Court Opinion

ID: 9412583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-31 20:04:47.941777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:39.369304
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/31/23 In re S.P. CA2/4
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

In re S.P., a Person Coming                                  B317999
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. Nos.
                                                              18CCJP01623,
                                                              18CCJP01623A)
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

J.P.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Pete R. Navarro, Judge Pro Tempore.
Affirmed.
      Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Courtney Fisher, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

      Mother J.P. appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying
her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388,1 in
which she sought reinstatement of reunification services with her
daughter, S. Mother argues that the trial court abused its
discretion in denying her section 388 petition, based on its
findings that she failed to show changed circumstances and that
reinstating her reunification services was not in the child’s best
interests. We find no error in the trial court’s order and therefore
affirm.
                          BACKGROUND
I.    Referral and Petition
      S. was born in August 2017 to mother and father, R.L.2
The family first came to the attention of the Los Angeles County
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) when
mother and S. tested positive for marijuana and amphetamines
at the time of S.’s birth. Mother admitting using
methamphetamine for several years, but stated that she had
stopped a month and a half earlier, when she found out she was

1      All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
2      Father is not a party to this appeal. We provide details as
to father only as helpful for background.

                                2
pregnant. DCFS closed the referral alleging neglect as
inconclusive. DCFS received two more referrals in September
and October 2017 alleging that mother was using drugs, driving
recklessly with S. in the car, and physically fighting with
maternal aunt.
      DCFS received the referral initiating the instant case on
January 25, 2018. The caller reported that mother had moved in
with maternal grandmother (MGM) after S. was born. MGM
suspected that mother and father were using drugs in mother’s
room. When questioned about it, mother tried to hit maternal
aunt while mother was holding S. Mother then “took off running”
with S. Mother moved out of MGM’s home shortly thereafter and
began staying with a friend.
      The reporting party also stated that mother had placed S.
in danger in the past, including driving drunk with S. on her lap
and hitting father when he said he was worried about S. The
reporting party additionally told DCFS that mother had “crazy
tantrums,” “extreme mood swings,” and became “violent out of
nowhere.” The caller expressed concern that under mother’s
care, S. was not getting enough food or sleep.
      A DCFS children’s social worker (CSW) visited the home of
mother’s friend S.W. the same day. Mother and S. were not
present. S.W. stated that mother and S. had been staying with
her for several months. In mother’s bedroom, the CSW observed
a pocketknife on a table and a kitchen knife on the floor, both of
which would be accessible to a child. The CSW also observed a
small bag containing a white substance.
      Another CSW visited the home the following day, January
26, 2018, and spoke with mother. Mother appeared to be sober

                               3
and there were no drugs or drug paraphernalia visible in the
home. Mother reported that she and father did not live together,
but sometimes they met so that he could visit with S. She denied
any domestic violence, driving while intoxicated, or any use of
drugs or alcohol. The CSW observed that S. appeared to be in
good health.
      Mother tested positive for cannabinoids on January 31,
2018. Due to the allegations of physical abuse, S. received a
medical evaluation on February 2, 2018. The results were
normal. Mother told the doctor that she had not received any
prenatal care because she was not aware she was pregnant until
about six and a half months into the pregnancy. Mother also
admitted using marijuana and methamphetamine during the
pregnancy. Mother appeared at the examination with scratches
on her face, which she said occurred when she got into an
altercation with several strangers after someone cut her off while
she was driving with S. in the car. In the doctor’s report, she
stated that based on mother’s “histories of police involvement and
violent altercations, as well as mother’s rapid and tangential
patterns of speech, I am concerned about mother’s mental health
at this time.”
      In March 2018, DCFS detained S., placed her with MGM,
and filed a dependency petition on behalf of S. under section 300,
subdivision (b)(1).3 In count b-1, the petition alleged that mother

