Court Opinion

ID: 9405291
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-27 21:04:02.77323+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:20.772900
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/27/23 In re D.B. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.B. et al., Persons                                   B318484
 Coming Under the Juvenile                                    (Los Angeles County
 Court Law.                                                   Super. Ct. No. 20LJJP00294)

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY
 SERVICES,

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.

 T.B.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Philip L. Soto, Judge. Affirmed.
      Marissa Coffey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                      ____________________

      T.B. (mother) appeals from orders of the juvenile court
terminating jurisdiction over three of her children and granting
sole physical custody to the children’s fathers. Mother argues the
juvenile court failed to make findings regarding the children’s
best interests, and the evidence showed it was in their best
interest for mother to share physical custody with the fathers.
      Mother fails to show an abuse of discretion. The record
indicates the children were thriving in their fathers’ custody,
whereas mother’s care of the children was characterized by a lack
of cooperation with court orders and multiple additional referrals
to respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services (DCFS). Accordingly, we affirm.

                        BACKGROUND
       We limit this summary to the information relevant to the
issues on appeal. It is not intended to be comprehensive.
       Mother has four children: minor 1, born 2006; minor 2,
born 2013; minor 3, born 2018; and minor 4, born 2019. Father 1
is the father of minor 1, and was not party to the dependency
proceedings. Father 2 is the father of minor 2. Father 3 is the
father of minors 3 and 4.1

      1 Given the many parties to this case, several of whom
have the same initials, we designate the parties thusly to
minimize confusion and preserve the anonymity of the children.

                                   2
1.    Petition and detention hearing
       On April 26, 2020, DCFS received a report that mother and
father 3 had engaged in a violent altercation in front of the
children.
       Mother told an investigating social worker she was a single
mother living with the children. Father 3, a truck driver, had his
own residence but stayed with mother and the children on
weekends. Mother reported that fathers 1 and 2 did not have
visits or contact with their children, minors 1 and 2. Mother
did not believe in immunizing the children and therefore was
homeschooling minors 1 and 2. Mother did not work and received
food stamps and other governmental financial aid.
       Describing the reported violent incident, mother stated that
she and father 3 had gotten into an argument while driving, and
she had pulled the car over. Mother and father 3 then got out
and continued the argument while standing in front of the car.
Father 3 tried to take the car keys from her, and the two “began
scuffling.” Mother reported father 3 put her in a headlock and
she bit him trying to escape. Minor 2, who was in the car, called
the police.
       Father 3 presented a different version of the incident,
stating mother hit him repeatedly, and he struck her once in the
face to stop her from hitting him. He then tried to take the key
from the ignition, and mother started biting him. Father 3 also
described an earlier incident in which he had told mother he
wanted to break up, and she “barged” into the house where he
was and struck him in the head. Father 3 stated mother had a
temper, and “goes from 0 to 100 in seconds.” Father 3 stated
mother did not physically discipline the children, but “yells over
the simplest thing.” Father 3’s roommate told the social worker

                                   3
he believed mother had “mental issues,” and father 3’s mother
stated mother had “an anger problem” and confirmed father 3’s
report that mother had struck him when he told mother he
wanted to break up.
      The detention report attached a police incident report
regarding the altercation between mother and father 3.
According to the incident report, mother told the police father 3
punched her twice in the face while she was still driving, and she
pulled over. Father 3 then put mother in a headlock, and she bit
him to try to get free. Minor 2 told the police he called 911 after
father 3 punched mother in the face and put her in a headlock.
Father 3 told police he tried to take the keys from the ignition,
and mother hit and bit him. A police officer observed mother’s
cheek was bruised and swelling and her left hand was abraded.
Father 3’s right arm was bruised, red, and abraded. Minor 2 and
the other two children present were uninjured.
      DCFS filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code2
section 300 alleging under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1)
that mother and father 3 “engaged in a violent verbal altercation
in the presence of the children.” The petition alleged father 3
punched mother twice in the face while she was driving and put
her in a headlock, after which she struck and bit him repeatedly
as he continued hitting her. The petition further alleged mother
had struck father in the head on a prior occasion.
      On May 14, 2020, the juvenile court found DCFS had made
a prima facie showing the children were persons described under
section 300. The court further found there were reasonable

      2 All undesignated statutory citations refer to the Welfare
and Institutions Code.

                                    4
services available to prevent detention, and ordered minors 1 and
2 released to home of parents, and minors 3 and 4 released to
home of mother. Father 3 was granted monitored visitation with
minors 3 and 4. The court ordered family preservation services.

