Court Opinion

ID: 9946960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-01 20:02:56.115424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:43.935427
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/1/24 In re Connor J. CA2/1
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

 In re CONNOR J. et al.,                                      B329833
 Persons Coming Under
 Juvenile Court Law.                                          (Los Angeles County
                                                              Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP05142)

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY
 SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 ERICA G.

           Defendant and
           Appellant.

     APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay III, Judge. Affirmed.
      Katie Curtis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
               __________________________________

       In the proceedings below, after appellant mother Erica G.
failed to reunify with her son Connor after being provided more
than two years of reunification services, the juvenile court
terminated reunification services and set a hearing under
Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 The court found
that Connor could not be released to Mother because, due to his
extreme behavior, Mother lacked the ability to keep him safe.
       Four months later, Mother filed a petition under section
388 asking for reunification services to be reinstated, for the
section 366.26 hearing to be taken off-calendar, and for a hearing
to be held to determine whether Connor could safely be returned
to her. The court summarily denied the petition, finding it did
not “state new evidence or a change of circumstances.”
       On appeal, Mother contends the court erred in summarily
denying her petition because she submitted evidence that she
was observed “utiliz[ing] safe play” with Connor, had shown
accountability for her “previous shortcomings,” had “gained
insight” into her role in keeping Connor safe, and had expressed
commitment to “a life of learning” in order to best meet Connor’s
needs. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in

      1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code.

                                2
determining that Mother failed to demonstrate a substantial
change in circumstances, and therefore affirm.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

      A.     DCFS Files a Petition
       In September 2020, firefighters summoned to the family
home for a medical emergency pertaining to the maternal
grandmother reported to the police that “two young minors were
being kept in a cage in the kitchen.” Police officers responded
and found the home to be “extremely dirty,” “disgusting,” and
“dangerous.” After a children’s social worker (CSW) arrived, a
police officer clarified that the “cage” was actually “a jail door
blocking the kitchen.” One child, Connor (born September 2015),
was kept behind the door, and he had “free range of the kitchen
that also connects to another room.” The other child, Kristopher
(born December 2012), was permitted to “roam around the house
wherever he wants.” Another police officer reported that the
maternal uncle, who also lived at the house, had stated the metal
door was built two years ago “because Connor would run out of
the home.” The uncle explained that Connor had been behind the
metal door since he was three years old, and “stays there ‘from
morning to [s]undown.’ ” Mother told the police that Connor was
kept behind the metal door for his own safety, saying that her
plan was to wean him off it, and expressing her hope that he
would “grow out of it.”
       The CSW assessed the home, describing it as “in deplorable
living condition” because it was “filthy, disorganized and

      2 We limit our summary to the facts and procedural history

relevant to the issues appellant raises on appeal.

                                 3
extremely cluttered.” The floors were “dirty and stained with a
brown sticky residue.” In the enclosed kitchen area where
Connor was kept, there was “a broken table with broken legs, an
electrical outlet with exposed wires and jagged glass on a broken
window.” There was also writing all over the wall. The kitchen
was connected to a living room and a bathroom and the area had
a couch and television set. While there was less clutter in this
area, “the walls, the floors and the one bathroom in this area
were extremely dirty.”
       Under questioning by the CSW, Mother explained that she
lived in the home with the maternal grandparents and the
maternal uncle. Besides taking care of the children, Mother also
cared for the maternal grandmother, who was disabled and had
difficulty moving around the house. Mother claimed that she
tried to clean the home as much as possible, but was not
permitted to throw away most of the things in the home, because
they belonged to the maternal grandmother. Regarding the
broken table in the kitchen area, Mother stated that Connor had
broken the table a few months ago, and that he had destroyed
many other things in the home. While the CSW was present,
Connor threw food at her several times, spit out carrots, and
spilled water on the floor. Mother stated the bars keeping
Connor in the kitchen area were installed a few years ago, after
Connor had run out of the house and into the street; Mother
asserted that Connor lacked a sense of danger. Mother added
that the bars were also there to separate Connor and Kristopher,
who fought a lot.
       Connor was taken to a medical center for an evaluation.
He presented with poor hygiene, wearing wet shorts and a pull-
ups diaper wet with urine. When the CSW changed his pull-ups,