3      Section 300 states, in relevant part, “A child who comes
within any of the following descriptions is within the jurisdiction
of the juvenile court which may adjudge that person to be a
dependent child of the court: . . . . [¶] (b)(1) The child has
suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer,

                                 4
had a history of abusing substances, including
methamphetamine, amphetamine, and marijuana, and was a
current abuser of methamphetamine and marijuana. The
petition further alleged that mother abused these substances
during her pregnancy and had been under the influence of
marijuana while caring for S. The petition also alleged that
father failed to protect S. because he knew or should have known
of mother’s substance abuse, but he allowed S. to live with
mother. Count b-2 alleged that father had a history of substance
abuse, including methamphetamine and marijuana, and that
mother knew of this history but failed to protect S.
       At the March 13, 2018 detention hearing, the court found a
prima facie case for jurisdiction over S. under section 300. The
court ordered S. to remain detained from mother and placed with
MGM. The court ordered family reunification services for mother
and monitored visitation three times per week.
II.    Jurisdiction/Disposition Report
       In its April 2018 jurisdiction/disposition report, DCFS
detailed an interview with MGM on April 13, 2018. She reported
that in the past, mother drank alcohol all day, to the point of
“near death.” MGM stated that during the time mother and S.
lived with her, mother was very aggressive and violent toward
MGM. Mother and father would smoke and use drugs in
mother’s room.
       MGM told DCFS that mother was visiting S. almost every
day, and mother was attentive and caring toward S. However, on
_______________________________________________________________

serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or
inability of his or her parent . . . to adequately supervise or
protect the child.”

                                                              5
April 25, 2018, there was an incident during a visit. Mother
found out that MGM was going to send S. to daycare when MGM
returned to work. Mother started to scream and threatened to
kill MGM. When maternal uncle tried to intervene, mother
threw his glasses across the room. S. was crying during the
incident. MGM told the CSW that she was scared of mother. As
a result of this incident, DCFS modified mother’s visits to take
place in a neutral location with a third-party monitor.
       Mother spoke with a dependency investigator in April 2018.
She stated that she had not used methamphetamine after S.’s
birth, but admitted using marijuana. She stated that she started
using methamphetamine and marijuana when she was 16 years
old and went to a rehabilitation center at age 18. Mother reported
that she drank alcohol “here and there,” but also that she would
drink every day after work.
       Mother’s drug test results were positive for cannabinoids on
January 31 and April 13. She failed to test as scheduled on the
remaining four test dates in March and April 2018. Mother
enrolled in an outpatient drug treatment program on May 17,
2018.
       In a last-minute information filed June 11, 2018, DCFS
reported that it had interviewed father. He stated that he was
not aware of mother using alcohol or drugs and denied using
drugs with mother. He had no concerns about mother when he
saw her caring for S. His last contact with mother was in
January 2018.
       In a last-minute information filed July 20, 2018, DCFS
provided a progress report from mother’s treatment program.
The report stated that mother continued to test positive for

                                6
substances, including marijuana, methamphetamine,
amphetamine, and alcohol. Mother was struggling with
managing her stress and anxiety related to the DCFS case and
her relationship with her family. She agreed to a referral for
mental health services.
III. Adjudication and disposition
       At the July 2018 adjudication hearing, the court amended
the petition to allege in count b-1 that mother engaged in
substance use, rather than abuse, and added alcohol to the list of
substances. The court struck the allegation that mother was
under the influence of marijuana while caring for S. The court
also struck the allegations from count b-2 regarding mother’s
failure to protect regarding father’s substance abuse. Mother
pled no contest to the petition.
       The court sustained the petition as amended, finding
jurisdiction over S. under section 300, subdivision (b). The court
ordered monitored visitation for mother and ordered DCFS to set
up a written visitation schedule, with discretion to liberalize
mother’s visits upon verification of negative drug tests. The court
continued the matter for disposition.
       In a last-minute information filed August 8, 2018, DCFS
reported that mother had agreed to comply with the case plan.
However, mother did not appear for any of her scheduled drug
tests in May or July 2018. In June, she failed to appear twice,
tested positive once for cannabinoids, and had one negative test
with a diluted specimen.
       Mother’s drug treatment program provided a letter dated
August 6, confirming that mother was enrolled in substance use
treatment, mental health services, and child development class.

