Court Opinion

ID: 9901977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 19:02:23.367637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:42.391580
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/22/23 In re J.M. CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 In re J.M., a Person Coming Under                               D082385
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH                                         (Super. Ct. No. J521176)
 AND HUMAN SERVICES
 AGENCY,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 P.M. et al.,

           Defendants and Appellants.

         APPEALS from the orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Marissa A. Bejarano, Judge. Affirmed.
         Suzanne M. Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant P.M.
         Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant J.M.
      Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy
County Counsel, and Eliza Molk, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
      P.M. (Mother) and her son, J.M., appeal from the juvenile court’s

findings and orders made at the Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 361
dispositional hearing. On appeal, Mother and J.M. argue that the juvenile
court abused its discretion in placing J.M. in Arizona with the maternal aunt
pursuant to section 361.3, the relative placement statute. We disagree and
affirm the trial court.
               FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      A.    Abuse Incident Leads to Agency Referral
      In January 2023, bystanders physically detained Mother after they saw
her hit her then two-year-old-son J.M. in the face multiple times. A
bystander took J.M. from Mother while other individuals called police.
Mother was intoxicated and attempting to leave when she encountered
another bystander, whom she punched in the face and knocked to the ground.
Upon arriving at the scene, an emergency response worker saw an open
bottle of liquor, readily accessible to J.M., next to Mother’s belongings.
Emergency responders took J.M. and Mother to separate hospitals.
      A doctor examined J.M., finding a swollen upper lip and a reddened
cheek with linear marks. The doctor opined that the injuries were diagnostic
of physical abuse. Upon receiving a call from law enforcement about the
incident, J.M.’s maternal great-uncle attended to J.M. at the hospital and
signed a caregiver affidavit.

1     All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions
Code.
                                        2
      B.    The Agency’s Initial Investigation
      The great-uncle told the social worker that he did not get along with
Mother because she acted verbally and physically aggressive toward J.M. He
already adopted J.M.’s older sister due to Mother’s drug use and domestic
violence. The night prior to this incident, J.M. spent the night at the great-
uncle’s house. When the great-uncle returned J.M. to Mother, J.M. clung to
him, not wanting to go. The great-uncle said he was “done with” Mother,
emphasized her aggressive nature, expressed concern for J.M.’s safety while
in her care, and described her as a “ticking time bomb” with “no care for
[J.M.].” The great-uncle said that Mother fails to keep J.M. clean and sells
J.M.’s shoes, clothing, and toys for money to buy drugs. Hospital staff and
the emergency response worker observed J.M. to be bonded and affectionate
with the great-uncle.
      Mother told the social worker that, prior to the incident, she took J.M.
with her to get liquor, drinking two shots of liquor once outside the store.
She explained that she suffered from schizophrenia, could not decipher her
surroundings and experienced “ ‘blacking in and out. I don’t know what was
real or what wasn’t real.’ ” However, she admitted she yelled and cursed at
J.M. and may have accidentally hit him. The Agency previously opened a
voluntary case for Mother because she used heroin, methamphetamine, and
marijuana while pregnant with J.M. She took illicit drugs during her first
trimester, but ceased use after learning of her pregnancy. Mother reported
avoiding controlled substances since 2021 but drank alcohol on and off every
few months. In addition to schizophrenia, Mother suffers from bipolar
disorder. She stopped taking psychotropic medication a few years earlier and
did not participate in mental health services.

                                       3
      The social worker also spoke with J.M.’s maternal aunt (Aunt), who
reported that Mother cared for J.M.’s basic needs but yelled at him due to
frustration. Aunt was concerned about Mother’s substance abuse and mental
health. She believed Mother failed to place J.M. on an appropriate sleep
schedule. Aunt observed J.M. exhibiting some of Mother’s negative habits,
like her short temper. Aunt and the maternal family attempted to correct
those behaviors in J.M. She and the maternal family agreed the great-uncle
would make the best immediate custody placement for J.M. because the
great-uncle lived in San Diego. Aunt lived in Arizona but expressed her
desire to provide J.M. long-term care.
      C.    The Agency’s Petition and the Detention Hearing
      In early February 2023, soon after the January 2023 incident, the
Agency filed a petition on J.M.’s behalf because of Mother’s untreated mental
health issues. Mother agreed to allow the great-uncle to care for J.M. as part
of a safety plan. The Agency received a criminal protective order prohibiting
contact between J.M. and Mother until 2026. The juvenile court appointed
counsel for Mother and for J.M. while detaining J.M. in the great-uncle’s
home. To align the criminal court order with juvenile orders, the criminal
court modified its protective order to allow Mother supervised visits.
      D.    The Agency’s February 2023 Jurisdiction and Disposition
            Report