                                4
she noted dry feces around his anus. Connor was “extremely
hyperactive” and took Adderall twice daily. While at the medical
center, he “ran around uncontrollably,” “got on top of chairs [and]
tables,” “tried to open all doors within his reach,” “threw books
and food on the floor,” and “got into [a] physical altercation with
his older sibling.” Connor did not follow directions and was
uncooperative. He was transported to the emergency room and
placed on a 72-hour hold. However, the hospital discharged him
the next day and he was transported to shelter care, pending
placement with a foster family.
       The next day, the CSW received text messages from the
maternal uncle, stating that he was being thrown out of the home
because Mother claimed he “called the police on her.” The uncle
informed the CSW that Mother typically “yells and screams [at]
those kids from the morning till night” and that rather than take
care of them, she was “online with some boys or whatever.” He
opined that Mother was “not mentally capable of taking care of
those kids” and the children “should not be with her.”
       DCFS filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1)
and (j), on behalf of both children. Counts b-1 and j-1 identically
alleged that, for three years, Mother endangered the children by
keeping Connor behind a locked door made of metal bars for
extended periods of time, in an area that contained a broken
table, an electrical outlet with exposed wiring, and jagged glass
from a broken window. Count b-2 alleged that the children’s
home was in a “filthy, unsanitary and unsafe, hazardous
condition,” including a “brown sticky residue and feces
throughout the home.” Additionally, the children were filthy and
appeared not to have bathed for days; Connor had dried feces in

                                5
his anus and a soiled diaper. The court ordered both children
detained from Mother.

      B.     The Court Removes the Children and Orders
             Reunification Services
       In an interview with a dependency investigator (DI),
Kristopher reported that Mother placed Connor in the kitchen
area after he awoke because Connor did not listen and would run
into the street. Connor confirmed Kristopher’s account. Connor
was frequently distracted during the DI’s interview and the DI
observed that “sometimes Connor misbehaves to get a reaction
out of the caregiver or adults in the home.”
       Mother reported that she was often overwhelmed caring for
the children and the maternal grandmother. She reiterated that
Connor was kept in the kitchen area because otherwise “he would
constantly destroy things, hit and fight with his brother, draw all
over the walls, and would leave through the front door into the
street.” Mother told the DI that Connor had been diagnosed with
ADHD and ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder) and had been
taking medication since he was four. Mother said she was willing
to do whatever was necessary to have the children reunified with
her.
       A home inspection revealed that while there had been some
improvements—the feces and sticky residue appeared to have
been cleaned up—the floors were still dirty and the house
“remained in a somewhat hoarder type condition.” In the
bedroom where Mother and the children slept, at the end of the
bed, there were “a pair of shoes, [a] toy metal trumpet, and a pile
of dry dog poop.”
       At the October 2020 jurisdiction hearing, Mother entered a
plea of no contest to an amended count b-1, which alleged that,

                                6
without proper training, Mother had a limited ability to provide
appropriate care and supervision for Connor due to his
behavioral issues, including diagnoses of ADHD and ODD, which
endangered both children. The court dismissed the remaining
counts. Turning to disposition, the court removed both children
from Mother. Mother was ordered to take a parenting class for
children with special needs as well as to undergo individual
counseling.

     C.      Six-Month Review Hearing
       In an April 2021 status report, DCFS noted that, mostly
due to behavioral issues, Connor had been moved several times,
and was now in his sixth foster home. DCFS reported that
Connor was “finally stabilized in the home of [his] current
caregiver” and was “showing great progress with his behavior.”
Kristopher was on his third foster home.
       Mother completed her parenting classes. When asked what
she had learned, she responded that time-outs needed to take
place in an area without distraction and have a duration
commensurate with the child’s age, that she should tell the
children she loved them, and that she should use positive
reinforcement. A CSW observed that it did not appear Mother
gained “any new skills or insight as to how to work with her
children that do have special needs.”
       Additionally, Mother was “inconsistent” with statements
made to the CSW and to caregivers. For example, Kristopher
had informed a CSW that Mother had told him his father tried to
kill him. When the CSW asked Mother about this allegation, she
denied it. But when a caregiver was monitoring a phone call
between Mother and Kristopher and Kristopher asked about this
statement, “[M]other would quickly change the subject but would