                                7
The letter stated mother showed “limited compliance and limited
progress.” She had missed four of 21 sessions, and out of six
urinalysis tests, three were positive for THC, methamphetamine,
and amphetamine. Mother had not started mental health
services due to insurance issues, and she struggled with
participating in 12-step meetings. Her treatment team
recommended residential treatment.
       At the August 8, 2018 disposition hearing, the court found
by clear and convincing evidence that removal was necessary.
The court ordered family reunification services for mother, with
her case plan including weekly substance testing, a full drug and
alcohol rehabilitation program, a 12-step program, parenting
class, mental health counseling and a psychiatric evaluation,
individual counseling, and monitored visitation.
IV. Period of Review
       According to DCFS’s January 15, 2019 status review
report, S. was doing well with MGM. Mother continued to live
with her friend, S.W., and attend the outpatient rehabilitation
program. Mother had limited progress and attendance in the
program in November 2018. She visited S. twice per week and
visits were appropriate. Mother was allowed unmonitored visits
with S. starting December 21, 2018 after having negative weekly
drug tests for the past month. However, although mother had
negative test results from Pacific Toxicology from November 7 to
December 17, 2018, her weekly testing results from her
treatment facility during the same period were consistently
positive for substances. Mother also failed to appear for testing
on December 27, 2018. DCFS therefore recommended that
mother return to monitored visitation. Because mother was not

                               8
consistent in appearing for testing or maintaining sobriety, DCFS
recommended terminating services and implementing a
permanent plan for S.
       In a last-minute information filed February 4, 2019, the
counselor at mother’s treatment program reported that mother’s
compliance during the program had been “partial . . . due to her
inability to stop using drugs.” In January, mother frequently
missed sessions and tested positive for marijuana on January 7,
2019. Unless mother entered a residential treatment program by
February 1, the program would close her case.
       At the February 5, 2019 review hearing, the court found
mother had made partial progress toward alleviating or
mitigating the causes necessitating placement. The court
continued mother’s reunification services.
       DCFS filed a status review report on April 17, 2019,
reporting that mother had negative test results from January to
March, 2019 which was her longest period without using drugs,
but relapsed again in March. Mother continued to visit S.
consistently. But after she tested positive for amphetamine and
methamphetamine on March 7, 2019, her visits were returned to
monitored.
       Mother had stopped participating in the drug rehabilitation
program and was arrested on March 26, 2019 for driving under
the influence (DUI) of alcohol and drugs. Mother admitted the
DUI incident and stated that it was “so stupid.” She continued to
submit to weekly drug testing and participate in individual
therapy. Mother stated that she wanted to reunify with S. and
would enroll in another outpatient program. DCFS assessed S.’s
risk level if returned to mother as “very high” and again

                               9
recommended termination of services. Both MGM and maternal
aunt were willing to provide a permanent home for S. if mother
did not reunify with her.
      In a last-minute information filed June 25, 2019, DCFS
reported that mother had been in compliance with her weekly
drug tests, with negative test results for the last three months.
Mother had been attending an outpatient drug program since
April 16, 2019, as well as weekly Narcotics Anonymous meetings,
weekly therapy sessions, and she had been taking her
medications as prescribed. Mother continued to regularly visit S.
and visitation reports stated that S. appeared bonded to mother,
looking to her for reassurance. DCFS recommended that the
court continue mother’s family reunification services for three
months to allow DCFS to assess her compliance and progress.
      At the June 27, 2019 review hearing, the court found
mother in compliance with her case plan and continued
reunification services. The court again gave DCFS discretion to
liberalize mother’s visitation to unmonitored.
      DCFS reported in a September 5, 2019 status review report
that mother continued to participate in an outpatient drug
rehabilitation program, attend weekly therapy sessions, and take
medication for “depressive symptoms.” Mother was allowed
unmonitored visits from July 5 to August 22, 2019 after
consistently producing negative test results. However, the visits
were returned to monitored status when DCFS received two
“suspicious” urine test results in July and August, as well as two
no-show results. Mother visited S. about six hours every week.
She was unable to have visits in her home, due to safety concerns
with others living there. DCFS recommended terminating

