Court Opinion

ID: 9405711
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 23:03:23.052883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:23.851410
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/28/23 S.O. v. Superior Court 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                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

    S.O.,
                                                                                             F086122
             Petitioner,
                                                                           (Super. Ct. Nos. 21CEJ300360-1,
                    v.                                                     21CEJ300360-2, 21CEJ300360-3)

    THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO
    COUNTY,                                                                               OPINION
             Respondent;

    FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
    SOCIAL SERVICES,

             Real Party in Interest.

                                                   THE COURT*
            ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Amythest Freeman,
Judge.
            Juvenile Law Center and Annette T. Smurr for Petitioner.
            No appearance for Respondent.
            Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Ashley N. McGuire, Deputy County
Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*           Before Hill, P. J., Levy, J. and DeSantos, J.
       Petitioner S.O. (mother), through counsel, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules
of Court, rules 8.450–8.452) from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a combined,
contested six- and 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.21, subds. (e)(1)
& (f)(1))1 terminating her reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing as to
her son F.O. (born May 2009), and her daughters K.S. (born January 2016) and V.O.
(born September 2021) (collectively, the children). She contends the court erred in
finding it would be detrimental to return the children to her custody. She requests this
court order the section 366.26 hearing vacated and reunification services continued. She
also requests a stay of proceedings in the respondent court. We deny the petition and the
request for a stay of proceedings.
                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
       F.O.’s alleged father is Jesse H. K.S.’s presumed father is Manuel S. V.O.’s
presumed father is Anthony S.2 Mother and Anthony were in an on and off relationship
throughout the proceedings.
A.     Referral and Voluntary Family Maintenance Plan
       In September 2021, the Fresno County Department of Social Services
(department) received a referral on behalf of the children shortly after mother gave birth
to V.O. because she reported using marijuana and methamphetamine and consuming
alcohol during her pregnancy, and receiving limited prenatal care. V.O. was born
prematurely at 33 weeks gestation and was admitted to the NICU. F.O. and K.S. were
staying with mother’s friend while she was at the hospital. The department held an
imminent risk team decision making meeting and offered mother voluntary family
maintenance services. Mother agreed to participate in a safety plan and voluntary

1      All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2     Initially, Manuel and Anthony were identified as alleged fathers, but their statuses
were eventually elevated to presumed fathers.

                                             2.
services; however, after only a few days, she became noncompliant and informed the
department she did not need services. As a result, the department executed a protective
custody warrant and detained the children.
B.     Petition and Detention
       On October 6, 2021, the department filed a petition on behalf of the children
pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1) (failure to protect), alleging they were at
substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness because mother suffered
from substance abuse problems and exposed them to ongoing domestic violence. Mother
reported she had used marijuana and methamphetamine and consumed alcohol while
pregnant with V.O., and received limited prenatal care. V.O. remained hospitalized
because she was having trouble feeding. Mother admitted using controlled substances
“ ‘on and off’ ” for 25 years. Additionally, she reported past domestic violence with
K.S.’s father, Manuel, and current domestic violence with V.O.’s father, Anthony. She
identified herself as the aggressor and described the domestic violence as physical.3
       On October 12, 2021, the juvenile court held a detention hearing. The court found
a prima facie case was established, ordered the children removed from mother’s custody,
ordered mother be offered reunification services and provided with supervised visits, and
set a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing. Mother’s services included parenting
classes, substance abuse and mental health evaluations with recommended treatment, a
domestic violence inventory with recommended treatment, and random drug testing.
C.     Jurisdiction and Disposition
       1.     Jurisdiction and Disposition Report
       In its November 2021 jurisdiction and disposition report, the department
recommended the allegations in the amended petition be found true, the children be