                               7
not deny she had disclosed said information to the child.” Mother
stated that the children enjoyed watching the television show
Supernatural. When told the show was inappropriate for the
children’s ages, Mother stated the boys never watched it. Mother
was seen by Connor’s Intensive Field Capable Clinical Services
team leaving the home of one of Connor’s caregivers but, when
asked about this, claimed she would never go to the caregiver’s
home. Finally, during a visit with Kristopher’s newest caregiver,
Mother stated that Connor’s caregiver would just drop him off for
visits, and suggested that Kristopher’s new caregiver do the
same. When the CSW confronted her about this statement, she
admitted it was a lie. When the CSW spoke with Connor’s
caregiver, that caregiver reported that Mother had told her the
same thing about Kristopher’s caregiver.
       Mother visited with both children. In the one visit
monitored by a CSW, Mother was observed “to be very kind but
unable to adequately supervise both boys at the same time.
During the visit monitored by [the] CSW, the child Connor
continuously eloped and both CSW and Mother had to chase after
him.” While they were doing this, “Kristopher would be observed
to also ignore the mother’s directions.” The remainder of
Mother’s visits were monitored by each child’s caregiver and only
consisted of Mother and one child at a time. Both caregivers
reported that Mother appeared to be a “trigger for each respective
child to misbehave.” Moreover, despite Mother being told to not
spend her time with the children offering gifts, but instead to talk
and play with them, the caregivers observed that during visits
and calls, Mother would constantly ask what new toy the child
wanted or discuss the plan to buy the toy. They also reported
that Mother was unable to manage the children’s tantrums, and

                                 8
Mother had commented that “buying the child what he requests
is easier th[a]n him having a tantrum.”
       One of the children’s caregivers reported to a CSW that
Mother appeared to be “coaching” the kids at times and had said
she could get Connor to “do and say what she wants.” DCFS also
reported that Mother lacked insight into why a case was open,
and took no responsibility for the issues that occasioned the case.
She blamed the dirty home on the maternal grandmother and
failed to acknowledge the children’s behavioral issues “were
created due to the mother’s home having no structure and the
mother not setting boundaries.”
       At the six-month review hearing, the court acknowledged
Mother’s completion of parenting classes, but found that “those
parenting classes clearly ha[ve] not helped the mother gain any
insight as to how these children were traumatized and how to
better parent them.” The court also found that “the extent of
progress made towards alleviating or mitigating the causes that
necessitated placement for the mother is very minimal.” The
court ordered continued reunification services.

      D.    Twelve-Month Review Hearing
      Mother continued visiting with the children separately. At
almost every visit, Connor would throw a tantrum when Mother
told him “no.” Mother was advised not to engage with Connor
during these tantrums; when she followed the advice, Connor
seemed to have fewer tantrums. Mother’s visits with Kristopher
went well.
      In June 2021, Mother visited both children at the same
time. The visit was mostly appropriate, and Mother was able to
set “small boundaries” for Connor and to follow through on those

                                 9
boundaries. When Kristopher was caught “assaulting” Connor,
Mother was able to place Kristopher in a time-out.
       In an October 2021 status report, DCFS reported that both
children again had to be moved multiple times due to
inappropriate behavior; Connor had been placed in his tenth
foster home, and Kristopher his sixth. Connor continued to be
destructive, to spit, to curse, and to damage his caregivers’
property. DCFS noted that, with one caregiver, Connor had
made significant progress—saying “please” and “thank you” and
becoming potty-trained—but after “a special visit with [M]other
on his birthday,” he “was observed to revert to past behavior.” A
week after Mother’s visit, Connor began following the rules
again. While the trigger for Connor’s reversion was
undetermined, the caregiver admitted she had permitted Mother
to take Connor to the bathroom on her own, as well as take him
to her car to retrieve a gift.
       The report also stated that Mother consistently visited both
children but “continues to have difficulty in regards to setting
boundaries with the children, reprimanding and following
through with redirecting the children.” While Mother appeared
open to accept help for the children, she “commented that she is
scared that the children will resent her if she reprimands them.”
Because the children had been placed geographically far apart,
Mother visited the children separately. With Connor, Mother
tended to “revert to giving the child her phone to keep him
occupied during visits” and needed cues on when to discipline
him. When a “Parent Partner” attempted to speak with Mother
about this issue, Mother “responded stating that she was a great
parent, only had a case with the Department because of her

