were not being liberalized and her
daughters were not being returned to her care. When DCFS
explained its concerns, Zhu stated that Mother had not reported
a lot of that information. Zhu said she understood DCFS’s
concerns and would raise them with Mother during therapy.
       As of December 12, 2022, Mother had completed
10 sessions of individual therapy. Much as before, Zhu wrote
that Mother “has been addressing underlying issues that have

                               19
contributed to DCFS intervention and appears to be motivated
for change.”
              5.    Visitation
       Mother had a written schedule for monitored visitation
with Ellie G. three days per week. She was inconsistent with
visits, cancelled visits at least once per week, and often arrived
significantly late.
       Mother canceled visits with the children on July 15, 2022,
August 1, 2022, and August 4, 2022. The children were
unavailable for a visit on August 15, 2022, so the social worker
offered to reschedule for August 17, 2022; Mother never
responded. Mother canceled visits on August 22 and 23, 2022,
and said she was unavailable for the following 10 days due to
illness. At Mother’s request, a virtual visit was scheduled for
September 1, 2022, but Mother did not answer when the
caregiver called. When the social worker contacted Mother,
Mother said she was indisposed but would call back; she never
returned the call.
       Mother canceled visits on September 8, 9, 23, 29, and 30,
2022, as well as visits scheduled for October 5, 6, and 17, 2022.
Mother was supposed to visit with Ellie G. at her doctor’s
appointment on October 24, 2022, but she did not attend the
appointment. Mother canceled a make-up visit scheduled for
October 28, 2022. She requested and confirmed a Halloween visit
to trick or treat with the children, but then did not appear.
Mother also canceled visits on November 4, 10, and 14, 2022.
       Y.L. offered to monitor additional visits with Mother and
made herself and the children available for virtual visits, but
Mother also canceled make-up visits. Mother claimed in October
2022 that she was missing visits due to her new job. Although

                               20
DCFS told Mother Y.L. was available to monitor visits and that a
new HSA could be requested to match Mother’s availability,
Mother asked to keep the visitation schedule unchanged. On
November 8, 2022, Mother asked for her visits to move to
afternoons, but on November 16, 2022, Mother said she did not
want the schedule changed after all.
       Mother behaved appropriately during visits and engaged
with Ellie G. and Gracie G. Mother’s visits had not been
liberalized because Mother would not provide her address to
DCFS, she was a flight risk due to her prior history, and she
denied having contact with Father. They shared the same
addresses on file.
       In Gracie G.’s case, the court ordered DCFS on October 14,
2022, to assess a maternal cousin, Toni C., for unmonitored
visits. Toni C. told DCFS she had a close relationship with
Mother but had no idea why Mother had an open dependency
case. DCFS was concerned about Toni C. serving as a monitor
due to the lack of transparency between Mother and Toni C.
about the dependency case despite their ostensibly close
relationship.
       The court in Gracie G.’s case also ordered that Toni C.’s
home be assessed. Toni C., however, lived with her mother, who
had an extensive criminal record and a dependency history in
which she had failed to reunify with her children. Moreover, a
confidential informant told DCFS that the maternal grandmother
reported she had no family in California, and that, contrary to
Mother’s assertion, Toni C. and her mother were not part of
Mother’s family. In fact, the maternal grandmother believed
Toni C. and her mother were prostituting Mother’s sisters. The
maternal grandmother was homeless and had a history of mental

                               21
health problems, and DCFS was unable to verify her report, but
the information was sufficient to raise concerns about the
children’s safety if Toni C. and her mother had access to them.
             6.    Housing
       In July 2022, Mother told DCFS she was living with family
but, as of November 2022, she had not provided her address.
DCFS explained to Mother that to move toward unmonitored and
overnight visits, DCFS would need to know where Mother lived,
confirm she lived at the location, and perform a home
assessment. Mother reported she sometimes stayed with the
maternal grandmother and sometimes stayed with other family
or friends. Mother requested the maternal grandmother’s home
be assessed for placement but she never provided the maternal
grandmother’s address. She did not give DCFS names or
addresses for her other family and friends.
       Although Mother denied being in a relationship with
Father or having any contact with him, both parents provided the
same address to the court, indicating that they shared a post
office box, and they shared additional addresses on file.
       In October 2022, DCFS referred Mother to a housing
program and gave her information about affordable housing and
a housing voucher lottery. Mother confirmed to DCFS on October
28, 2022, that she had been contacted by the program and had
scheduled an intake appointment; the social worker helped
Mother gather the necessary paperwork. Mother reported on
November 16, 2022, that she was scheduled to meet with her case
manager on November 21, 2022, about a possible housing unit.
            7.    Contact with DCFS
      Mother failed to appear for visits scheduled with DCFS on
July 15, 2022, August 4, 2022, September 9, 2022, October 7,

