Court Opinion

ID: 9953244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-21 17:03:27.693824+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:45:46.925718
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/20/24 In re Z.R. CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    In re Z.R. et al., Persons Coming Under the
    Juvenile Court Law.

    FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF                                                              F086626
    SOCIAL SERVICES,
                                                                            (Super. Ct. Nos. 21CEJ300171-1,
             Plaintiff and Respondent,                                              21CEJ300171-2)

                    v.
                                                                                          OPINION
    R.L.,

             Defendant and Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
            APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Kimberly J.
Nystrom-Geist, Judge.
            Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
            Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Ashley N. McGuire, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*           Before Peña, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and DeSantos, J.
       Appellant (mother) is the mother of Z.R. and J.W. (collectively, the children) who
are the subject of a dependency case. Mother appeals the juvenile court’s order denying
her request for return of the children with family maintenance services, as well as
increased visitation. Mother argues the court abused its discretion by denying her request
because she showed changed circumstances and return of the children to her care was in
the children’s best interests.
       We affirm the order.
                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    A. Dependency Case and Detention
       The children came to the attention of the Fresno County Department of Social
Services (“the department”) in May 2021 when Z.R. was four years old and J.W. was
three years old.1 Fresno Police Officer Zachary Roberts contacted the department
because the children’s maternal aunt2 expressed concern about the children’s care with
mother. Maternal aunt told the assigned social worker mother was often overwhelmed or
angry with the children and when mother was too overwhelmed, she would yell at and hit
the children. Maternal aunt was afraid mother’s aggression toward the children was
increasing as mother was hitting them more frequently, and she worried mother might
end up killing the children. Z.R. told the responding social worker that mother punched
him in the stomach with a closed fist and then kicked his legs when he fell to the ground,
which was consistent with what Z.R. had disclosed to Roberts. Z.R. further disclosed
that mother yells and hits Z.R. and J.W. when she is angry. Another relative told Roberts
she had previously seen mother grab Z.R. by the feet, hold him upright as if mother was
changing his diaper and punch Z.R. in the back of the legs. Z.R. told the social worker

1      Z.R. and J.W. have different fathers. Neither father is involved in this appeal.
2       Mother and her sister share the same initials. For purposes of clarity, we use the
titles “mother” and “maternal aunt,” respectively.

                                             2.
that mother smokes marijuana inside and outside the house every day. Mother tested
positive for marijuana. She admitted using marijuana but denied alcohol or other drug
abuse. Mother reported suffering from seizures and blackouts and taking medication for
this condition. The children were placed with maternal aunt with mother’s consent.
       On May 12, 2021, the department filed a first amended dependency petition
pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code3 section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1). The
petition alleged serious physical harm to Z.R. and risk of serious physical harm to J.W.,
and failure to protect the children due to mother’s substance abuse and uncontrolled
medical condition. The petition specified that mother’s drug use and medical issues
contributed to her inability to provide a safe and stable home in that she exhibited anger
issues and used inappropriate corporal punishment on the children.
       At the detention hearing on May 12, 2021, the juvenile court found a prima facie
showing had been made that the children were described under section 300 and
continuance of the children in mother’s care was contrary to their welfare. The children
were detained and placed with maternal aunt. The court ordered supervised visits for
mother not less than twice per week.
       At a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing on October 12, 2021, the
juvenile court found true the allegations in the department’s dependency petition. The
court found clear and convincing evidence that mother’s continued care of the children
posed a substantial danger to the children’s physical health and emotional well-being.
The children were removed from mother and placed with maternal aunt. Reunification
services were ordered for mother.
    B. The Department’s Section 388 Petition and Section 366.26 Report
       On March 28, 2022, the department filed a section 388 petition requesting
mother’s reunification services be terminated. The department alleged mother had not