3     The department subsequently filed an amended petition, but the allegations
remained the same.

                                             3.
adjudged dependents of the court, mother be ordered to participate in reunification
services, and the fathers be denied reunification services. The department reported there
was a substantial danger to the physical health of the children or the children were
suffering severe emotional damage, and there were no reasonable means by which their
physical or emotional health could be protected without removing them from mother’s
custody. Mother had a significant history of substance abuse and domestic violence that
negatively affected her ability to provide the children with appropriate care. However,
she had acknowledged her substance abuse issues and admitted she needed to participate
in substance abuse treatment. Mother wished to reunify with the children and was
willing to participate in services, but the department was concerned about her ability to
benefit from services as she had previously failed to benefit from voluntary services.
Therefore, the department recommended the children not be placed in her care until she
had made significant progress and demonstrated she could maintain her sobriety and
refrain from engaging in domestic violence. Mother had already begun participating in
services and submitting to random drug testing. She tested negative five times, had
four no-shows, and tested positive for THC once in October 2021.
       2.        Jurisdiction and Contested Disposition Hearings
       On November 16, 2021, the juvenile court found the allegations in the amended
petition true.
       On May 19, 2022, the juvenile court held a contested disposition hearing. The
court found reasonable efforts had been made to prevent the children’s removal, adjudged
them dependents of the court, ordered them removed from mother’s custody, and ordered
reunification services and supervised visits for mother, Manuel, and Anthony. The court
gave the department discretion to progress visits. Mother’s reunification services were to
include parenting classes, substance abuse and mental health evaluations with
recommended treatment, a domestic violence inventory with recommended treatment,

                                             4.
and random drug testing. The court set a combined six- and 12-month status review
hearing.
D.     Six- and 12-Month Status Review and Request to Change Court Order
       1.     Status Review Report
       In the November 2022 status review report, the department recommended
reunification services be terminated for mother and the fathers, and that a section 366.26
hearing be set. The children were still in the same foster home and were thriving. Their
care providers were supportive and F.O. and K.S. expressed they wanted to remain in
their home. They were willing to provide a concurrent plan of adoption for the children.
       Mother had been actively participating in services. She had completed parenting
classes and substance abuse treatment, which consisted of an outpatient program. She
also completed a mental health assessment but did not meet the medical necessity for
treatment. Her domestic violence inventory recommended she participate in a child
abuse intervention program. She had completed 24 sessions and had one absence. Her
random drug test results consisted of approximately 63 negatives, four no-shows,
four excused tests, and four positives for either creatinine, opiates, or methamphetamines.
       In September 2022, mother progressed to unsupervised visits. She and her adult
children were also authorized to attend F.O.’s sports games. During one game, a male
fitting Anthony’s physical description was spotted sitting with mother. Mother told F.O.
“ ‘not to say anything.’ ” The department noted mother made other inappropriate
comments during visits. During one visit, mother stated she missed one of F.O.’s games
due to work, but stated it did not matter because the “ ‘county [was] garnishing her
wages.’ ” On another occasion, mother told F.O. the reason he did not want to go back
home was because he was going to have a better life and go to a better school.
       F.O. reported he enjoyed visiting mother, but was concerned because he had not
seen a change in her behavior. He did not feel he or his sisters should return to her care.
He was worried mother would fall into old habits and leave them to fend for themselves.

                                             5.
He also worried that if he returned to her care there would be strangers going in and out
of the home. He said he did not want to return to that environment as it caused him to be
in a “dark head space.” Mother continued to have adult conversations with F.O., which
caused him more stress. She talked to him about her relationships, her lack of money, her
previous arrests, and child support. The social worker informed mother that those
conversations stressed F.O. Mother responded she was and would always be open with
her children. K.S. reported she enjoyed visiting mother, but worried she might get in
trouble but could not elaborate further.
       The report indicated that in February 2022 mother had been arrested for a
domestic violence incident with Anthony, but was not charged. According to mother, she
was in the car with him when he said something offensive and raised his voice. He then
got out of the car, punched her rearview mirror, and left. Mother left, but then returned to
yell at him. She said “the cameras ‘made it seem like she was trying to run him over.’ ”
A few days after her arrest, she told social workers she was going to stay away from
Anthony and focus on her reunification goals. However, in March 2022, she reported she
wanted to “work it out” with him. In July 2022, she reported she was no longer in a
relationship with him and had filed a restraining order against him, but later reported she
withdrew it. However, she said he was “still coming around.”
       The department opined there was reason to believe there continued to be a
substantial detriment to the physical health, safety, protection, and physical or emotional
well-being of the children if they were returned to mother’s care and there were no
reasonable means to protect them absent removal. Mother and Anthony continued to
engage in domestic violence. Additionally, although mother had shown moderate
progress, she had not demonstrated a change in her behavior.
       In its assessment of whether reunification services should continue, the department
considered whether mother had consistently visited the children, made significant
progress, and demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete treatment objectives and