2.    Adjudication and disposition
      On June 3, 2020, the juvenile court found father 3 was the
presumed father of minors 3 and 4, and ordered minors 3 and 4
released to both parents over DCFS’s objection. A last minute
information filed on or about the same date reported that father 2
was incarcerated as of March 2014, with a parole date in June
2020. A later report indicated father 2 was released on June 18,
2020. DCFS could not locate father 1.
      At the time of the jurisdiction/disposition report, all four
children were residing with mother. The report stated that
mother “disagree[d]” with the section 300 petition’s allegations,
and was no longer in a relationship with father 3 nor did she
communicate with him. She denied any prior incidents of
domestic violence. Father 3 also disputed the petition’s
allegations, stating that mother had struck him, and he hit her
by accident when trying to defend himself. Acknowledging his
statement in the detention report that mother had hit him on a
previous occasion, he said that previous incident also was “ ‘more
of an accident.’ ”
      A last minute information filed October 28, 2020 reported
that mother had cancelled four sessions with the family
preservation services provider, and was not very engaged in those
services, although her engagement had improved in the prior two
weeks. Mother had not cooperated with a domestic violence
program intake assessment and had declined to provide DCFS
with information necessary to provide additional referrals.

                                   5
Additionally, DCFS had been unable to assess the children’s
health and developmental status because mother had declined to
provide DCFS with the names of the children’s health care
providers or consent to release of medical records.
      A supplemental report filed December 3, 2020 stated that
minor 2 had missed 25 days of school and had completed only
eight assignments. Minor 2’s teacher had spoken with mother
many times and mother did not agree with the teacher that there
were any problems, and often would not answer her phone when
the teacher called. Mother also did not respond to mental health
service referrals for the children.
      A last minute information filed February 25, 2021 stated
that mother had declined family preservation services and
was not cooperating with signing necessary release documents.
Mother also was not cooperating with mental health and regional
center workers who were attempting to establish services for the
children. DCFS had discussed this with mother but she “ha[d]
not changed her behavior.”
      A supplemental report filed March 1, 2021 stated that a
paternity test confirmed that father 2 was minor 2’s biological
father. Father 2 said he was having trouble setting up visits with
minor 2 because mother made it difficult and only wanted to
argue with him when he called.
      The report further stated that mother had ceased
participating in family preservation services, but had enrolled in
a parenting course. Father 3 had not yet enrolled in any
programs. Minor 1 was receiving Cs, Ds, and Fs in school and
had a grade point average of 1.00, with excessive absences.
Minor 2’s attendance, however, had improved.

                                   6
       The juvenile court held an adjudication hearing on
March 3, 2021. The court sustained the allegations in the
petition against mother and father 3. The court ordered mother
and father 3 to complete domestic violence and parenting
programs, and to participate in individual counseling. The court
removed minors 1 and 2 from the homes of their fathers and
placed them in the home of mother. The court ordered minors 3
and 4 to home of parents, i.e., mother and father 3. The court
ordered mother and father 3 to make the children available for
unannounced home visits from DCFS.