3      All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                             3.
participated in the domestic violence assessment, refused to undergo drug testing, and
was suspended from the visitation center for reported violence toward the staff.
       On July 7, 2022, the department withdrew its section 388 petition and requested a
trial date for a combined six-month, 12-month and 18-month review of dependency
status. In its combined six-month and 12-month status review report issued on
September 9, 2022, the department again recommended reunification services for mother
be terminated and a permanent plan be established for the children. The children
continued to be placed with maternal aunt, who was willing to adopt them if they could
not be returned to mother. Mother was initially dropped from her nurturing parenting
program, but then completed the 15-week course with perfect attendance on April 6,
2022. Mother did not initially make herself available for the mental health assessment,
but subsequently completed the assessment and did not meet medical necessity for
individual therapy and case management. Mother had multiple positive drug tests for
marijuana and multiple “no-shows” for drug testing. Mother twice tested positive for
alcohol. On August 10, 2022, mother told the department she had not used marijuana in
two months, but her test results showed new or continued use. Mother completed her
domestic violence assessment and was recommended a 52-week child abuse intervention
program. Mother enrolled in the recommended program but asserted the
recommendation was “ ‘unnecessary because I did not abuse my children.’ ” As of
August 17, 2022, mother had completed 12 sessions of the program with no absences.
       Mother continued to have supervised visitation with the children, during which she
was attentive and engaged with them. Mother practiced ABCs and spelling, ate snacks,
and hugged and kissed the children during these visits. Mother struggled with the
children not listening or fighting and provided verbal redirection. The children appeared
happy during transitions for visits and Z.R. reported he wanted to continue visiting with
mother.

                                            4.
       The department acknowledged mother’s engagement in the child abuse
intervention program but remained concerned about mother’s inability to address conflict
resolution appropriately. There were multiple reported occasions of mother being
verbally aggressive toward service provider staff, the previous social worker, and
visitation staff. One service provider refused services to mother due to the verbal abuse.
Mother reportedly threw a water bottle at the visitation staff and was suspended from the
visitation center for endangering the staff.
       On October 27, 2022, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification
services. The court found mother had made minimal progress towards alleviating and
mitigating the cause of the children’s removal. Mother’s visitation was reduced to
two times per month. The court ordered a selection and implementation hearing pursuant
to section 366.26.
       On February 22, 2023, the department issued its section 366.26 report. The
department continued to recommend terminating mother’s parental rights. Mother was
not consistently visiting the children as she attended many visits but also cancelled many
visits. Mother was observed to be attentive and affectionate with the children during
supervised visits but was inconsistent in following through on redirecting and
disciplining them at times. The children did not look to mother for their needs. The
children greeted their mother with hugs and were not distressed at the end of visits. Z.R.
met medical necessity for mental health treatment due to his symptoms of emotional
reactivity, sibling aggression, oppositional behavior, sadness, irritability, and worry, but
had improved behaviorally since being placed with maternal aunt. J.W.’s behavioral
issues, such as tantrums, aggression, and hoarding food, had also “improved greatly since
placement.” The children were “thriving” in their placement with maternal aunt. They
were observed to be happy and comfortable in maternal aunt’s presence and Z.R. wanted
to remain as placed. The children were considered “generally adoptable” and the
department recommended adoption of the children by maternal aunt.

                                               5.
       Mother was not considered to have made significant progress in resolving the
problems that led to the children’s removal. Specifically, on January 9 and January 12,
2023, mother denied the prior physical abuse of Z.R. that was previously found true by
the juvenile court at the disposition hearing. On January 9, 2023, mother reported she
was involved in substance abuse outpatient treatment and was testing clean for that
program. However, on the same date, mother tested positive due to an abnormal
creatinine level, indicating she was flushing her system and subsequently “no-showed”
for testing on February 7 and February 8, 2023.
    C. Combined Hearings Pursuant to Sections 388 and 366.26
       On May 5, 2023, mother filed her first section 388 petition. Mother requested the
section 366.26 hearing be vacated and an additional six months of reunification services
be ordered for her. Mother also requested visitation with the children one time per week
for one hour with discretion for extended visits with five days’ notice. Mother asserted
the children were bonded with her and had a new sibling to bond with.4 She further
asserted she had learned proper discipline methods and how to stay calm in stressful
situations. Mother reported understanding that hitting children has devastating negative
effects on the children. Mother submitted a memorandum of points and authorities and
documentation in support of her petition.
       On May 9, 2023, the juvenile court initially denied mother’s section 388 petition
and proceeded with the section 366.26 hearing. After hearing part of mother’s testimony,
however, the court reconsidered its original denial because mother’s testimony revealed
new evidence that was undisclosed in her petition or declaration. The court found mother
had made a sufficient showing that the requested change may be in the children’s best