                                             6.
provide for the children’s safety and needs. The department noted mother liked to
discuss case related topics that impacted F.O.’s mental well-being and often blamed him
for not wanting to return to her care. In regard to her progress, although she had made
moderate progress in her sobriety, she had not demonstrated significant progress towards
remedying her domestic violence issues. Mother often minimized problems and blamed
others for issues, including the children. She had not demonstrated she could provide for
the children’s safety and needs as she continued to make decisions that placed her at risk,
including an arrest for domestic violence. Additionally, on two occasions she tested
positive for substances and minimized the results, stating she could have tested positive
from touching a surface. She reported she was regularly around her sister and Anthony
who were frequent users.
       2.     Request to Change Court Order
       On February 1, 2023, the department filed a “Request to Change Court Order”
(JV-180), requesting visits return to supervised. The department claimed mother had
been engaging in inappropriate behaviors during unsupervised visits, including smoking
marijuana, ignoring F.O., and allowing unauthorized guests to be present during visits
and asking the children “ ‘not to say anything.’ ” Additionally, she had made statements
blaming F.O. for the “ ‘county … garnishing her wages.’ ” The children reported they
smelled marijuana in the home and saw her smoking with other family members in the
garage. K.S. stated that while she liked visiting mother, she had witnessed the family
smoking. F.O. reported feeling neglected during visits and only wanted to be present to
ensure his sisters were safe. In a recent home visit, F.O. appeared sad and tearful while
he shared his worries with the social worker. It was reported F.O. had been returning
from visits crying and anxious. He was having emotional outbursts and his grades were
beginning to drop. F.O. requested a referral for mental health services. He further
requested visits return to a supervised setting because he did not feel safe or protected.

                                             7.
       On February 7, 2023, the juvenile court held a hearing and granted the
department’s request. During the hearing, county counsel confirmed mother tested
positive for undisclosed substances in December 2022 and February 2023. Visits were to
return to supervised or intensive supervised visits at the department’s discretion.
       3.     Addendum Report
       An addendum report dated March 2023 provided an update on visits. F.O.
reported he felt most comfortable with supervised visits because he did not have to worry
about mother breaking any rules. He said he cared for mother, but did not believe she
had changed her behavior. He felt relieved and thankful for supervised visits.
       The department summarized that supervised visits worked better for the family.
When visits were not supervised, F.O. appeared to struggle and worry constantly about
mother’s behaviors and decisions. Although mother engaged with the children during
visits, she often made inappropriate comments like calling V.O.’s shoes “ ‘ugly.’ ” It
appeared that even during supervised visits F.O. still felt like he had to protect his sisters.
F.O. wanted the visits to remain supervised. The department again recommended
terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing.
       4.     Contested Six- and 12-Month Status Review Hearing
       The contested six- and 12-month status review hearing began on March 21, 2023,
and lasted three days, concluding on April 13, 2023. By this time, mother had received
18 months of services. The juvenile court heard testimony from F.O., mother’s adult
daughter, maternal grandmother, the assigned social worker, and mother.
              a.      F.O.’s Testimony
       F.O. testified he enjoyed being with his care provider. He described his
relationship with mother as “[b]roken.” He initially believed mother was being “as
successful as a parent as she could be” but he now felt she had “failed as a parent”
because she “failed to provide a proper living space” and “give the correct influence.”
He did not like having unsupervised visits with mother because she was able to not