      As part of its responsibilities, the Agency prepared a jurisdiction and
disposition report. It reflected Mother reported using alcohol and marijuana
starting at age eight, cocaine in junior high school, and “crack” after leaving
high school. Although she experienced periods of sobriety lasting up to five
years, she also began using methamphetamine and heroin. She suffers from
bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, was prescribed medication, but
inconsistently complied with treatment. Mother recently received new
                                         4
prescriptions and began taking her medication because of this case. In early
February 2023, Mother tested negative for all substances. Mother initially
expressed wanting J.M. placed with the great-uncle, Aunt, or any maternal
family member.
      The Agency report reflects that the great-uncle once again expressed
fear for J.M.’s safety if Mother regained custody. He identified several
individuals to testify against J.M.’s return to Mother’s care. The great-uncle
did not think Mother should ever regain custody of J.M. or that they should
have any contact. When the social worker brought up visitation between
Mother and J.M., he responded, “ ‘I will not allow that to happen’ ” and “ ‘I
am going to stop that.’ ” The social worker informed him that he cannot
make decisions regarding visitation, that all parties must abide by the court’s
orders, and that he should be more neutral with the court process and in his
role as J.M.’s caregiver.
      Aunt noted that Mother did not express gratitude to the maternal
family for their care of her older children. Mother could be manipulative,
mean, and loving all at the same time. As one example, Aunt recounted how
Mother and J.M. stayed with her for Thanksgiving. Even though Aunt
requested that while staying at her house, Mother not abuse any substances,
Mother got drunk and high, yelling in the streets at 1:00 a.m. Police
responded after receiving a complaint call. However, given the great-uncle’s
and other relatives’ advancing ages, and that these people already spent time
caring for Mother’s children, Aunt felt it was her turn to take care of J.M.
      Aunt asked the Agency to submit an Interstate Compact on Placement
of Children (ICPC) assessment for her because she wanted J.M.’s long-term
placement. She agreed to supervise Mother’s visits, although she preferred
that visits take place outside her home due to Mother’s behavior at

                                       5
Thanksgiving. When asked about the relationship between the great-uncle
and Mother, Aunt expressed that she tries to remain neutral. She
encouraged Mother to show respect to the great-uncle.
      The social worker held a child and family team meeting with the
maternal family members. Although the great-uncle showed a willingness to
work with the Agency, he did not want to communicate with Mother by
telephone. The social worker explained that caregivers generally cannot
decline to communicate with a parent. The social worker noted the Agency
would consider an alternate placement if the great-uncle continued to refuse
engaging in the court process.
      In its report the Agency recommended the juvenile court find J.M.’s
petition true. It also urged the court to remove J.M. from Mother’s care,
place him with a relative, and bypass section 361.5 reunification services for
Mother. (§ 361.5, subdivision (b)(11).)
      E.    The Jurisdiction Hearing
      Mother and J.M. agreed to bifurcate jurisdiction and disposition, since
the juvenile court could not order a placement assessment for Aunt until it
found jurisdiction. At the March 2023 contested hearing, the court found
J.M.’s petition true. It authorized the great-uncle to use the Agency as an
intermediary to provide Mother with updates about J.M.
      Following the Agency’s request, and Mother’s agreement, the court
ordered Aunt’s assessment to prepare for J.M.’s placement with her in
Arizona. Mother also agreed with the court authorizing J.M. and the great-
uncle to stay with Aunt in Arizona for a weekend.
      F.    The Agency’s May 2023 Report
      Between February and April 2023, Mother experienced multiple drug
use relapses interspersed with negative tests for illegal substances. She