4      Mother gave birth to the children’s half sibling, S.O., in December 2022.

                                            6.
interests and decided to hold a contested hearing regarding mother’s petition combined
with the section 366.26 hearing.5
       The current social worker, who had been assigned to the children’s case since
November 2022, testified that the visits he supervised between mother and the children
“went really well.” The social worker confirmed the boys would say they wanted to visit
with mother when asked.
       Mother testified she missed some visits because the social worker sometimes
would not return her calls. Mother reported two unsupervised visits with the children in
February and March 2023. Maternal aunt dropped the boys off at mother’s house both
times and they spent the weekend with mother. Mother and the children took walks,
played games, went to the park, watched movies, had pizza, and cooked together.
       Mother stopped using marijuana because her medication was changed and worked
a lot better. She started testing negative for marijuana in September 2022. Mother
missed drug testing on February 7 and February 8, 2023, because she was attending her
nephew’s funeral. Mother had been working for a year and a half. She confirmed
undergoing a mental health assessment and there was no recommendation for mental
health services. Mother was in a second parenting class.
       Mother was asked about the reported physical abuse of Z.R. On that day, mother
started spanking Z.R. on his buttocks and other family members present tried to take Z.R.
from mother. This turned into a “big fight” in the living room. Mother acknowledged
she punched Z.R. and then kicked him when he fell. During cross-examination, mother
testified she did not punch or kick Z.R. intentionally. She understood the family reported
something different during that incident, but she said they were not being truthful.
Mother denied cursing or throwing a water bottle at the visitation staff.

5     The summarized testimony from the social worker and mother includes testimony
from both before and after the juvenile court decided to hold a contested hearing.

                                             7.
       On recall, the social worker testified he did not find mother to be an angry person
as reported to him by the previous social worker. The social worker said mother was “in
the process of changing.” He reported mother has “never” discussed her responsibility
for abusing Z.R. and was “still adamant” the allegations were untrue. The social worker
was afraid mother’s inability to accept responsibility posed a risk “of things happening
again with the discipline of the children.” Mother did not report to the social worker the
unsupervised overnight visits. He still recommended mother’s parental rights be
terminated and the children freed for adoption.
       The hearing was continued. Prior to the next hearing date, mother filed an
amended section 388 petition on June 26, 2023, requesting a stay of the section 366.26
hearing and family maintenance services, or in the alternative, six months of reunification
services.
       The department issued an addendum report on June 30, 2023, recommending
adoption as the most appropriate permanent plan for the children and mother’s parental
rights be terminated. Maternal aunt reported that visits between the children and mother
were going well. Maternal aunt told the social worker that child protective services
(CPS) came out to investigate her house based on mother’s allegations that maternal aunt
had a gun and drugs in her house. When the social worker spoke to mother about the
CPS referral on the phone on April 7, 2023, he told mother the allegations appear to be
unfounded. Mother said to the social worker during this call, “ ‘You lied about me
paying attention to my children.’ ” The social worker responded there were times mother
struggled to be attentive to the children. Mother responded, “get a life … you can tell
them what the f[***] I said,” and hung up. The department’s report further stated mother
had missed three dental appointments for J.W. in June 2023. Mother’s presence was
required at these appointments because J.W.’s dental treatment could not be completed
without her consent. During a monthly contact with the children on June 14, 2023, both
children reported to the social worker that they wanted to live with mother.