3.    Family maintenance period
      On March 29, 2021, a caller reported to DCFS that minor 2
appeared to be participating in online school in a closet, and
mother resisted speaking with the caller about it or allowing
minor 2 to speak with the caller. Minor 2 was not completing his
schoolwork and was “failing.” On April 2, 2021, DCFS received
another report of educational and medical neglect of a child,
although the record does not indicate to which child the report
referred.
      On April 20, 2021, a caller reported to DCFS that the caller
had observed minor 2 sitting next to his mother with a visible
black eye. Minor 2 told the caller he was not allowed to speak to
the caller. Caller further stated that four days earlier, someone
had thrown a juice bottle at minor 2 while he was engaged in
online learning, striking him in the face.
      On April 21, 2021, a DCFS social worker and sheriff’s
deputy inspected mother’s home. Minor 1 reported no abuse and
said he felt safe in the home. Minor 2 reported no physical
discipline and said he was “fine.” The social worker observed a

                                   7
small scratch or scar on minor 2’s forehead, but no bruising or
trauma to his eyes.
        Social workers and a deputy visited mother’s home again
on April 23, 2021 with an investigative search warrant, with the
goal of the social workers speaking to the children outside of
mother’s presence. Mother became agitated and yelled at the
social workers. A social worker nonetheless spoke with minor 2
privately, although minor 2 noted mother was watching him and
“appeared . . . scared of his mother if he was talking to [social
workers].” Minor 2 again denied any physical abuse, and said his
little brother (minor 3) had thrown the bottle at him, but it did
not hurt. Minor 2 denied being put in a closet. The social worker
also spoke with minor 1, who also denied any physical discipline
or domestic violence.
        On May 7, 2021, DCFS obtained a removal warrant for the
children based on mother’s failure to comply with court orders.
DCFS removed the children on May 12, 2021, placing minors 1
and 2 in a foster home, and minors 3 and 4 with their paternal
grandmother at father 3’s request.
        DCFS filed a new detention report describing the March
and April referrals and investigation described above. The report
stated that mother had not allowed the court-ordered
unannounced home visits, and had been “disrespectful and
verbally assaultive” to DCFS social workers. Mother had
declined or not followed through with services for the children,
including mental health, regional center, and school services.
She had failed to provide medical information about minor 1’s
diabetes, and had not responded to requests from minor 2’s
school. DCFS stated that mother was “unable to demonstrate
that the children’s medical, developmental, mental health and

                                   8
educational needs are being met.” On several occasions, mother
refused to discuss her case plan with DCFS or sign consent forms
for her children to obtain services.
      DCFS also filed a supplemental dependency petition under
section 387 alleging mother was noncompliant with court orders,
specifically by failing to participate in programs and counseling,
provide DCFS with the children’s health and medical updates,
and sign consent forms for the children’s services.
      A last minute information filed May 19, 2021 indicated
that, after removal of the children, mother had not responded to
DCFS’s requests to obtain the children’s medication and
computers for online school.
      That same day, the juvenile court ordered the children
detained from mother, with family reunification services and
monitored visitation for mother.

4.    Second adjudication
      DCFS filed a jurisdiction and disposition report on June 4,
2021. According to the report, mother denied that minor 2’s
school had reached out to her repeatedly about minor 2’s behavior
and academic performance, stating the school had contacted her
only about immunizations, and on one occasion minor 2’s teacher
contacted her when minor 2 became upset when the teacher did
not call on him. Mother denied placing minor 2 in a closet, and
believed minor 2’s teacher had “developed false perceptions about
her.” Mother believed her children were turning in their school
assignments, and her focus was ensuring they turned in their
assignments as opposed to ensuring they checked in for online
learning on Zoom.
      Mother said she was unaware she had to sign any
documents for her children to receive services, but she was