                                10
brother’s disclosures and was not going to listen further to Parent
Partner Virginia’s recommendations.”
       With Kristopher, Mother was “observed to be appropriate,”
though Kristopher did not seem interested in engaging with her
beyond showing interest in what she might be bringing him (e.g.,
gifts or special food). When Mother needed to reprimand
Kristopher, she would talk to him about his behavior and then
place him in time-out. This would cause Kristopher to throw a
tantrum and call attention to himself and Mother but, if Mother
did not engage, Kristopher would stop.
       In a December 2021 twelve-month review hearing, the
court ordered reunification services to be continued.

      E.     Eighteen-Month Review Hearing
      In a March 2022 status report, DCFS informed the court
that Connor was still behaving in destructive ways at his
caregiver’s home and the caregiver reported she could not leave
Connor alone. DCFS provided a “1:1 for the overnight hours.”
Mother still consistently visited with the children, and was still
observed “to have difficulty in regards to setting boundaries with
the children, reprimanding and following through with
redirecting the children.” In visits with Connor, it was observed
that Mother continued “to struggle with giving in to all of
Connor’s requests as she states that she gives into most of his
requests so that he doesn’t have a meltdown or tantrum.”
However, in contrast to the previous report, DCFS stated Mother
now appeared to be “open and willing to accept help in regards to
the special needs of her children.”
      In an April 2022 review hearing, the court ordered that
both reunification services and the eighteen-month review
hearing date would be continued until September 2022, noting

                                11
that, as of the next hearing date, the children would have been in
“protective custody” for two years.
       In a September 2022 status report, DCFS informed the
court that Kristopher seemed to be doing well in his caregiver’s
home, but Connor was still exhibiting challenging behavior.
Specifically, “Connor continues to be destructive in the home
including scratching the television, breaking a Ring doorbell
camera, has broken the toilet, repeatedly throwing various items
on the roof of the home, removed the smoke detector from the
ceiling, repeatedly breaking the screen to his bedroom window
and his closet door. [His caregiver] reported that Connor
continues defecating in his underwear on almost a daily basis
and has hidden his feces in his room. [His caregiver] has
reported that in the past month[,] Connor has begun wetting the
bed and peeing on the floor. When [his caregiver] attempted to
have Connor clean up after himself for defecating in his
underwear, he smeared his feces on the wall. [His caregiver]
reports that outbursts happen daily and sometimes multiple
times within a day and his triggers are unknown.” The report
noted that Connor had been placed in 14 different homes since
detention. He had been with his current caregiver since January
2022.
       Mother was still reported “to have difficulty in regard to
setting boundaries with the children, reprimanding and following
through with redirecting the children.” On a recent visit with
Connor, he ran into a parking lot and was almost hit by a car.
Although Mother instructed Connor to hold her hand in the
parking lot, he refused. He also had a hard time sitting still,
jumped around while holding his food, and ate food that he had
dropped on the floor. Mother instructed him not to, but he again

                               12
ignored her. Throughout the visit, he yelled and cursed and,
when Mother attempted to put him in a time-out, ran to a
playground area. When the son of Connor’s caregiver arrived to
pick him up, it was observed that Connor complied with his
instructions. In contrast, Mother’s visits with Kristopher had
gone so well that DCFS liberalized them to unmonitored; his
caregiver reported that Kristopher now seemed happier. DCFS
recommended that Kristopher be returned to Mother, but that
reunification services be terminated as to Connor, and that the
court set a hearing under section 366.26.
       At a September 2022 review hearing, Kristopher was
released to Mother on an “extended visit,” and the hearing was
continued until November 2022.
       In a November 2022 last minute information, DCFS
informed the court that Mother had enrolled in a parenting class
for children with special needs. The review hearing was
continued until December 2022.
       In a December 2022 last minute information, DCFS
informed the court that Connor was still exhibiting extreme
behavioral issues. Mother was attending a parenting class for
children with special needs and had attended one session so far.
DCFS reported a “slight improvement in regards to the visitation
as Connor is able to be redirected from cursing with a couple of
prompts and reminders throughout the visit.” However, Mother
continued to “struggle with consistency of disciplining Connor
during the visits when he is behaving in negative manner and . . .
[M]other has needed the support of the monitor to redirect
Connor and model being consistent.”
       At the December 2022 eighteen-month review hearing,
counsel for DCFS asked that Kristopher be released to Mother,