                                            8.
       The juvenile court held further hearings on July 3, 2023, and July 6, 2023, during
which the social worker, maternal aunt, and mother provided testimony.
       The social worker investigated the unsupervised visits with mother. Maternal aunt
told the social worker she stayed overnight at mother’s house with the children. The
social worker still recommended adoption as the appropriate plan for the children. He
was aware mother completed all her services for her other dependency case regarding
S.O.6 He had spoken with the social worker for that case who notified him that S.O.’s
case was being closed due to mother’s progress. When asked why the social worker’s
recommendation for the children was different if S.O.’s case was closed, he said S.O.’s
case was different, and the children had been through different circumstances with
mother.
       Maternal aunt testified there was one overnight visit with mother where she and
the children spent the night together at mother’s house. Maternal aunt and the children
slept on a mattress in the living room while mother slept in the bedroom with S.O. The
children told maternal aunt they do not want to stay with mother and want to stay in
maternal aunt’s house. Maternal aunt admitted she had missed taking the children to
visits with mother, but said it was always because either the children were sick, or she
could not get off work in time. During a visit, the children gave mother hugs and kisses,
and told mother they love her, but did not listen to mother. Maternal aunt did not notice
any inappropriate discipline by mother during the visits.
       Mother testified she would be able to control her anger if the children were
returned to her care. She understood it was “inappropriate and intolerable” for there to be
any type of abuse toward the children. Mother no longer smoked marijuana and had not
for almost a year and one month. She had clothing and a room in her house for the

6     S.O. was the subject of a separate dependency case involving mother, the details of
which are discussed as relevant to and reflected in the record for the children’s case.

                                             9.
children. Mother denied that maternal aunt had supervised any visits in her house. She
said maternal aunt dropped the children off at her house for those weekends and left them
with mother. Mother submitted photos of her and the children during those visits, some
of which were reportedly taken after 1:00 a.m.
   D. The Juvenile Court’s Rulings
       With respect to mother’s section 388 petition, the juvenile court concluded mother
had not met her burden of showing a change in circumstances by a preponderance of the
evidence. As evidence in favor of changed circumstances, the court acknowledged
mother had been testing clean and been sober for a year. The court further recognized
mother’s dependency case with S.O. was dismissed and S.O. remained in mother’s care.
Mother had also completed parenting classes and indicated her seizures were under
control.
       The juvenile court found, however, that mother testified to knowingly violating a
court order by having unsupervised contact with the children. Mother knowingly
withheld that information from the department and did not reveal it until her testimony.
The court further found that in violating that order, mother kept the children awake into
the middle of the night. The court found that mother completed less than half of her child
abuse intervention program even viewing the evidence in “the most favorable way
possible” to mother.
       “[S]ignificantly,” the juvenile court found that mother “has spent the entire case
saying that nothing happened” regarding the abusive incident with Z.R. The court stated
it was “not until … this point that [mother] begins to take some level of responsibility.”
Mother “only just now remembered that [Z.R.] was in the midst of a family brawl.” The
court further found that “family brawl is not an accurate descriptor of what [mother]
testified to and what was set forth in her declaration. In fact, what is most significant to
the [c]ourt is [Z.R.] was about four … at the time according to the reports, and that
four relatives had tojump in to save him from [mother]. And yet [mother] indicates she

                                             10.
just finally understood that that’s whathappened.” The court opined this was “clearly not
a spontaneous memory.”
       The juvenile court concluded it would be dangerous for the children to be returned
to mother’s care. The court concluded the children “are in completely different
circumstances than their sister” because there is no evidence mother had physically
abused S.O. The court discussed J.W.’s three dental appointments mother missed in
June 2023 and noted this “was not a minor appointment for [J.W.]. This was dental
surgery.” The court went on to conclude there was no showing the children would be
safe or cared for by mother notwithstanding her ability to care for S.O.
       The juvenile court also denied mother’s alternative request for six more months of
reunification services. The children had been out of their mother’s care for two years and
there was “no dispute they are doing better at home and better at school.” The court
found mother had not demonstrated that providing her with six more months of services
would be in the children’s best interests. The court concluded it was unclear what did or
did not happen at certain visits with mother, but opined maternal aunt was more
believable than mother. The court acknowledged that while some circumstances had
changed significantly, mother had been purposely evasive with the department, made
unfounded allegations against maternal aunt, and withheld information from the
department. Mother had not completed her child abuse intervention program and
subjected the children to physical abuse.
       Turning to the section 366.26 petition, the juvenile court found that while the
children were adoptable, mother had maintained regular visitation and the children would
benefit from a continued relationship with her. The court therefore found mother had
demonstrated a beneficial parent-child relationship as argued by mother’s counsel and
minors’ counsel as well. Minors’ counsel requested the court offer an additional
six months of reunification services to mother.