                                   9
willing to do so. She stated she had provided DCFS with the
children’s medical documents and verification of her participation
in a parenting program, and did not know why the detention
report said otherwise. She believed the social worker assigned to
the case had “ ‘created a false narrative.’ ” Mother’s resistance to
home visits arose from her discomfort with that social worker.
Mother stated she had enrolled in a number of services and
would provide DCFS with confirmation.
       Father 3 said he had no concerns about the children’s
safety with mother. Father 2 stated mother had not allowed him
to visit with minor 2 since July 4, 2020, and would not allow him
to speak with minor 2 on the phone.
       Minor 1 stated he was happy and safe when living with his
mother, and denied domestic violence or physical discipline.
Minor 2 gave similar statements.
       Minors 1 and 2’s caregiver reported that mother spoke
negatively to the children during phone calls. Minor 2 would cry
when mother called, and minor 1 said he would prefer not to
speak to mother rather than hear her cry. The caregiver said
mother told the children the caregiver was “the devil and their
enemy,” accused the caregiver of brainwashing the children, and
made other derogatory remarks to the children about the
caregiver.
       A DCFS social worker monitored a visit between mother
and minors 1 and 2 on June 2, 2021, and reported the visit went
well and mother’s interactions with the children were
appropriate.
       On June 14, 2021, the juvenile court sustained the section
387 supplemental petition “as amended.” Because the record
before us does not contain an interlineated petition or a reporter’s

                                   10
transcript from the adjudication hearing, we cannot determine
the nature of those amendments.

5.    Second disposition
      A last minute information filed July 20, 2021 reported that
minors 1 and 2 were in summer school. A DCFS social worker
reported positive and appropriate visits between mother and the
children. Mother continued to refuse to sign releases for the
children’s medical information. Father 3 similarly refused to
sign, which led DCFS to suspect “that the mother may be
influencing the father.”
      DCFS reported challenges in obtaining minor 1’s diabetes
medication from mother. Mother did not respond when a social
worker reached out to arrange a meeting to obtain the
medication. Mother later told DCFS she had given the
medication to the visitation monitor, but the monitor informed
DCFS mother had given him only enough medication for a few
days. A DCFS social worker finally picked up the remainder of
the medication from mother and delivered it to minor 1’s
caregiver.
      DCFS reported a positive visit between father 2 and
minor 2. DCFS was in the midst of assessing whether father 2
would be an appropriate placement for minor 2.
      Another last minute information filed July 22, 2021 stated
mother had completed a parenting class, but only recently
enrolled in individual counseling and a domestic violence
program. DCFS was trying to determine if the domestic violence
program was for perpetrators, as ordered by the court, or for
victims.
      A last minute information filed six days later reported that
DCFS had confirmed that mother had participated in several

                                   11
domestic violence and parenting classes and 12 individual
counseling sessions. Father 3 had enrolled in a domestic violence
program, and stated he was scheduled to begin a parenting class.
      The juvenile court held a disposition hearing on August 3,
2021. Only the minute orders pertaining to minors 1 and 4
appear in the record, although those orders refer to the other
children as well. Minor 4 (and presumably minor 3) were
released to father 3, who was granted family maintenance
services. Minor 1 (and presumably minor 2) remained “in
Suitable Placement” under DCFS supervision. Mother was
granted reunification services as to minors 1 and 2, and
enhancement services as to minors 3 and 4. The court granted
father 2 unmonitored visits with minor 2, with occasional
overnight visits.
      A last minute information filed August 26, 2021 contained
DCFS’s positive assessment of father 2’s ability to care for minor
2. The juvenile court released minor 2 to father 2 on September
3, 2021, with mother to have virtual visits.

6.    Status review reports
       DCFS filed status review reports for the children on
January 20, 2022.3 Mother had provided DCFS with completion
certificates from her programs and “has been compliant with both
her [court-ordered] services and the DCFS case plan goals.”
Mother had been cooperative with DCFS, making herself
available for visits and responding to DCFS communications.
Mother informed DCFS she had completed a court-ordered

      3 DCFS filed three status reports, one for minor 1, one for
minor 2, and one for minors 3 and 4.

                                   12
psychological assessment, but had not yet provided that
assessment to DCFS.
      Mother’s individual counselor reported that mother “has
been dedicated to her personal healing process, being a survivor
of domestic violence and has remained motivated to learn new
parenting and emotional regulation skills.” The counselor
reported, however, that mother “is not yet willing to apologize for
her role in having her children removed from her care.” (Boldface
omitted.)