                               13
but that family reunification services be terminated as to Connor
and that the court set a hearing under section 366.26. Connor’s
counsel agreed, arguing that if, after two years of services, visits
with Connor still needed to be monitored, matters were clearly
not at a juncture where Connor could be released to Mother.
Kristopher’s counsel added that one reason she was comfortable
with the release of Kristopher to Mother was because Connor
would not be there.
       Mother’s counsel agreed that Kristopher should be released
to Mother but argued that Connor should also be released to her,
citing her completion of all court-ordered programs and the lack
of a substantial risk to Connor. Acknowledging the difficulties
Mother had with disciplining Connor, Mother’s counsel pointed
out that these issues were not “specific to Mother.”
       The court released Kristopher to Mother, but terminated
reunification services as to Connor, finding that “essentially,
we’re out of time.” The court remarked that Connor could not be
released to Mother because he “would not be safe at home, that
Mother is unable to keep him safe.” The court set a hearing
under section 366.26.

      F.     Mother Files a Section 388 Petition
       In April 2023, Mother filed a petition under section 388,
asking the court to reinstate family reunification services, take
off-calendar the scheduled section 366.26 hearing, and to set a
new hearing to determine whether “Mother’s Family
Reunification Services have allowed the child to be return to
Mother’s custody.” Mother argued that, since the time the court
terminated reunification services, “Mother has continued to
participate in Parenting Class and Support Group for families
with children at risk and/or with special needs through the

                                14
Jeffrey Foundation.” Mother had also continued to visit Connor
and to remain involved in his care and education. The petition
contended Mother’s requests were in Connor’s best interest
because she had “shown accountability for the actions that
brought her family before the Court,” she had “done what has
been asked of her to mitigate or otherwise address those
concerns,” she was “committed to a life of learning in order to
best meet her children’s needs as they grow and those needs
change,” and it would be in Connor’s best interest to “grow up
with his loving mother and brother.”
      The petition was supported by a declaration from Mother
stating that she had started a parenting class for special needs
children and attended a “few classes so far.” Mother explained
that she had learned “to take deep breaths and use calm voices
when redirecting or giving directions” and “the symptoms of
ADHD, anxiety, ODD in children and how to communicate with
Connor.” She additionally learned how to “show love” and “give
more positive strokes and use positive and negative
consequences.” She added she had also learned from having
Kristopher back in her custody and being able to put the things
she learned into practice. Mother alleged that while visits with
Connor were “challenging at first,” they were improving, and she
was able to redirect Connor to use his words instead of hitting or
throwing a tantrum.
      Mother attached two letters to her declaration. One
confirmed her enrollment and attendance in a parenting class for
children with special needs. The second was from an Intensive
Field Capable Clinical Services program—a “strength-based,
family focused program, which aims to support families and
children with complex needs”—in which Connor had been

                                15
enrolled since March 2022. This letter stated that Mother was
receptive to advice from the program’s “parent partner” and the
partner had observed Mother being able to “utilize safe play” and
build on her bond with Connor “utilizing communication skills.”
       The court summarily denied the petition two weeks after it
was filed, finding that “the request does not state new evidence or
a change of circumstances.” The order was issued on a form with
several other boxes that could be checked as a reason for denial,
including “the proposed change of order . . . does not promote the
best interest of the child,” but none were checked.3 Mother
timely appealed.
                            DISCUSSION
       “Section 388 allows a parent to petition to change, modify,
or set aside any previous juvenile court order. (§ 388, subd. (a).)
‘The petitioner has the burden of showing by a preponderance of
the evidence (1) that there is new evidence or a change of
circumstances and (2) that the proposed modification would be in
the best interests of the child.’ ” (In re J.M. (2020) 50