                               22
2022, and November 3, 2022. On October 26, 2022, Mother failed
to appear for the child and family team meeting she had
requested.
            8.   Additional Information
      Mother claimed to be working part-time but did not submit
proof of employment.
      Mother was invited to participate in Ellie G.’s medical
appointments and Regional Center meeting, but Mother did not
make herself available.
      B.    Father
      Father attended two sessions of his domestic violence
program in July 2022 and never returned. The parenting course
instructor reported Father had been removed from his caseload.
Father also had been moved to a waitlist for co-parenting at his
request. Father never provided certificates of completion for any
programs.
      Father did not visit Ellie G. and did not respond to the
letters DCFS sent each month asking him to contact the social
worker to set up a visitation schedule. DCFS continued to
attempt to locate Father but was unable to contact him directly.
      On November 10, 2022, the court terminated both Mother
and Father’s reunification services with Gracie G. and ordered
permanent placement services.
VIII. Termination of Reunification Services
      Mother appeared for the section 366.21, subdivision (e)
review hearing on December 13, 2022; Father did not. Mother
requested additional reunification services. She noted she had
completed her substance abuse, parenting, and domestic violence
classes, and had attended 10 sessions of therapy, with a report

                               23
from the therapist that she seemed motivated to change and was
addressing the issues that led to DCFS intervention. Mother was
now working part-time, she had enrolled in a program for
housing assistance, and she had applied for an apartment.
Mother’s counsel acknowledged her visits had not been
liberalized and she had never provided her address but pointed
out that Mother had provided an address for purported cousin
Toni C., whom counsel described as Mother’s “godmother’s
daughter.”
      Mother’s counsel characterized DCFS’s “biggest issue” with
Mother as her housing, which Mother was in the process of
addressing. Mother argued she should not be denied further
reunification services because she lacked housing and contended
there was a substantial possibility Ellie G. would be returned to
her in the next six months.
      Father’s counsel requested additional reunification services
because Father “did take steps to enroll in some of these
programs.”
      Counsel for Ellie G. recommended termination of
reunification services for both parents. He argued that although
Mother had participated in services, the question was whether
she had benefitted from her case plan. Counsel argued the
evidence showed Mother had not made substantive progress:
“Mother has been dishonest with DCFS about her living
situation, which has not been verified. She reported living with a
family member and denied living with her mother. Mother’s
response to DCFS is troubling. She provided DCFS with two
family members to be assessed, but the Department was
informed by a confidential informant that they are not actually
family members. Mother also represented that she was living

                               24
with maternal grandmother, but maternal grandmother is
homeless. The Department has not been []able to verify who
Mother has been living with for months. And given that the
Department has not been able to make contact with Father, I
would infer the parents are still living together. [¶]
Furthermore, regarding visits, it looks like Mother has been
inconsistent from July through November. Towards the end of
the [F]all, she has one a week, on average. There appears to be
attempts made by both the Department and the caregivers to
make up these visits. In some instances, Mother would
reschedule visits but then cancel the visits. [¶] In light of
Mother’s unaddressed case issues and now her inconsistent
visits,” Ellie G.’s counsel recommended terminating reunification
services.
       The court said that for the reasons articulated by Ellie G.’s
counsel, “Mother’s inconsistent visits, Mother not really
benefiting from her case plan or not being honest with the
Department about where she lives—these are very important for
the child to be able to live in a stable and safe home. The child is
only one year old. So, at this point, I’m going to terminate [family
reunification].” The court found by clear and convincing evidence
that Mother and Father had failed to participate in and make
substantive progress in their court-ordered treatment plan, and
there was no substantial probability Ellie G. would be returned to
them in the next six months. The court terminated the parents’
reunification services for Ellie G. and set a permanency planning
hearing date.
       Mother filed a petition for extraordinary writ challenging
the termination of reunification services and setting of the
permanency planning hearing date. This court issued an order to