      a.    Status of minor 1
       Minor 1 said he enjoyed living with his caregiver but
“ ‘can’t wait’ to ‘go back to live’ with mother.” Mother’s monitored
visits with minor 1 were going well, and the monitor and
caregiver stated they had no concerns about minor 1’s safety with
mother. DCFS recommended the juvenile court retain
jurisdiction over minor 1 and that he remain with his caregiver.

      b.    Status of minor 2
       Minor 2 “appears to be happy and physically healthy under
the care of his father, who provides [minor 2] with a safe and
loving home, with no safety concerns observed by [the social
worker] during monthly visits.” Minor 2 stated he felt safe with
his father, and enjoyed going to the park with him. He stated
that he missed his mother and siblings and would like to live
with them again. DCFS had liberalized mother’s visits with
minor 2 to unmonitored.
       Father 2 had initiated an evaluation for special education
services for minor 2, and “[d]ue to father’s persistence, [minor 2]
was linked to mental health services and meets weekly with [a
clinician].” Father 2 had discovered minor 2 had difficulties

                                    13
cleaning himself properly after using the bathroom, but had
shown improvement after father 2 began working on it with him.
Through the mental health services obtained by father, Minor 2
was diagnosed with ADHD.
      Father 2 had been diligent in completing his court-ordered
parenting class and had cooperated with DCFS in making
himself and minor 2 available for monthly visits from the social
worker. Father 2 was consistently testing negative for drugs, and
had complied with all terms of his parole. Father 2 reported that
he was happy to have minor 2 in his home so they could bond and
build their relationship. He reported seeing “a lot of growth” in
minor 2 since minor 2 had started living with him, including
improving in following instructions, and letting father 2 know
when minor 2 needed help.
      DCFS recommended the juvenile court terminate
jurisdiction over minor 2 with a custody order granting joint legal
custody to mother and father 2, and sole physical custody to
father 2 with unmonitored visits for mother.

      c.    Status of minors 3 and 4
      Minors 3 and 4 continued to reside with their paternal
grandmother at father 3’s request, given his work schedule. The
children were “well-adjusted” and paternal grandmother
“provides them with a stable home and healthy environment.”
The children were “thriving under the care of their paternal
grandmother and father.” The social worker observed the
children’s excitement when father 3 came home, running towards
him and jumping into his arms. The social worker had no safety
concerns.
      Paternal grandmother monitored minors 3 and 4’s visits
with mother, and reported the children enjoyed their visits very

                                   14
much and were always excited to see mother. The visits were
positive and appropriate with no safety concerns.
       Father 3 was consistent in meeting with a family
preservation counselor every week, and the counselor reported
father 3 was “open and honest about what brought his family to
the attention of DCFS.” DCFS reported father 3 was compliant
with his court-ordered services and case plan goals. He had
completed parenting classes and had three sessions left in a six-
month domestic violence course. Although father 3 had not yet
enrolled in individual counseling, DCFS concluded this was “not
because of his lack of effort,” but because of problems with
insurance and obtaining low-cost counseling.
       DCFS’s most recent risk assessment of father 3 rated him a
low risk due to his “demonstrating new skills consistent with case
plan objectives and having no new substantiated referrals.
Additionally, the father has been providing for the child[ren] and
ensuring that [their] needs are being met since . . . the child[ren
were] released [to] his care. The father has been compliant with
all Court ordered services and DCFS case plan goals and
therefore, there is no need for continued in-home services.”
       DCFS recommended the juvenile court terminate
jurisdiction over minors 3 and 4 with a custody order granting
joint legal custody to mother and father 3, and sole physical
custody to father 3 with unmonitored visits for mother.

      d.    Last minute information regarding mother’s
            psychological assessment
      A last minute information filed February 1, 2022 indicated
mother had given DCFS her psychological assessment completed
by a therapist with the Department of Mental Health. DCFS had
concerns with the validity of the assessment “due to mother’s