                                            11.
       The juvenile court concluded it was premature to order further reunification
services under section 366.3, subdivision (f) and opined mother could raise the issue at
the next hearing. Continued placement of the children was deemed necessary, and their
current placement with maternal aunt was considered appropriate. Although maternal
aunt was unwilling to provide legal guardianship of the children, the court ordered the
children to remain in maternal aunt’s house until a suitable family member could provide
placement. The court ordered mother to have supervised visits a minimum of twice per
month for two hours.
       Mother timely appealed the court’s denial of her section 388 petition.
                                       DISCUSSION
 I.    Applicable Legal Principles and Standard of Review
       Section 388 permits a parent to petition to change, modify, or set aside any prior
order of the juvenile court. (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The petitioning parent bears the burden
of proving: (1) there are changed circumstances or new evidence, and (2) the proposed
change is in the child’s best interest. (Ibid.; In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317
(Stephanie M.).) This burden must generally be met by a preponderance of the evidence.
(Stephanie M., at p. 317; In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415; Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 5.570(h)(1)(D).)
       “After the termination of reunification services, the parents’ interest in the care,
custody and companionship of the child are no longer paramount. Rather, at this point
‘the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability’ [citation], and in
fact, there is a rebuttable presumption that continued foster care is in the best interests of
the child.” (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.) Section 388 provides an “ ‘escape
mechanism’ ” for a parent to show reformation after reunification services have been
terminated but before parental rights have been terminated. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5
Cal.4th 295, 309.)
       “The change in circumstances must relate to the purpose of the order and be such

                                              12.
that the modification of the prior order is appropriate. [Citation.] In other words, the
problem that initially brought the child within the dependency system must be removed
or ameliorated. [Citations.] The change in circumstances or new evidence must be of
such significant nature that it requires a setting aside or modification of the challenged
order.” (In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 612.) “A petition which alleges merely
changing circumstances and would mean delaying the selection of a permanent home for
a child to see if a parent, who has repeatedly failed to reunify with the child, might be
able to reunify at some future point, does not promote stability for the child or the child’s
best interests.” (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47, disapproved on another
ground by In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 636, fn. 5.)
       In determining whether modification of the order is in the child’s best interest,
courts have considered the following nonexhaustive factors: “(1) the seriousness of the
problem which led to the dependency, and the reason for any continuation of that
problem; (2) the strength of relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent
and caretakers; and (3) the degree to which the problem may be easily removed or
ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has been.” (In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56
Cal.App.4th 519, 532.)
       We review the denial of a section 388 petition for an abuse of discretion.
(Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318.) “The denial of a section 388 motion rarely
merits reversal as an abuse of discretion.” (In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681,
685–686.)
II.    Analysis
       Mother argues she showed she had sufficiently changed to warrant granting her
request for returned custody of the children with family maintenance services.
Specifically, mother argues she provided evidence she had been sober for a year,
completed her parenting program, brought her seizures under control, had S.O. returned