                                              8.
follow the rules, such as smoking marijuana. He said that if he were to return to her care,
he would not feel safe. He did not feel mother had “changed at all.” He said, “She’s still
the same person. She still—although she says she doesn’t, I know she does still smoke
marijuana or use some type of substance.” During unsupervised visits, he smelled
marijuana. He confirmed he requested visits return to being supervised because after
smelling marijuana he felt the entire family was being put in danger. He did not want to
participate in therapeutic visits with mother and did not feel he would be negatively
impacted if he did not reunify with her. He explained, “I’ve been without her for a year.
Honestly, the changes that I’ve undergone are better than what I was initially.” He did
not want to reunify with her. He explained another reason he did not feel safe during
unsupervised visits was because he felt she might keep them longer than the allotted visit
time.
               b.     Adult Sibling Viviana G.’s Testimony
        Mother’s daughter testified she had been present at three visits with mother.
One visit occurred at the park and two were at home. She denied anyone smoked
marijuana during or prior to the visits, or that it smelled like marijuana. She said mother
did not smell of marijuana. She reported neither she nor her wife smoked marijuana in
the home, and that they do not smoke at all.
               c.     Maternal Grandmother Virginia O.’s Testimony
        Grandmother testified she knew mother had used drugs on and off and could tell
when she was under the influence. She said mother stopped using drugs when she had
V.O. Grandmother participated in two visits with mother and the children. During
one visit, the family held a birthday party for K.S. She denied anyone smoked marijuana
prior to or during the visit. Since the children’s removal, she said mother became
healthier and got a job, but was very sad due to the children’s removal.

                                               9.
              d.     Social Worker Stefania R.’s Testimony
       Stefania testified she had been assigned to mother’s case since proceedings began.
Mother had completed all services and had tested negative for drugs most of the time.
She said that with the exception of her four no-shows and her one positive result for
creatinine, mother had been sober since September 2021.4
       In February 2023, Stefania filed a JV-180 on the basis that mother had been
engaging in inappropriate behaviors during unsupervised visits, including smoking
marijuana. She acknowledged mother did not test positive for marijuana in
January 2023, but believed she tested positive for creatinine in February 2023. When she
filed the JV-180, she spoke to the children and mother to investigate the alleged
marijuana use. Mother explained to her she submitted to random drug tests that proved
she did not smoke marijuana around that time. Stefania checked her random drug test
results, which were negative. However, she said the alleged marijuana use was not the
only reason for filing the JV-180. F.O. had shared he felt neglected during visits and
expressed concerns for their safety. There was a statement in the JV-180 that K.S. had
seen family members smoke, but Stefania did not know if she was referring to cigarettes.
K.S. reported she liked visiting mother.
       Stefania further testified that aside from alleged marijuana use or smell, there were
other concerns that led to the department’s recommendation to terminate mother’s
reunification services. She testified mother continued to engage in domestic violence and
speak to the children about adult topics. Mother had been arrested for a domestic
violence incident. She then attempted to refrain from the relationship and filed a
restraining order, but later withdrew it. Mother’s withdrawal of the restraining order

4      Mother tested positive for THC in October 2021, positive for creatinine in
December 2021, positive for opiates in March 2022, positive for methamphetamines in
April 2022, and positive for undisclosed substances in June 2022, December 2022, and
February 2023.

                                            10.
concerned the department. The department eventually progressed mother’s visits to
unsupervised in a public setting to prevent Anthony from going to the home where the
domestic violence was occurring. When unsupervised visits began, the children reported
concerns. She said, “[W]hen a child is telling me that he does not feel safe, or he feels
that he is constantly having some kind of anxiety or worries, that leaves a lot of concerns
for us. And it’s also concerning that the domestic violence had continued throughout the
case.” She said Anthony had been spotted sitting next to mother at one of F.O.’s games.
After mother withdrew the restraining order, mother shared with her she thought Anthony
was still coming around because her window had been broken.
              e.     Mother’s Testimony
       Mother testified that in her parenting class she learned she was being neglectful
and needed to pay more attention to the children. She learned to be a better mother and it
had changed her for the better. Through substance abuse treatment, she learned when she
was being triggered and when to turn to positive relationships. She said she had
three positive creatinine results in December 2021, December 2022, and February 2023.
She tested positive for methamphetamine through her substance abuse treatment
provider, but not through the random drug testing provider. She explained the tests were
different, and the test through the substance abuse provider was more sensitive. She said,
“They said it was probably like residue contact or like—I have a sister who is an active
drug addict who I have put out of my life now, because possibly being her use at my
house.” She was asked about the incident in which Anthony allegedly attended F.O.’s
football game with her. She denied the incident happened. Mother further testified she
was arrested in July 2022 for domestic violence, but the case was dismissed.5 She then
attempted to file a restraining order against Anthony approximately around August 2022,
but withdrew it after several unsuccessful attempts to serve him. After she withdrew the