                                   15
responses being inconsistent with information provided to
[DCFS] by mother and other sources.”
       Specifically, mother told the therapist she had never used
alcohol or drugs, but earlier had told DCFS that she drank
alcohol, just not to excess. Mother also had been arrested in 2011
for possession of a controlled substance. Mother told the
therapist she was not employed, but she told DCFS she worked
full-time as a receptionist. Mother told the therapist she had no
criminal or legal history apart from an open domestic violence
case, but DCFS’s review of mother’s criminal history indicated
she had been arrested 11 times, had spent a combined 71 days in
jail, and had been on probation for burglary in 2012. Mother told
the therapist there was no history of incarceration among her
immediate family, but when DCFS assessed a maternal aunt as a
potential visitation monitor, DCFS discovered she had “too many
hits” on the criminal background check. (Boldface omitted.)
       The therapist conducting the assessment further noted she
had conducted the interview with mother over the phone, and
therefore could not complete mother’s adult mental status exam,
or evaluate whether mother was under the influence of drugs or
alcohol. DCFS expressed concern “as to the validity,
completeness and thoroughness of the assessment.” (Boldface
omitted.)

7.    Review hearing
      The juvenile court held a review hearing on February 3,
2022. The hearing began with argument concerning minor 1 and
whether he should be returned to mother’s care. Mother’s
counsel argued mother had complied with her case plan and the
court should return minor 1 to her. Mother’s counsel contended
the counselor’s observation that mother was not yet willing to

                                  16
apologize for her role in having the children removed was
outweighed by the evidence demonstrating mother’s progress and
compliance. Anticipating an argument that mother had not
provided the caregiver with minor 1’s diabetes medication,
mother’s counsel argued minor 1’s good health disproved that
allegation.
       Children’s counsel argued mother “is just going through the
motion[s],” and is “not taking accountability.” Children’s counsel
contended mother was interfering with minor 1’s relationship
with his caregiver, talking to minor 1 about the case and telling
him not to listen to the caregiver. Children’s counsel further
contended mother was providing minor 1 with his diabetes
medication only on visits, and not ensuring the caregiver had the
medication.
       DCFS counsel also argued mother was “going through the
motions, getting things completed but not really getting why we
are all here, why [minor 1] has been removed from her.” DCFS
counsel noted DCFS’s concerns in the last minute information
regarding mother’s psychological assessment. DCFS requested
that minor 1 remain with his caregiver and the court order
continued family reunification services for mother. The juvenile
court agreed with DCFS, ruling that minor 1 would remain with
his current caregiver with unmonitored visits for mother.
       The parties then addressed the status of minors 2, 3, and 4.
The juvenile court incorporated mother’s arguments regarding
minor 1 into her arguments for the other children. Mother’s
counsel argued that if the court was not inclined to grant mother
joint physical and legal custody with fathers 2 and 3, then the
court should issue a home of parents order and retain jurisdiction
so the children could transition back to mother’s care. Mother’s

                                   17
counsel noted mother’s case progress and the fathers’ statements
that they had no safety concerns about mother. Mother’s counsel
further noted father 3, who “was just as much a part of the
original petition as mother,” had yet to complete his domestic
violence program or participate in individual counseling.
       The juvenile court granted sole physical custody of minors
2, 3, and 4 to their respective fathers. Mother was granted joint
legal custody with the fathers, but the fathers were given tie-
breaking authority. Mother was granted unmonitored visits.
The juvenile court ordered jurisdiction over minors 2, 3, and 4
terminated, and stayed that order pending receipt of the custody
orders.
       Mother timely appealed.

                          DISCUSSION
       On appeal, mother contends the juvenile court abused its
discretion by denying her joint physical custody of minors 2, 3,
and 4. Mother raises no arguments concerning minor 1.
       When the juvenile court determines supervision of a child
no longer is necessary, “ ‘[t]he court shall terminate its
jurisdiction unless the social worker or his or her department
establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions
still exist which would justify initial assumption of jurisdiction
under Section 300, or that those conditions are likely to exist if
supervision is withdrawn.’ [Citations.]” (In re T.S. (2020)
52 Cal.App.5th 503, 513, quoting § 364, subd. (c).) When the
court terminates jurisdiction, it may issue a custody and
visitation order under section 362.4. (T.S., at p. 513.)
       “When making a custody determination under section
362.4, ‘the court’s focus and primary consideration must always
be the best interests of the child.’ [Citations.]” (T.S., supra,