                                             13.
to her care, and “affirmatively testified to taking responsibility and accountability” for
abusing Z.R.
       The juvenile court acknowledged the evidence mother had been testing clean and
been sober for a year, her dependency case with S.O. was dismissed and that S.O.
remained in mother’s care, mother had completed parenting classes, and her seizures
were under control. But “significantly” for the court was mother’s lack of progress in
acknowledging and accepting responsibility for physically abusing Z.R. Mother long
resisted admitting she had physically abused Z.R. Mother initially claimed a child abuse
intervention program was “ ‘unnecessary because [she] did not abuse [her] children.’ ”
Mother eventually enrolled in the program and completed 16 sessions. After
reunification services were terminated, mother continued child abuse intervention classes
with another provider but had not completed that program. Mother was still denying she
physically abused Z.R. as of January 2023 and did not accept responsibility for the abuse
until her first section 388 petition in May 2023. When asked about the abusive incident
during the combined hearings, mother said she started spanking Z.R. and multiple
relatives started grabbing Z.R. from mother to stop her. Mother confirmed she punched
Z.R. and kicked him when he fell but denied doing so intentionally. She said Z.R. was
punched and kicked by accident as part of the alleged “family brawl.” Mother’s belated
acceptance of responsibility at best demonstrated a qualified ownership of how Z.R. was
abused and the court was rightfully concerned about how late in the proceedings this
memory resurfaced. Mother did not acknowledge that even if her version of events was
credited, mother’s spanking of Z.R. was ostensibly alarming enough that several others
present felt compelled to intervene. “One cannot correct a problem one fails to
acknowledge.” (In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197.)
       Mother’s assertion there was no evidence she continued to struggle with how to
deal with her frustration or anger is belied by the record. During her call with the social
worker in April 2023, mother accused the social worker of lying about her paying

                                             14.
attention to the children. She later during this call said, “get a life … you can tell them
what the f[***] I said,” and hung up. Recognizing emotions can run high in dependency
cases, this behavior does not evince mother’s claimed ability to control her anger.
       Mother predominantly argues the department’s return of S.O. to her care and
dismissal of that dependency case show there was a substantial change in circumstances.
Mother contends it is “illogical” to conclude an infant is safe with her, but her older
children would not be. The court concluded the children were “in completely different
circumstances than their sister” because there was no evidence mother had physically
abused S.O. In contrast, there was “significant evidence that [mother] was, for a very
long period of time, physically abusive of the [children].” The children have a different
history with mother than S.O. S.O.’s return to mother’s custody was relevant and
considered by the court, but mother cites no authority for the implied assertion that the
return of one child in a separate case is dispositive in determining whether she showed
changed circumstances regarding the reasons the children were removed from her
custody.
       Mother argues this case is similar to In re J.M. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 833. In
J.M., although the mother had resolved the domestic violence underlying the initial
dependency petition, the juvenile court denied her section 388 petition primarily due to
concerns about whether the mother was capable of caring for a child with special needs
while working full time at night. (Id. at pp. 844–845.) The court of appeal concluded the
juvenile court abused its discretion because the mother “presented ample evidence that
she had addressed the sole basis for juvenile court jurisdiction—domestic violence—as
well as every other concern cited by the court in its order terminating reunification
services.” (Id. at p. 846.) J.M. is factually distinguishable because, as mother concedes,
that case involved domestic violence against the parent, not physical abuse of the child,
as occurred here. Additionally, there is no indication the court here improperly
considered circumstances unrelated to the basis for the court’s jurisdiction as the court

                                             15.
did in J.M. The court properly considered whether mother showed changed
circumstances regarding the reasons the children were detained—specifically, mother’s
physical abuse, substance abuse, and uncontrolled medical condition.
       While mother’s efforts to address the issues that led to the children’s removal are
commendable, the evidence supports changing rather than changed circumstances. The
evidence does not show mother had sufficiently ameliorated the risk of physical abuse to
the children. On this record, the court reasonably concluded mother did not show a
sufficient change in circumstances warranting modification of the prior order.
       Even if mother had shown sufficiently changed circumstances, the court
reasonably denied mother’s request because she did not show returning the children to
her custody was in their best interests. While mother acknowledges the factors in
determining what is in a child’s best interest vary according to each child’s needs and
circumstances, she continues to argue it was illogical for the court to conclude the
children’s circumstances were not comparable to S.O.’s circumstances. (In re Heather P.
(1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 886, 892 [“the specific factors a court must consider vary with
each case” in determining the best interest of a child].) The fact that S.O. was placed
with mother does not compel a finding return of the children was in their best interests.
(See e.g., In re Jacob P. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 819 [the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in finding it was not in one twin’s best interest to return to the mother although
the other twin was placed with her].) The court aptly concluded the children were in
completely different circumstances to S.O. because there was no evidence mother had
abused S.O., but there was significant evidence mother was physically abusive to the
children for a long period of time.
       The record raises serious doubts as to whether mother could provide for the needs
of the children in addition to her infant daughter. Mother missed three dental
appointments for J.W. in June 2023, one of which she missed because she overslept due
to a “tough night” with S.O. Before the children were removed from mother, mother