                                          6
reported experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations. In or around April
2023, Mother moved into an inpatient treatment program.
      J.M. remained placed with great-uncle and became attached to him.
J.M. underwent a developmental screening because he screamed and cried at
night, he struggled to share, and he hit others when he was upset. Following
multiple sessions with a specialist, J.M. met his goals of decreased hitting
and he learned to share with others.
      J.M.’s teacher also reported improvements. When he started class in
February 2023, he was afraid to interact with others, refused to participate in
classroom activities, and was slightly aggressive in play. By March 2023, he
interacted with everyone, exhibited confidence, was engaged, and
transitioned from the great-uncle without issue.
      The social worker spoke to two other maternal great-uncles. One
opined that J.M. should be placed with Aunt since her home was stable, her
daughter attended a top school, and this presented the only chance for J.M. to
live in a secure environment. The other maternal great-uncle confirmed
Aunt could provide support and care for J.M.
      In March 2023, Mother participated in her first visit with J.M. J.M.
requested the great-uncle several times during the visit. The great-uncle
reported J.M.’s behavior regressed afterwards, with J.M. appearing more
fearful and with increased crying episodes. Mother visited with J.M. two
additional times in April.
      In April 2023, the Agency learned that Arizona authorities approved
the ICPC for J.M. to live with Aunt. The Agency asked the juvenile court for
discretion to place J.M. there. Aunt was prepared for J.M. to live with her
and visited him while he resided in the great-uncle’s care.

                                       7
      G.    The Agency’s June 2023 Report
      In its June 5, 2023 addendum report, the Agency described that the
great-uncle reported J.M. did well at daycare and improved in various areas.
J.M. also became attached to one sister, video chatted with another sister in
Arizona, and did not ask for Mother. The great-uncle noted that he spent a
significant amount of time stabilizing J.M. due to the abuse and trauma J.M.
suffered in Mother’s care. The great-uncle again reported J.M. exhibited
negative behaviors after visits with Mother.
      The Agency also noted Aunt remained in regular contact with Mother.
Aunt and Mother discussed allowing the maternal family to care for J.M. so
he could enjoy stability while Mother worked on her protective issues. If the
court placed J.M. in her care, Aunt would both allow Mother to visit J.M. in
Arizona and facilitate frequent Facetime visits. Aunt also expressed
willingness to travel to San Diego monthly so J.M. might visit with Mother.
Aunt reported that Mother wanted custody of J.M. to receive government

benefits and, invoke sympathy with the criminal court.2 Further, Mother
expressed a preference to putting J.M. in foster care because she “does not
want to work with the family.”
      Aunt wrote a letter to the court requesting immediate and long-term
placement of J.M. She loved and cared for J.M., video chatting with him
almost daily. Aunt already selected a preschool for J.M.; she is excited to
enroll him in activities and enrichment resources. Aunt felt ready to receive
J.M. into her home.

2     The January 27, 2023 event, in which bystanders restrained mother
from hitting J.M., resulted in Coronado Police Department officers
responding to the scene. Officers arrested Mother. The Office of the San
Diego County District Attorney filed a felony child abuse charge and a
misdemeanor child charge against Mother.
                                       8
      Mother initially wanted J.M. placed with Aunt, although she implied it
would be easier to reunify with J.M. if he remained in San Diego. However, if
the court bypassed her reunification services Mother wanted J.M. placed with
Aunt. Mother felt the great-uncle was tired and needed a break from caring
for J.M., especially because he also cared for her oldest daughter.
      The Agency report also reflects that the maternal grandmother
reported that Mother wished to relinquish her parental rights. The amount
of psychotropic medication Mother required rendered her unable to care for
J.M. Mother similarly expressed concern about caring for J.M. in her current
mental state, saying, “ ‘I don’t think I can take care of him with my diagnosis,
I cannot.’ ” When Mother reported she wanted J.M. adopted and placed in a
stable home, the social worker encouraged her to speak with her attorney.
Mother’s attorney later sent an email to the Agency, which stated that the
maternal family had been “pressuring her immensely to agree to have [J.M.]
adopted by [Aunt].”
      During this reporting period Mother completed four visits with J.M.
Social workers observed Mother acted appropriately with J.M., and the two
shared positive interactions. She also maintained her sobriety and
participated in voluntary services including substance abuse and mental
health treatment, parenting class, and a child abuse group. Because it
seemed Mother wanted to reunify with J.M., the Agency recommended
reunification services for her. The Agency’s proposed case plan included
Mother’s participation in a child abuse group, a parenting service, and an
inpatient substance abuse treatment program. It also mandated that she
work with a mental health provider and comply with a psychiatric medication
regimen.