                                    18
52 Cal.App.5th at p. 513.) The court “ ‘is not restrained by “any
preferences or presumptions,” ’ ” and need not, for example,
award joint physical custody merely because “ ‘neither parent
poses any danger to the child.’ ” (In re Maya L. (2014)
232 Cal.App.4th 81, 103.)
       We review custody orders issued upon termination of
jurisdiction for abuse of discretion. (In re C.W. (2019)
33 Cal.App.5th 835, 863.)
       Mother argues the juvenile court never considered the best
interests of the children because it made no findings on the
record as to their best interests. Mother cites no authority that a
juvenile court must make express findings when issuing a
custody order, and indeed the case law is to the contrary. (See In
re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 713–714 [“The Welfare
and Institutions Code does not require a specific statement of
reasons be given when making a custody order.”].) Mother’s
argument is further undercut by the fact that she never
requested the juvenile court articulate its reasons. (Jennifer R.,
at pp. 713–714 [noting the appealing parent did not request a
statement of reasons].)
       Also, the juvenile court did make express findings as to
minor 1, concluding mother “appears not to be totally grasping
the concepts that are necessary to keep the child safe,” and
expressing concern that mother was impeding, or had in the
recent past impeded, minor 1’s access to medication and
educational services. We reasonably may presume that the
court’s stated concerns about minor 1’s safety extended to his
younger half siblings, and informed the court’s determination
that it was not in the children’s best interest to be in mother’s
physical custody.

                                   19
       Mother argues she would be the better custodian for minors
3 and 4 because she was in “full compliance with the case plan,”
whereas father 3 had yet to complete his case plan, and had
placed minors 3 and 4 with paternal grandmother rather than
caring for them himself. She further argues it was in minor 2’s
best interest to be placed in mother’s custody given mother’s
compliance with her case plan and the fact that minor 2 had lived
with her most of his life, and had stated he loved and missed his
mother.
       We disagree with mother’s implication that the record
does not support the juvenile court’s conclusion that it was in the
children’s best interest to be in their fathers’ custody. The
reports uniformly indicated that minors 2, 3, and 4 were safe,
happy, and thriving in their fathers’ custody. There had been no
further referrals since the children were placed with their
fathers, nor any indication of concerns about safety or other
issues.
       In contrast, when earlier in the proceedings the juvenile
court had placed the children in mother’s care, that period was
characterized by mother’s resistance to court-ordered services,
multiple referrals, and, ultimately, the removal of the children
from her care at a second detention hearing. Although mother
had shown improvement in the months prior to the review
hearing, it is difficult to argue she was the better choice for
custody when one compares her history throughout the case to
the history of fathers 2 and 3.
       It is true father 3 had not completed his court-ordered
services, but the juvenile court reasonably could conclude that
was outweighed by evidence of how well the children were doing
in his custody. Also, the record contains evidence suggesting

                                   20
father 3 had made more progress than mother, because his
counselor reported he was “open and honest about what brought
his family to the attention of DCFS,” whereas mother’s counselor
stated mother “is not yet willing to apologize for her role in
having her children removed from her care.” (Boldface omitted
from second quotation.) Mother argues her case progress
obviated the need for any express acknowledgement of her role in
the family’s difficulties, but the juvenile court was entitled to
conclude otherwise.
      It is of no moment that father 3 placed minors 3 and 4 with
paternal grandmother rather than caring for them himself. If
anything, it is a sign of responsible parenting that father 3
determined his work schedule would impede his ability to care for
the children, and that paternal grandmother was a better choice.
The evidence of how well the children were doing in their
grandmother’s care further supports father 3’s decision.

                        DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court’s custody orders and orders terminating
jurisdiction as to minors 2, 3, and 4 are affirmed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                         BENDIX, J.

We concur:

     ROTHSCHILD, P. J.                   CHANEY, J.

                                  21