                                             16.
reportedly would yell and hit the children when she became too overwhelmed by them.
Mother’s ongoing struggle controlling her anger and history of resorting to physical
abuse when overwhelmed by the children posed an unacceptable risk of further physical
abuse if she was charged with caring for three children. The juvenile court reasonably
concluded that risk of physical abuse to the children if returned to mother’s custody
would not be in their best interests.
       While mother was affectionate and engaged with the children during visits, mother
never progressed beyond supervised visits, and the unsupervised (and unauthorized)
visits in February and March 2023 were hardly indicative of responsible parenting.
Despite the children’s behavioral issues, mother kept them both up until late into the
night during these unauthorized visits. The children had been out of mother’s care for
two years and there is “no dispute” they were doing better at home and at school in their
placement with maternal aunt.
       Mother critiques maternal aunt and argues it is in the best interests of the children
to return to her custody rather than “languishing in foster care.” Mother ignores the shift
in focus after reunification services have been terminated is on permanency and stability
for the children, and the rebuttable presumption that continued foster care is in the best
interest of the child. (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.) The juvenile court’s
order to continue the children in foster care was made pursuant to section 366.26, after
the court had already determined returning the children to mother was not in their best
interests. A “section 366.26 hearing is decidedly not a contest of who would be the better
custodial caregiver.” (In re Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 634.) Mother’s critiques of
maternal aunt are therefore misplaced. To the extent mother argues the court’s finding
the parental-benefit exception applied is inconsistent with denying her section 388
petition, the parental-benefit exception “applies in situations where a child cannot be in a
parent’s custody but where severing the child’s relationship with the parent, even when
balanced against the benefits of a new adoptive home, would be harmful for the child.”

                                             17.
(Id. at p. 630, italics added; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Implicit in selection of a
permanent plan under section 366.26 is that reunification of the family is not possible
because reunification services have been terminated and the problems that led to the
court’s jurisdiction are assumed unresolved. (Caden C., at p. 637 [“when the court holds
a section 366.26 hearing, it all but presupposes that the parent has not been successful in
maintaining the reunification plan meant to address the problems leading to
dependency”].) Thus, the question in determining whether to terminate parental rights
and select a permanent plan for the child “is decidedly not whether the parent may
resume custody of the child.” (Id. at p. 630.) Here, at the point when the court found the
parental-benefit exception applied to mother, there was no question of returning the
children to her regardless of the parental-benefit exception’s application. (Id. at p. 634
[“Nothing that happens at the section 366.26 hearing allows the child to return to live
with the parent.”].) There is no inconsistency in the court’s findings that modifying the
court’s prior order was not in the children’s best interests but terminating mother’s
parental rights would be detrimental to the children. (Id. at p. 643 [the parental-benefit
“exception preserves the child’s right to the relationship even when the child cannot
safely live with that parent”].)
       Mother makes additional contentions regarding the juvenile court’s order for
visitation two times per month for two hours after the court initially stated it would order
visitation a minimum of once per week. Because the court denied mother’s request to
modify the prior order, the court was entitled to maintain mother’s visitation in a manner
consistent with that order. Considering mother’s violation of court orders regarding
unsupervised visits and conduct during supervised visits, the court did not abuse its
discretion in denying her request for increased visitation with the children. (See In re
Christopher H. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1008–1010 [restrictions on parental
visitation are proper if they are consistent with the child’s best interest].)

                                              18.
                         DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.

                             19.