                               10
services for mother.
       In a September 24, 2019 last-minute information, DCFS
reported that mother’s counselor at her treatment program could
not provide any update because mother had not consented to the
disclosure. Mother previously told the CSW that she was not
testing as required by the program. The CSW also reported that
mother had been inconsistent with the random drug tests. The
CSW explained to mother that an invalid test would be
considered suspicious, but mother had another test with an
invalid result on August 10, 2019.
       DCFS also reported that mother had limited
communication with MGM. MGM stated that she wanted to be
the permanent caretaker for S. because she could not trust
mother, who had shown a pattern of sobriety followed by relapse
since high school.
       In a second last-minute information filed the same day,
DCFS stated that mother was making “her best effort to comply
with the court orders,” and continued to attend the drug
rehabilitation program. However, mother was arrested on
August 29, 2019 for non-compliance with court orders related to
her DUI and released on September 6. Further, mother was
inconsistent in complying with drug testing. Mother failed to
appear for testing on September 17.
       At the September 25, 2019 review hearing, the court found
that mother’s progress had not been substantial and therefore
terminated her reunification services. The court ordered DCFS
to provide permanent placement services to S. and set the matter
for a permanency planning hearing.

                               11
V.     Permanency Planning and Section 388 Petition
       DCFS filed a section 366.26 report in January 2020,
reporting that S. continued to do well with MGM. She was
healthy and developmentally on target, except for a speech delay
for which she received weekly speech therapy. S. was happy,
well-adjusted, and closely bonded to MGM. MGM indicated that
due to her age, she preferred to pursue legal guardianship of S.,
with the hope that maternal aunt could adopt the child in the
future. MGM stated she had strong support from maternal aunt
and uncle in helping to raise S.
       Mother continued to have monitored visits with S. at least
twice per week, for three hours each visit, with no issues or
concerns reported. However, DCFS reported that despite
receiving extensive services from DCFS, including 18 months of
reunification services, mother “remains limited in her ability to
provide adequate, safe care and supervision for her child.” DCFS
recommended that the court appoint MGM as S.’s legal guardian
and terminate jurisdiction.
       On February 21, 2020, the court found by clear and
convincing evidence that it would be detrimental to return S. to
her parents’ custody and that legal guardianship was in her best
interests. The court ordered legal guardianship as the
permanent plan, appointing MGM as the guardian. Mother was
allowed continued monitored visitation for three hours, three
times per week. The court terminated jurisdiction over S.
       Over a year and a half later, on November 17, 2021, mother
filed a section 388 petition (form JV-180). She requested that the
court “reopen” the case and reinstate her reunification services
for six months. She did not list any changed circumstances.