5      The department’s report states mother was arrested in February 2022.

                                            11.
restraining order, her tires were slashed a couple of times and she assumed it was him,
but she was not certain. The incidents eventually stopped.
       In regard to unsupervised visits, she said they usually occurred at restaurants, but
she took them to her daughter’s house a couple of times. She said her relationship with
F.O. had changed. She explained that about seven months after the case started, he
“wasn’t so loving” towards her even though she treated him the same. She asked him
about school, sports, how he was doing, and if he liked living with his foster parents. She
said she had always been open and honest with her children about what was going on in
her life. She talked to them about financial struggles, but when the social worker
informed her those types of conversations were causing F.O. anxiety, she stopped. When
asked whether she neglected F.O. during visits she said she did not know how it was
possible to neglect him when she only had an hour or two per visit. Even when maternal
grandmother was there, most of the talking occurred between F.O. and mother. She said,
“I don’t see how I would have neglected him.” She stated that she had previously sought
mental health services for F.O. when one of her children passed away. F.O. had stated he
wanted to choke himself so he could be with his baby sister. She took him to therapy
once or twice, but stopped taking him because they wanted to put him on medication, and
she did not believe in putting children on medication.
       Mother testified she wanted F.O. to return to her care, but also did not want him to
resent her. She said he had great foster parents and she was very grateful for them as
they helped him come out of his shell. She wanted what was best for F.O.
       Mother felt she had done everything in her power to rehabilitate herself. She said,
“Well, I would say I’m rehabilitated. I don’t indulge in no drugs, I don’t want to indulge
in drugs.” Mother did not feel she had done anything wrong in regard to unsupervised
visits. She said, “I don’t think I did anything wrong even in the ones I was having
unsupervised, you know, besides the certain conversations the social worker didn’t want
me to have with my kids. Other than that, I paid attention to them.” She felt she was

                                            12.
attentive to their emotional needs. When asked if she would ever let an Anthony type of
person in her life again, she responded that was nowhere near her mind. She said she did
not need to let anybody else in her life and just needed to focus on getting her children
back, making herself better, continuing to work, maintaining positive relationships, and
turning to her higher power. Mother stated she just wanted her children back and wanted
a second chance. She said she was being “judged off of something that somebody else
does that [she] can’t control,” and stated she was referring to Anthony.
              f.     Juvenile Court’s Ruling
       In ruling, the juvenile court found mother had made substantial progress and
complied with services. The court complimented mother for having done a great job with
services, but explained it still had to consider whether it would be detrimental to the
children to return them to her custody. The court noted F.O. felt like he had to protect his
sisters. The court stated, “It was very telling to me, however, even in some of the small
comments that were made, that [F.O.] feels the need to protect—even in the comment as
innocent as I can’t believe you’re wearing [Crocs] … it was telling to me that [F.O.]
responded to that comment during one of the visits. And it’s in one of the reports that
[F.O.] responded to that comment and said, that everybody wears [Crocs] … Or
something as innocent as saying, that a house with baby locks isn’t a fun house.” The
court found F.O. to be very credible. The court further pointed out that mother admitted
she had been around people who were using drugs and attributed her positive drug test
results to that. The court went on, “So I believe that the behavior change that the
[d]epartment is wanting to see is you choosing better for yourself so that your children
are in a better environment, and unfortunately, with some of these small comments,
combined with the fact that [F.O.] … was stating that he wanted to go back to supervised
visits, I can’t find there would be no detriment to his physical or emotional well-being if
he were returned to your care today.” The court put great emphasis on F.O.’s stress and
anxiety caused by the responsibility of becoming a caretaker at a young age. It stated,