                                       9
      Regarding an interim placement, the Agency assessed the section 361.3
factors concluding they weighed in favor of J.M.’s placement with Aunt. She
was aware of J.M.’s needs, prepared her home for him, and researched
schools and activities on his behalf. The maternal grandmother and the
great-uncle also wanted J.M. to be placed with Aunt. Although Mother
initially agreed with this approach, and did throughout most of the case, she
at times implied she wanted J.M. to remain in San Diego for reunification
purposes.
      Regarding reunification, Aunt was willing to follow all related court
orders. She was also willing to facilitate visitation between J.M. and Mother,
as well as visits between J.M. and his sisters. Aunt was willing to provide
J.M. with permanency if reunification efforts failed, and she found daycare
providers and/or preschools for J.M.
      The Agency report observed that the great-uncle expressed a
willingness to provide temporary care of J.M. The maternal family believed
the great-uncle grew tired of caring for Mother’s children. The great-uncle
hesitated to state these feelings because he did not want J.M. in foster care.
Moreover, the great-uncle and Mother had a strained relationship. The
Agency opined this could adversely affect reunification, which required
communication between the caregiver and the parent.
      H.    The Contested Disposition Hearing
      At the June 2023 contested disposition hearing, the juvenile court
received the Agency’s reports into evidence without objection.
      The social worker testified that the Agency would fund Mother’s visits
to Arizona if J.M. moved there, including her travel and accommodations.
The Agency would also arrange accommodations for J.M. to visit Mother in
San Diego. Mother would potentially enjoy longer visits in Arizona because

                                       10
she would be there for consecutive days. That meant the visits could be
scheduled for more days in the week than she enjoyed in San Diego,
depending on “what the family would be available to do.” Aunt expressed
willingness to supervise Mother’s visits with J.M. and the Agency could
assess additional individuals to supervise visits. The Agency would
communicate with Mother’s service providers to determine her availability to
visit J.M. In determining whether to expand Mother’s time with J.M., the
Agency would evaluate visit information from Aunt, as well as observations
from Mother’s providers about her progress in services.
      Aunt testified about her willingness to abide by the court’s visitation
orders. The social worker did not believe Aunt harbored bias against Mother
or would impede reunification. Aunt loved Mother, but Aunt also felt
protective of J.M. However, Aunt would not accommodate visits in her house.
In contrast, the great-uncle refused to supervise Mother’s visits, declined to
have contact with Mother, and expressed concern about reunification.
      Upon learning the Agency was going to recommend reunification
services, Aunt “talked to the family” to figure out how to “support” Mother.
The Agency viewed Aunt as the family member who “kind of helps everything
stick together.” The social worker viewed Aunt as the “most neutral” family
member; Aunt even agreed to support Mother throughout the process. The
social worker did not believe Aunt would pressure Mother to agree to
adoption.
      J.M. and Mother asked the court to maintain J.M.’s placement with the
great-uncle. They believed it would be better for reunification and visitation.
      I.    The Court’s Ruling
      After weighing the section 361.3 factors, the juvenile court found J.M.’s
best interests favored placement with Aunt. The maternal family wanted