                                25
show cause why the requested relief should not be granted. At
Mother’s request, we stayed the order setting the permanency
planning hearing while the order to show cause was pending.
                          DISCUSSION
I.    Applicable Law and Standard of Review
       When the juvenile court removes a dependent child from
parental custody, absent a specific statutory exception, it is
required to order the child protective services agency (here
DCFS) to provide the parent with services to facilitate the
reunification of the family. (§ 361.5, subd. (a); see Tonya M. v.
Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 836, 843 (Tonya M.); In re
Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307 [reunification services are
among the “[s]ignificant safeguards” that are built into the
dependency statutory scheme]; In re M.F. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th
1, 13 [“[f]amily reunification services play a critical role in
dependency proceedings”], disapproved on other grounds in
Michael G. v. Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 609, 631, fn. 8.)
       For a child under three years old on the date of initial
removal, as Ellie G. was, this period of reunification is
presumptively limited to six months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B);
Tonya M., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 843.) At the six-month review
hearing, if “the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that
the parent failed to participate regularly and make substantive
progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may
schedule a [permanency planning] hearing.” (§ 366.21, subd.
(e)(3).) Reunification services may be extended at the six-month
review hearing if “the court finds there is a substantial
probability that the child . . . may be returned to their parent or

                                26
legal guardian within six months or that reasonable services
have not been provided.” (Ibid.)
       We review an order terminating reunification services to
determine if it is supported by substantial evidence. (Kevin R. v.
Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676, 688.) “When
reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and
convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is
whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from
which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly
probable that the fact was true. In conducting its review, the
court must view the record in the light most favorable to the
prevailing party below and give appropriate deference to how the
trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses,
resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable
inferences from the evidence.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020)
9 Cal.5th 989, 1011–1012.)
II.   Analysis
      A.    Substantive Progress
      Mother contends (1) no substantial evidence supported the
court’s finding she failed to make substantive progress on her
court-ordered treatment plan, and (2) there was substantial
evidence Ellie G. could be returned to her custody by the
12-month mark. We disagree.
      The record as a whole contains substantial evidence from
which the court could have found it highly probable that Mother
had not made substantive process despite her participation in
court-ordered services. The record shows Mother behaved
evasively, misleadingly, and manipulatively from the start. She
concealed and lied about her pregnancy and went “on the run”

                               27
with newborn Ellie G. She refused to respond to diligent efforts
by DCFS to contact her, frustrated DCFS’s investigation at every
turn, lied to and misled DCFS and social service agencies, and
refused to disclose basic information necessary to ascertain
whether she was participating in her court-ordered programs and
whether she was taking steps to address the various problems
that led to the dependency. Mother refused to sign documents so
that Ellie G. could receive services, promised but rarely provided
information to DCFS, and did not disclose to her service
providers why she was in need of services.
      Mother submitted documentation indicating she completed
three court-ordered programs, and, as she notes, her progress
letters included some general positive comments about her
participation in services. But the lack of change in Mother’s
behavior over the course of the reunification period demonstrated
her lack of substantive progress. The record contains abundant
evidence that even at the end of the reunification services period
Mother continued to lie, conceal, and mislead. She tried to
arrange for her visits to be monitored by a person she
misrepresented to DCFS as a relative. She attempted to
misdirect DCFS by asking for a home assessment of a relative
who was homeless. She concealed the address or addresses
where she was staying. She regularly refused to provide
information sought by DCFS to allow them to assess her
progress, her prospects for reunifying, and any potential for
liberalized visitation. Mother even skipped the child and family
team meeting in October 2022 that she had requested.
      Additionally, Mother frequently failed to visit Ellie G.,
missing or canceling more than 20 visits between July and
November 2022. “Visitation is an essential component of a

                               28
reunification plan. [Citation.] To promote reunification,
visitation must be as frequent as possible, consistent with the
well-being of the child.” (Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202
Cal.App.4th 1415, 1426.) Mother blamed her inconsistency in
visitation on her job, but she declined DCFS’s offer to change her
visitation schedule to better suit her schedule. Missing visits on
this scale appear to have hampered Mother’s connection with her
child: Ellie G. cried when picked up for visits with Mother and
wanted to be held by Y.L. when she returned from visits.
       Mother contends the court unfairly discredited her
substantial progress in her services. She argues her service
providers all commented positively on her progress and
recognition of the issues that led to juvenile court jurisdiction. To
support her argument, Mother relies on Garcia’s July 2022
description that she was “engaged, friendly, cooperative,
motivated, takes accountability and is open to discussing case
issues during sessions.” But just the month before, in June 2022,
after months of working with Mother, Garcia did not even know
why Mother had an open dependency case. Then, when Zhu took
over from Garcia in September 2022, Mother again withheld
information about the dependency matter.
       Mother next cites the topics she was described as “working
on” in her three completed programs as evidence of her progress.
But working on boundaries, self-esteem, emotional intelligence,
mindfulness, maintaining sobriety, and increasing positivity does
not establish she made any progress on those subjects. Similarly,
Mother notes that Zhu said she demonstrated an understanding
of the materials in parenting class. However, comprehending the
materials does not equate to insight or progress on the issues
that led to the dependency.