                                             13.
“[I]t’s not about adult conversations, kid conversations; it’s boundaries. Kids should get
to be kids. I don’t see that that won’t repeat itself.” The court found the department
provided reasonable services and that “[t]he return of the children to the parents would
create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well-being of the children,” and terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26
hearing.
       On April 18, 2023, mother filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition.
                                       DISCUSSION
I.     Detriment to Return
       Mother contends she substantially complied with her reunification services and,
therefore, the children should have been returned to her custody. She further argues the
evidence on which the court based its detriment finding was insufficient. We disagree
and conclude substantial evidence supports the court’s detriment finding.
       A.     Legal Principles
       At each review hearing, “there is a statutory presumption that the child will be
returned to parental custody.” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 308.) At the
12-month review hearing, the child must be returned “unless the court finds, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent … would create
a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that
detriment.” (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1).) “The failure of the parent … to participate regularly
and make substantive progress in court-ordered treatment programs shall be prima facie
evidence that return would be detrimental.” (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1)(B).) However,
technical compliance with court-ordered services is not conclusive evidence a parent does
not pose a risk of detriment to the child—“the court must [still] consider progress the
parent has made towards eliminating the conditions leading to the children’s placement
out of the home.” (In re Dustin R. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1141–1142.)

                                             14.
       “[T]he decision whether to return the child to parental custody depends on the
effect that action would have on the physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (In
re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 899.) Section 366.21 “does not state or imply
that, in order to keep a minor out of parental custody, the serious risk of detriment posed
by returning the minor to his or her parent must involve the same type of harm which
formed the basis for the dependency and the removal of the minor from parental custody.
(Id. at p. 898.) “By authorizing the continued removal of a child from parental custody
based on the risk of either physical or emotional detriment, section[ ] 366.21 … focus[es]
on the child’s well-being at the time of the review hearing rather than on the initial basis
for juvenile court intervention. [Citation.] Thus, while the court must consider the extent
the parent has cooperated with the services provided and the efforts the parent has made
to correct the problems which gave rise to the dependency [citation], the decision whether
to return the child to parental custody depends on the effect that action would have on the
physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (Id. at p. 899, italics added.)
       B.     Standard of Review
       We review a juvenile court’s detriment finding for substantial evidence. (Tracy J.
v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1424.) “ ‘ “Substantial evidence” is
evidence of ponderable legal significance, evidence that is reasonable, credible and of
solid value. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] ‘Inferences may constitute substantial evidence, but
they must be the product of logic and reason. Speculation or conjecture alone is not
substantial evidence.’ ” (Ibid.) Further, when reviewing for substantial evidence, we do
not inquire whether the evidence supports a contrary finding, but whether substantial
evidence, contradicted or not, supports the finding actually made. (Adoption of
A.B. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 912, 925.)
       C.     Analysis
       In the present case, mother substantially complied with all of her court-ordered
services. In Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1748 (italics

                                             15.
omitted), the court explained, “The harder cases are, like the one before us, where the
parent has complied with the service plan, but for some reason has not convinced a
psychologist or social worker that it would be safe to return the child to the parent. The
problem is not, as it were, quantitative (that is, showing up for counseling or therapy or
parenting classes, or what have you) but qualitative (that is, whether the counseling,
therapy or parenting classes are doing any good). These are sensitive cases, fraught with
emotional overtones, because they invariably deal with an evaluation of the personality,
character and attitudes of the parent.” Thus, even where the parent has largely complied
with the reunification plan, a court may still find that return of the child to the parent
would be detrimental based on other factors. (Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61
Cal.App.4th 689, 704–705.) The juvenile court “can consider, among other things:
whether changing custody will be detrimental because severing a positive loving
relationship with the foster family will cause serious, long-term emotional harm
[citations]; properly supported psychological evaluations which indicate return to a parent
would be detrimental to a minor [citations]; whether the natural parent maintains
relationships with persons whose presence will be detrimental to the ward [citation];
instability in terms of management of a home [citation]; difficulties a minor has in
dealing with others such as stepparents [citations]; limited awareness by a parent of the
emotional and physical needs of a child [citation]; failure of a minor to have lived with
the natural parent for long periods of time [citation]; and the manner in which the parent
has conducted himself or herself in relation to a minor in the past.” (Ibid., italics added.)
       The issue here remained whether mother had made sufficient progress towards
eliminating the reason for removal and the effect that returning the children to her
custody would have on their physical and emotional well-being. (In re Joseph B., supra,
42 Cal.App.4th at p. 899.) The record contains substantial evidence that despite her
compliance in domestic violence treatment, mother was still engaging in domestic
violence. She was arrested for engaging in a domestic violence incident with Anthony.