                               12
Regarding why the requested action would be better for S.,
mother stated that she was in her tenth month of a 12-month
residential rehabilitation program and was a “new Christian
woman.” She explained that she had “done all this to become the
best mother I can for my daughter. . . . I am willing to do
anything to better myself to be the best role model/mother for
S[.]”
      In an attached letter, mother stated that since entering the
“Christian-based” residential rehabilitation program in February
2021, she had been “able to heal inside and out from traumas of
my past,” and “gained a new positive perspective on life.” She
explained that in the program she had learned how to identify
her triggers, developed coping skills, learned to apply conflict
resolution methods in anger management classes, and conformed
to the program’s “structured daily schedule.” Mother also
detailed what she had learned in her parenting classes and
stated that her goal was to raise S. in a safe, stable, and
permanent home. Mother listed the dates of her visits with S. in
2021. She also provided a letter from her program, confirming
that she had enrolled in February 2021 and was “successfully
meeting all of the requirements for growth.” Additionally, mother
included several letters from volunteers in the program, attesting
to mother’s progress, as well as completion certificates for anger
management and parenting courses.
      The court set the section 388 petition for hearing and
ordered DCFS to file a responding report. DCFS filed an interim
review report on January 5, 2022. In a December 2021 meeting
with the CSW at her residential rehabilitation program, mother
stated that she planned to remain in the program until May

                               13
2022, and that her time had been extended beyond the 12 months
due to a relapse in August 2021. Mother explained that she had
an overnight visit with MGM and S., and mother and MGM had a
disagreement over what S. was going to wear to school, resulting
in her relapse. Mother’s program did not require drug testing
and mother was not testing. The program also did not allow
participation in 12-step meetings, although it had a similar
program that met once a month.
       On December 27, 2021, the CSW met with S. at home with
MGM, noting that S. appeared well cared for and emotionally
well adjusted. MGM stated that during the overnight visit with
mother, mother did not want to leave her bedroom or engage with
S. or the adults. MGM stated that mother’s appearance
reminded her of the times that mother was under the influence.
Mother was not allowed to have visits at MGM’s home after that
incident. Mother continued to regularly have visits with S. at
mother’s residential program. MGM stated she did not think
mother was ready to take care of S.
       The CSW reported that mother had not completed her DUI
program and a bench warrant had been issued for her arrest.
DCFS concluded that mother was “on the correct path” in
working on her sobriety and learning to cope with stressors, but
she had not made the necessary changes for the court to grant
the section 388 petition.
       The court held a hearing regarding mother’s section 388
petition on January 18, 2022. Mother testified, acknowledging
her history of substance abuse and explaining the changes she
had made and what she had learned in her rehabilitation
program. She stated that she was not testing in the program but

                              14
was willing to do so if granted reunification. She also stated she
would request the ability to attend 12-step meetings remotely
while still in the program Mother discussed her August relapse,
stating that she felt guilty and immediately confessed, and had
not had any further relapses. She visited with S every weekend
and spoke with her by phone every other day. Mother testified
that her relationship with S was “fun and beautiful” and talked
about how they would play during visits. She also discussed her
plan if the court granted reunification once she competed her
program.
       During argument, mother’s counsel noted that mother
voluntarily sought inpatient treatment and had been consistently
participating for the past year. Mother continued to consistently
visit S. and “fills that parental role in her daughter’s life.” He
argued that mother “admits that she has a way to go before
getting S[.] back in her care full time, but that’s why she wants to
start the reunification process now so that she can start testing,
start looking for appropriate housing, and start having more
consistent visits and overnights all while showing that she can
handle the stressors of every day life without relapse.”
       S.’s counsel stated that when she saw mother’s petition, she
was “hopeful” that mother had finally turned things around.
However, she asked the court to deny the petition, arguing that it
was “really premature” given mother’s long history of substance
abuse and that mother had no negative test results supporting a
change of circumstances. She noted mother’s history of getting
close to reunifying and “then something ends up happening,” and
pointed to mother’s August relapse as a concern, particularly
where it was triggered by “a disagreement with [maternal]