                                 29
       Finally, Mother relies on Zhu’s November 4, 2022
statement that Mother “has begun addressing underlying issues
that have contributed to DCFS intervention and appears to be
motivated for change.” Zhu made that statement in a letter
dated November 4, 2022, but she did so without crucial
information. On November 17, 2022, Zhu asked DCFS for an
update on Mother’s case and conveyed Mother’s dissatisfaction
that the children were not being returned to her despite her
completion of programs. The social worker advised Zhu of
DCFS’s concerns, who in turn advised DCFS that Mother “had
not reported a lot of the information provided by” the social
worker. Zhu then told DCFS she understood its concerns. Not
only does Mother’s choice to give incomplete information to DCFS
call into question the extent to which Mother was addressing the
issues that led to jurisdiction or was motivated to change, but
also it undermines Zhu’s November 4, 2022 statement because
Zhu lacked a full understanding of what Mother needed to
address in order to reunify with her child.
       Mother next claims her part-time job, her housing referral,
and the fact that she was addressing boundaries and self-esteem
as topics in her domestic violence program demonstrate she was
beginning to establish her independence from Father. Mother
does not identify, nor did we locate in the record, anything to
suggest a connection between Mother’s employment or housing
referrals and any progress with respect to domestic violence; no
therapist ever stated Mother was becoming independent from
Father or her employment and housing referral were in any way
related to breaking away from her abusive partner. Mother
relies here again on Zhu’s general statement that she had begun
to address case issues and appeared motivated to change, but as

                               30
noted above, Zhu made that assessment without knowledge of the
full scope of the issues that led to juvenile court jurisdiction.
       Mother argues the inference made by DCFS and Ellie G.’s
counsel that she was living with Father was speculative and not
supported by the record. But the court did not find they were
living together. The court began its remarks by indicating
agreement with the reasons presented by Ellie G.’s counsel, but it
then identified the particular factual bases for its ruling: “For
reasons articulated by [Ellie G.’s counsel], Mother’s inconsistent
visits, Mother not really benefiting from her case plan or not
being honest with the Department about where she lives—these
are very important for the child to be able to be in a stable and
safe home.” Whether Mother was residing with Father was not
mentioned by the court; it was her consistent lack of candor about
where she lived that was identified as a reason to terminate
reunification services.
       Mother finally argues her inconsistent visits alone were
insufficient to terminate reunification services. As the court did
not base its decision to terminate reunification services solely on
Mother’s inconsistency in visitation, this argument fails to
establish error.
      B.    Substantial Probability of Return
      Mother argues further reunification services should have
been ordered because there was a substantial probability Ellie G.
could be returned to her within six months. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).)
We disagree. Family reunification services for a child as young
as Ellie G. are provided for six months from the dispositional
hearing but no more than 12 months from the date the child
entered foster care. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).) A child is deemed
to have entered foster care on the earlier of the date of the

                                31
jurisdictional hearing or the date that is 60 days after the date on
which the child was initially removed from parental custody.
(§ 361.49.) Here, Ellie G. was removed from her parents’ custody
on December 8, 2021. Sixty days from her initial removal was
February 8, 2022.2 Therefore, at the December 13, 2022 hearing
the court could only have authorized reunification services
through February 8, 2023, (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B)), and it could
only consider the possibility of reunification within that
timeframe. (Tonya M., supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 846.)
       Mother’s argument that Ellie G. could have been returned
to her custody in less than two months is premised on the
reductive view that the “primary concern” impeding reunification
was Mother’s “living situation.” She contends two months would
have allowed her to obtain housing and to demonstrate regular
visitation, so there was a substantial probability of reunification
with Ellie G. during that time. This argument fails to address
Mother’s ongoing evasiveness and lack of candor, the absence of
meaningful progress to resolve the issues that led to the
dependency, and the fact that she had rejected offers to modify
the visitation schedule so she could visit Ellie G. more regularly,
all of which indicate the unlikeliness of reunification with Ellie
G. in less than two months. On the record as a whole, we
conclude the court did not err when it found by clear and
convincing evidence there was no substantial possibility Ellie G.
could be returned to Mother’s custody by February 8, 2023.
Mother has not established any error in the termination of

2     The jurisdictional hearing took place March 22, 2022, so
the operative date is the date of Ellie G.’s removal.

                                32
reunification services and setting of a permanency planning
hearing.
                          DISPOSITION
       The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. The stay of
the permanency planning hearing is lifted. In the interest of
justice, this decision shall become final as to this court five days
from the date it is filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                            STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, J.

             WILEY, J.

                                 33