                                       11
J.M. to be placed with Aunt. Mother also originally wanted J.M. to be placed
with Aunt, and for Aunt to adopt him.
      Further, Aunt was willing to care for J.M. during reunification, and
agreed to a permanent placement should reunification efforts fail. Aunt
would travel to San Diego monthly to facilitate visitation between Mother
and J.M. Aunt also agreed to supervise visits for them in Arizona and
support video calls so Mother and J.M. could talk to each other. The court
ordered the Agency to hold a child and family team meeting to create a
visitation plan for Mother. J.M. would remain in San Diego until the plan
got deployed.
      At Mother’s request, the juvenile court granted her leave to set a
special hearing if issues regarding visitation arose.
                                 DISCUSSION
      The sole issue presented in Mother’s and J.M.’s appeal is whether the
juvenile court erred by failing to apply properly section 361.3’s relative
placement preference criteria. Specifically, Mother and J.M. both claim the
juvenile court did not correctly weigh the section 361.3 factors otherwise the
court would place J.M. with the great-uncle. We disagree.
      A.    Standard of Review
      We review the juvenile court’s determination regarding placement with
a relative under the abuse of discretion standard. (Alicia B. v. Superior Court
(2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 863.) We “ ‘interfere only “ ‘if we find that under
all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court’s action,
no judge could reasonably have made the order that he did.’ ” ’ ” (Ibid.; see In
re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318 (Stephanie M.) [noting “when a
court has made a custody determination in a dependency proceeding, ‘ “a
reviewing court will not disturb that decision unless the trial court has

                                       12
exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or
patently absurd determination [citations]” ’ ”].)
      B.    General Legal Principles
      Section 361.3 identifies the factors that the court and social worker
must consider to determine whether placement in a relative’s home is in a
child’s best interests. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(1)-(8).) These criteria include but
are not limited to: (1) the child’s best interests; (2) the wishes of the parents,
the relative, and the child; (3) the moral character of the relative and any
others living in that home; (4) the length and quality of the relationship
between the relative and the child; and (5) the relative’s ability to provide a
safe, stable environment for the child. (§ 361.3, subd. (a).)
      “When considering whether to place the child with a relative, the
juvenile court must apply the placement factors, and any other relevant
factors, and exercise its independent judgment concerning the relative’s
request for placement.” (In re Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708, 719
(Isabella G.).) Relatives are to “ ‘be assessed and considered favorably,
subject to the juvenile court’s consideration of the suitability of the relative’s
home and the best interests of the child.’ ” (Ibid., italics omitted.) The
“linchpin of a section 361.3 analysis is whether placement with a relative is
in the best interests of the minor.” (Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116
Cal.App.4th 856, 862-863.)
      C.    Analysis
      Mother argues that the juvenile court “improperly weighed the factors
under section 361.3, subdivision (a).” J.M. similarly argues that “the relative
placement factors weighed in favor of denying the [A]gency’s request to move
[J.M.] to Arizona.” Through this argument Mother and J.M. ask us to
reweigh the evidence and then conclude placement with the great-uncle is the

                                        13
proper decision. But that we cannot do on appeal. (See Stephanie M., supra,
7 Cal.4th at p. 319 [“the Court of Appeal improperly reweighed the evidence
and substituted its judgment for that of the juvenile court. Its decision
cannot stand.”]; In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53 [“We have no
power to judge the effect or value of the evidence, to weigh the evidence, to
consider the credibility of witnesses or to resolve conflicts in the evidence or
the reasonable inferences which may be drawn from that evidence”],
overruled on other grounds in In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 636, fn.
5.)
      J.M. is also incorrect to argue that “the question of relative placement
was not presently a legitimate consideration at the disposition hearing.” On
the contrary, the law required the juvenile court at the disposition hearing to
assess J.M. for placement with Aunt. (§ 361.3, subd. (b) [“In any case in
which more than one relative requests preferential consideration pursuant to
this section, each relative shall be considered under the factors enumerated
in subdivision (a).”]; see also In re Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708, 719
[“The Agency is required to assess those relatives seeking placement
according to the factors described in section 361.3, subdivision (a) (placement
factors) and must document those efforts . . . ”], italics in original.) Moreover,
section 361.3, subdivision (b) expressly provides that the Agency can “place a
child in the home of a relative . . . pending the consideration of other relatives
who have requested preferential consideration.” The court did not err when
it considered placing J.M. with Aunt even though the court previously placed
J.M. with the great-uncle.
      J.M.’s reliance on In re Maria Q. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 577 (Maria Q.)
is misplaced. In Maria Q., we considered whether section 361.3 applied to a
post-permanency placement request. (Maria Q., at p. 581.) Here, there was