      3 The parties disagree as to the significance of the

unchecked box next to the statement that Mother’s request was
not in Connor’s best interest. Mother argues the unchecked box
was “either due to the fact that [the court] felt mother had made
that prima facie showing [of best interest]” or that “the juvenile
[court] did not consider this prong at all.” DCFS counters that,
given the court’s finding that Mother failed to establish a change
of circumstances, the court did not need to consider this prong
and additionally, under the doctrine of implied findings, we must
infer the trial court made all findings necessary to support its
denial of the petition. Because, as discussed below, we find the
court did not err in determining that Mother failed to establish
changed circumstances, we need not consider these arguments.

                                16
Cal.App.5th 833, 845, emphasis in original.) “To support a
section 388 petition, the change in circumstances must be
substantial.” (In re Ernesto R. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 219, 223.)
        “A summary denial of a section 388 petition is reviewed for
abuse of discretion.” (In re D.R. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 480,
487.) “A court exceeds the limits of legal discretion if its
determination is arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd. The
appropriate test is whether the court exceeded the bounds of
reason.” (In re L.W. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 840, 851, citing In re
Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318–319.)
        Here, the juvenile court denied Mother’s petition because
“the request does not state new evidence or a change of
circumstances.” Mother contends the court erred because she
had presented a letter from an Intensive Field Capable Clinical
Services program attesting to Mother’s ability to “utilize safe
play” and she had also “accepted accountability for her previous
shortcomings; showed heartfelt tenderness and acceptance of her
child’s difficulties; had gained insight into the requirements of
her role in keeping Connor safe; and expressed commitment to ‘a
life of learning in order to best meet her children’s needs as they
grew and those needs changed.’ ” We discern no error.
        “A parent establishes a substantial change of
circumstances for purposes of section 388 by showing that, during
the period between termination of reunification services and the
permanency planning hearing, he or she has resolved the
previously unresolved issues supporting juvenile court
jurisdiction.” (In re J.M., supra, 50 Cal.App.5th at p. 846.) Here,
jurisdiction over Connor was established due to Mother’s limited
ability to provide appropriate care and supervision. This concern
was still present when the court terminated family reunification

                                17
services without releasing Connor to Mother—the court expressly
remarked on Mother’s inability to keep Connor safe at home.
While Mother did present evidence that she was now able to
safely play with Connor for a few hours a week during a
monitored visit, that is a far cry from being able to keep Connor
safe as his primary caregiver. This is especially true when
Mother was already responsible for Kristopher, a child with his
own behavioral issues, and who had never been successfully
housed with Connor. Indeed, one justification that Mother gave
for sequestering Connor in the kitchen area behind metal bars
was that the boys fought a lot.
      Mother’s claim that she had shown accountability for her
previous shortcomings, empathized with Connor’s difficulties,
gained insight into her role in keeping Connor safe, and was
committed to learning how to meet his needs, also do not
constitute a substantial change. Indeed, many of Mother’s
statements do not constitute a change at all. In March 2022, nine
months before reunification services were terminated, DCFS
reported that Mother appeared “open and willing to accept help
in regards to the special needs of her children” and since the
inception of the case, Mother had said she was willing to do
whatever was necessary to have the children reunified with her.
Mother had completed her parenting classes by the six-month
review hearing, and had been enrolled in a parenting class for
children with special needs in November 2022, one month before
services were terminated.4 Nor is there any evidence to suggest
that, prior to the termination of services, Mother was ignorant of

      4 Indeed, Mother herself contends that she completed all

her court-ordered programs.

                               18
the role she would play in Connor’s safety if he were released to
her, or that she did not empathize with and accept Connor’s
issues.
       We conclude the juvenile court acted well within the
bounds of reason in determining Mother failed to demonstrate a
substantial change in circumstances. It therefore did not abuse
its discretion in summarily denying Mother’s section 388 petition.

                          DISPOSITION
      The court’s order is affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                                                     CHANEY, J.

We concur:

             BENDIX, Acting P. J.

             WEINGART, J.

                               19