                                15
grandmother over what the child should wear to school.” She
noted that it was “very clear that there was a bond between this
child and mother,” but that mother had not “sufficiently
addressed her substance abuse” to allow for reunification services
at that time. Counsel for DCFS agreed with the arguments by
S.’s counsel. She acknowledged that mother was “on the right
path,” but that it had taken her four years to enroll into the
residential treatment program, and that it concerned DCFS that
mother had recently relapsed over a “minor issue.” DCFS also
was concerned that mother was not currently testing or
participating in Narcotics Anonymous, and that her “sobriety at
this point is only self-reported.” She also pointed out that mother
had a warrant out for arrest from her DUI. She concluded that
“circumstances are changing and not changed,” and that the
request was not in S.’s best interest, as the child was “stable in
her current placement.”
       The court commended mother for her efforts, but told
mother that she was “somewhat fragile, and you need to get to a
place where you’re stronger or you’re able to repel these urges.
But I don’t see you as being there yet.” The court found that the
circumstances were changing, but not yet changed “to the extent
where you’re in a position to parent this child.”
       Turning to best interest, the court observed that S. had
lived with mother for a small percentage of her life and that
maternal grandmother’s home “is the only home that she has a
memory of.” The court continued, “faith-based programs have
their place, but they don’t provide the source of services and
feedback that courts need in order to support a change of
circumstances. They don’t provide testing there.” The court

                                16
concluded that “the evidence before me does not support . . .
approval of your petition to have reunification reinstated.” The
court advised mother that although she was “not there yet,” she
could file another petition in the future. The court therefore
denied mother’s petition.
       Mother timely appealed.
                           DISCUSSION
       Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in denying
her section 388 petition. She argues that she established a
change of circumstances justifying her request for reinstatement
of reunification services. She also argues that her bond with S.
established that further services would be in S.’s best interest.
We find no error.
       A.    Legal Principles
       After establishing a guardianship, the juvenile court may
dismiss its jurisdiction in recognition of the fact that the
guardianship “is a permanent plan for the child and there is no
need for ongoing scheduled court and social services supervision
of the placement.” (In re Priscilla D. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th
1207, 1216, citing §§ 11361, 11386, subd. (e).) However, the
juvenile court still maintains jurisdiction over the child as a ward
of the legal guardianship and can vacate its order dismissing its
dependency jurisdiction. (Ibid., citing §§ 366.3, subds. (a) & (b),
366.4.)
       Further, “[a] parent has the continuing right to petition the
[juvenile] court for a modification of any of its orders based upon
changed circumstances or new evidence pursuant to section 388.”
(In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 308–309.) A parent may
seek relief under section 388 even after the juvenile court has

                                17
terminated family reunification services. “After reunification
services have been terminated, it is presumed that continued out-
of-home care is in the child’s best interests. [Citation.] Section
388 allows a parent to rebut that presumption by demonstrating
changed circumstances that would warrant modification of a
prior court order.” (In re Alayah J. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 469,
478.)
       To obtain modification of an order under section 388, the
parent must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence,
both a change of circumstances or new evidence, and that the
proposed change is in the best interests of the child. (In re
Alayah J., supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 478; In re Mickel O. (2011)
197 Cal.App.4th 586, 615.) In evaluating a section 388 petition,
the juvenile court may consider factors such as “the seriousness
of the reason leading to the child’s removal, the reason the
problem was not resolved, the passage of time since the child’s
removal, the relative strength of the bonds with the child, the
nature of the change of circumstance, and the reason the change
was not made sooner.” (In re Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th
at p. 616; see also In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519,
530-532.) The analysis is a searching one; the court may consider
the entire factual and procedural history of the case. (In re
Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 616.) “In assessing the
best interests of the child, ‘a primary consideration . . . is the goal
of assuring stability and continuity.’” (Ibid.)
       “To support a section 388 petition, the change in
circumstances must be substantial.” (In re Ernesto R. (2014) 230
Cal.App.4th 219, 223.) Moreover, “[o]nce reunification services
are ordered terminated, the focus shifts [from reunification] to
the child’s need for permanency and stability,” and a