                                              16.
Although the case was dismissed, she admitted she had been arguing with him, he
punched her rearview mirror, and after she left, she returned to yell at him. Following the
incident, she went back and forth with him for months, and eventually filed a restraining
order against him but then withdrew it. After withdrawing the restraining order, she
attributed several incidents to him in which he slashed her tires and broke her window.
Additionally, as the court noted in its ruling, mother admitted she was putting herself
around people who were using drugs. She also had a positive drug test result as recently
as February 2023. Mother’s insistence that she was no longer engaging in domestic
violence and was not using drugs is an invitation to reweigh the evidence and give greater
consideration to evidence that is unfavorable to the juvenile court’s finding. We must
“accept the evidence most favorable to the order as true and discard the unfavorable
evidence as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact.” (In re Casey
D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 53.)
       Moreover, mother has repeatedly failed to acknowledge the emotional needs of
F.O. She denied she neglected him during visits, or that she did anything wrong during
unsupervised visits aside from having inappropriate conversations. Yet, the evidence
remains that F.O. was experiencing severe anxiety, was returning from visits crying,
expressed concerns about their safety during visits, and requested visits be supervised.
He felt neglected, but attended visits to ensure his sisters were safe. After unsupervised
visits began, he was having emotional outbursts, his grades began dropping, and he
requested mental health services. He testified he did not feel safe with mother and did
not want to reunify with her. Thus, even during the short periods of unsupervised time
mother had with the children, she was unable to show she could provide them with safety
and protection. Instead, her visits were returned to being supervised due to safety
concerns.
       Overall, mother had a problem taking responsibility for her actions. She testified
she was being judged for someone else’s actions, referring to Anthony. She often blamed

                                            17.
F.O. for not wanting to return to her care and blamed others for her positive drug test
results. Accordingly, there remained a substantial risk of detriment to the children if they
were returned to mother’s care. The evidence sufficiently supported the juvenile court’s
finding.
II.    The Juvenile Court Did Not Apply the Incorrect Standard of Proof
       We briefly address mother’s argument that the juvenile court abused its discretion
in applying the wrong standard of proof in finding detriment. As we previously stated, at
the 12-month review hearing, the child must be returned “unless the court finds, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that the return of the child to their parent … would create
a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional
well-being of the child.” (§ 366.21, subd. (f)(1), italics added.) In ruling, the court
stated: “So I believe that the behavior change that the [d]epartment is wanting to see is
you choosing better for yourself so that your children are in a better environment, and
unfortunately, with some of these small comments, combined with the fact that [F.O.] …
was stating that he wanted to go back to supervised visits, I can’t find that there would be
no detriment to his physical or emotional well-being if he were returned to your care
today.” Mother argues the juvenile court applied the wrong standard because the court
stated it could find “ ‘no’ danger,” instead of stating “that return of the children would
create a risk of ‘substantial danger.’ ” (Capitalization omitted.) First, the court did not
use the words “no danger.” Second, the standard of proof was a preponderance of the
evidence. Lastly, and most importantly, the court properly articulated the standard of
proof when it began its ruling, stating: “[L]et me begin with the things that I need to
consider: Does the [c]ourt find by a preponderance of the evidence that return of the
child to the physical custody of the parent would create a substantial risk of detriment to
the child’s safety, protection, or emotional well-being?” Accordingly, we conclude the
court applied the correct standard of proof.

                                               18.
                                     DISPOSITION
       The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. The request for a stay of proceedings
is denied.

                                           19.