                                       14
no such request. Instead, Aunt asked for placement prior to the dispositional
hearing. In this situation Maria Q. is inapposite.
      The record before us supports the juvenile court’s decision to place J.M.
with Aunt. The court correctly found that Mother expressed “on more than
one occasion” that J.M. should be placed with Aunt, including as recently as
June 2023. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(2).) Both Mother and J.M. agreed to bifurcate
jurisdiction and disposition to allow time for a court ordered placement
assessment for Aunt. Moreover, although Mother suggested it would be
easier to reunify if J.M. lived in San Diego, she never expressed to the Agency
that she did not want J.M. placed with Aunt. Indeed, Mother repeatedly
expressed that J.M. should live with Aunt if the court bypassed her
reunification services.
      The court also correctly found Aunt wanted to care for J.M. during not
only reunification, but permanently if Mother’s reunification effort ended
unsuccessfully. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(2), (a)(6) & (a)(7)(H)(i).) Aunt requested
J.M.’s immediate and long-term placement with her, asking the Agency to
submit an assessment of her. Aunt felt ready to care for J.M. and expressed
concern that other relatives, like the great-uncle, were getting older and
already cared for Mother’s other children. Mother similarly expressed
concern that the great-uncle was tired and needed a break from caring for
J.M. Additionally, Aunt took part in J.M.’s life since his birth. (§ 361.3,
subd. (a)(6).) She saw J.M. several times per year before the Agency opened
this case, and J.M. and Mother stayed with her during the prior
Thanksgiving holiday. During this matter’s pendency, Aunt visited J.M. in
San Diego and spoke to him on Facetime almost every day. These facts
support the court’s decision.

                                       15
      But Mother and J.M. argue that the court erred in placing J.M. “in a
home 350 miles away from [Mother].” They contend that J.M.’s placement in
Arizona makes visitation more difficult and impedes reunification. The court,
however, correctly recognized Aunt’s willingness to facilitate court-ordered
reunification activities in California. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(E) & (a)(7)(G).)
Aunt expressed support for monthly travel with J.M. to San Diego for visits.
She also stated her willingness to supervise visits in Arizona. The Agency
would arrange Mother’s travel to Arizona and provide accommodations.
Consequently, Mother could potentially visit J.M. for more time while in
Arizona than she might in San Diego. While Mother’s visits to Arizona
required advanced planning with her service providers and Aunt, San Diego
visits also need scheduling for a variety of reasons, including currently the
great-uncle would not allow spontaneous visits with J.M.
      Indeed, the great-uncle refused to facilitate court-ordered reunification
efforts with Mother. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(E).) He was unwilling to supervise
her visits, declined to have contact with her, and expressed concern about the
possibility of J.M. returning to her care. Furthermore, great-uncle stated he
would not provide J.M. with a permanent home if reunification efforts failed.
The court correctly found these factors weighed against placing J.M. with the
great-uncle. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(H)(i))
      The record further establishes that Aunt provided J.M. a safe, secure,
and stable environment, including a home that continued the structure he
experienced with great-uncle. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(A).) In addition, Aunt
provided J.M. with the necessities of life, including a designated room and
enrollment in activities and enrichment resources. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(C))
She stated a willingness to protect J.M. from Mother and tried to correct

                                        16
some of the negative qualities J.M. learned from Mother, like Mother’s short
temper. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(D).)
      Aunt would also facilitate visitation with J.M.’s relatives, including his
sisters and other family residing in Arizona. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(F).) Since
the Agency approved Aunt’s home for placement, the court could presume its
safety. (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(8)(A).) Additionally, Aunt expressed an ability to
exercise proper and effective care and control over J.M. (§ 361.3, subd.
(a)(7)(B).) After “consider[ing] all of those factors in determining which
relative placement is in [J.M.’s] best interest,” the court reasonably
determined it was in J.M.’s best interests to live with Aunt.
      Here, the juvenile court was ideally suited to “make the hard call” as to
which of two placement options served J.M.’s best interests. (See In re M.H.
(2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1296, 1305.) Substantial evidence supports the court’s
decision to place J.M. with Aunt. (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 319
[“When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the
reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial
court”].) We find the court did not abuse its discretion. (In re Tanis H. (1997)
59 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1227 [The trial court has “broad discretion to determine
what best serves a child’s interests”].)

                                           17
                              DISPOSITION
     The juvenile court’s findings and orders are affirmed.

                                                    HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

O’ROURKE, J.

IRION, J.

                                     18