                                  18
presumption arises that “continued care [under the dependency
system] is in the best interest of the child.” (In re Marilyn H.,
supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 309–310.) After reunification services are
terminated, inquiry into a child’s best interests includes
consideration of his or her need for permanency and stability. (In
re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 526–527.)
       We review the juvenile court’s denial of a section 388
petition for abuse of discretion. (In re C.J.W. (2007) 157
Cal.App.4th 1075, 1081.)
       B.    Analysis
       Mother acknowledges that she “had not been able to perfect
her rehabilitation on her own,” but contends that her
participation in 10 months of a 12-month rehabilitation program,
along with her commitment to therapy and to regular visitation
with S., demonstrated sufficiently changed circumstances to
justify her request for renewed reunification services. We find no
abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s finding that mother had
demonstrated changing, rather than changed, circumstances. At
the time of her petition, mother had not yet completed her
residential treatment program. Rather, her time in the program
had been extended beyond the initial 12 months due to her recent
relapse. She had previously failed to complete several outpatient
programs while receiving 18 months of family reunification
services, but nevertheless rejected the suggestions by DCFS and
her program counselors that she enter a residential program.
She had a substance abuse problem that had resisted treatment
over several decades, and MGM described mother’s longstanding
pattern of periods of stability and sobriety followed by relapse.
Notably, mother's recent relapse occurred during her treatment

                                19
program and while on a visit with S. By mother’s own admission,
the relapse was triggered over a minor argument with MGM
regarding clothing for S. Moreover, although mother explained
that she had not been drug testing or attending 12-step meetings
due to the constraints of her program, the juvenile court was
entitled to consider the lack of these external controls as evidence
weighing against mother’s petition.
       “In 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, e.g., In re C.J.W.,
supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p 1081 [parents’ most recent efforts at
sobriety “were only three months old” and did not demonstrate
changed circumstances]; In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th
415, 423 [finding no changed circumstances where parent’s
“seven months of sobriety since his relapse in January, while
commendable, was nothing new]; In re Kimberly F., supra, 56
Cal.App.4th at p. 531, fn. 9 [“It is the nature of addiction that one
must be ‘clean’ for a much longer period than 120 days to show
real reform.”].) Here, mother has not demonstrated that her ten
months of rehabilitation, and only five months of sobriety,
showed materially changed circumstances, particularly in light of
her long history of substance abuse.
       We also find that it was well within the juvenile court’s
discretion to conclude that mother’s request for reinstatement of
reunification services was not in S.’s best interest. Mother cites
her undisputed bond with S. and argues that it was in the child’s
best interest not to disrupt that bond. While mother presented

                                 20
evidence of her relationship with S., the court was also entitled to
weigh S.’s interest in permanency and stability. At the time of
the hearing on mother’s petition, S. had lived out of mother’s
custody and with MGM for almost four years, since she was seven
months old. She was well-bonded to and comfortable with MGM;
as the court noted, MGM’s home was likely the only home S. had
ever known. MGM was committed to providing a permanent,
stable home for S., and had the support of her other adult
children.
       Mother, on the other hand, had not yet shown any ability to
offer stability to S., even after 18 months of reunification services
and over a year after dependency jurisdiction was terminated.
Where, as here, “‘custody continues over a significant period, the
child’s need for continuity and stability assumes an increasingly
important role. That need will often dictate the conclusion that
maintenance of the current arrangement would be in the best
interests of that child.’” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295,
317; In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 204.) The court
was not required to disrupt S.’s life at this late stage based on
mother’s belated claims here. (See In re C.J.W., supra, 157
Cal.App.4th at p. 1081 [“there was no showing whatsoever of how
the best interests of these young children would be served by
depriving them of a permanent, stable home in exchange for an
uncertain future”], citing In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at
p. 317.) As such, mother has not met her burden to show the
court abused its discretion in finding it would not be in S.’s best
interest to grant mother additional reunification services.

                                 21
                        DISPOSITION
     The order denying mother’s section 388 petition and
terminating her parental rights are affirmed.
  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                  COLLINS, ACTING P.J.

We concur:

MORI, J.

ZUKIN, J.

                           22