Court Opinion

ID: 9371883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-17 00:02:49.428198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:30.847455
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/16/23 In re M.H. CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

              IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                       FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

 In re M.H., et al., Persons Coming Under the
 Juvenile Court Law.

 KINGS COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES                                                                 F084490
 AGENCY,
                                                                                (Super. Ct. Nos. 22JD0008,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,                                                    22JD0009)

                    v.
                                                                                          OPINION
 M.W.,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the orders of the Superior Court of Kings County. Jennifer Lee
Giuliani, Judge.
         Seth F. Gorman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
         Diane Freeman, County Counsel, Risé A. Donlon and Thomas Y. Lin, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-
       Appellant M.W. (grandmother) is the paternal grandmother and former guardian
of nine-year-old M.H. and eight-year-old Jackson H. (collectively “the children”), who
are the subjects of a dependency case. Grandmother challenges the juvenile court’s
orders terminating the grandmother’s probate guardianship over the children and placing
the children in their father’s custody under a plan of family maintenance. She argues that
the juvenile court’s orders terminating the probate guardianship and removing the
children from her care were not supported by substantial evidence. The grandmother
further argues that the juvenile court failed to consider the proper legal standard for
removing the children from the grandmother’s custody prior to terminating the
guardianship. We reject these claims and affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       A.     Initial Removal
       On January 22, 2022, law enforcement responded to the grandmother’s home after
Jackson dialed 911 to report that grandmother was being verbally abusive toward M.H.
Jackson told the 911 operator that grandmother was calling M.H. a “freak” and “liar,”
and he hung up the phone because he was afraid grandmother was going to “whoop” him
for calling 911. Grandmother refused to allow law enforcement officers into the home
and slammed the door on the officers’ faces multiple times. She would not provide a
statement to the officers, but she allowed the children to be interviewed outside of the
home. M.H. told the officers that grandmother did not hear Jackson say “okay” after she
told him to stop watching television. Grandmother caused Jackson’s head to move
forward after she slapped him on the back of the head. The children claimed
grandmother called them names, and they wanted to be placed into a foster home. Law
enforcement had no prior history with grandmother involving the children.
       The next day, a social worker with the Kings County Human Services Agency
(agency) responded to the home with the law enforcement officers. Grandmother
declined to speak with the social worker after it was explained that there were concerns

                                             2.
with how grandmother was disciplining the children. The social worker was able to
interview each of the children outside of the home with grandmother’s permission.
       M.H. reported feeling “fine” and “safe,” but he would “get whoopings” for not
following house rules. M.H. claimed grandmother hit the children with a belt on their
shoulders, back, butt, and legs, and the belt had left black marks on him. He had an old
injury to his shoulder and an old bruise to his lip from being hit by grandmother. The
social worker noted how M.H.’s voice trembled while discussing the abuse. M.H. also
reported feeling sad when grandmother called him names such as “freak” and “liar.”
Grandmother became upset after the children spoke to the law enforcement officers the
previous day. M.H. reported that grandmother grabbed Jackson and caused a scratch to
his lip after the officers left. M.H. rated his safety at eight out of 10 (one being unsafe
and 10 being safe). He explained that an aunt living in the home made him feel safe even
though the grandmother and aunt yelled during verbal arguments. In reference to
grandmother, M.H. stated, “ ‘She makes me feel like she does not want me.’ ” M.H. did
not know his mother, and he had not seen his father for “a while.”
       In Jackson’s interview, he explained that grandmother would physically discipline
him with a belt on the back, legs, and shoulders. He decided to call 911 the previous day
because grandmother repeatedly called M.H. a “freak” and “liar.” Jackson believed
grandmother sprained his leg after she hit him until he was unable to get off the ground
near the time of his last birthday. Jackson had black marks from being hit with the belt
on a few occasions, and grandmother scratched his lower lip after the officers left on the
previous day. On the same safety scale from one to 10, Jackson rated himself at a zero
out of 10 for “not safe.” Jackson indicated his preference for “juvie or a foster home”
over grandmother’s home. It was estimated that Jackson was hit by grandmother five to
10 times per week while M.H. was hit once per week.
       Prior to the completion of Jackson’s interview, grandmother interrupted to have
M.H. come into the home for a shower. The children’s aunt refused to provide a

                                              3.
statement to the social worker regarding the allegations, and she claimed the children
were safe without need of any services. The children were ultimately placed into
protective custody by one of the officers due to concerns that grandmother injured
Jackson for calling law enforcement the previous night. Grandmother initially prevented
the officers from taking M.H. from the home. M.H. reported that grandmother asked him
to tell the officers and social workers that he wanted to remain at grandmother’s home.
M.H. also indicated that he and Jackson sometimes “deserved whoopings.” The social
worker explained to M.H. that she would locate a home where they would not be
physically punished.
       On January 24, 2022, a social worker informed the children’s father, I.H., III
(father), of their removal. Father was surprised by the news and began to cry. He
described his prior attempt to regain custody of the children about five years earlier, but
he claimed his mother (grandmother) moved to Kings County to stop him. Father
reported that he maintained contact with the children and saw them a couple weeks prior.
He recently obtained custody of I.H., IV, the children’s sibling (sibling), after he
requested to live with father. Law enforcement had to assist father in retrieving the
sibling from grandmother’s home because she refused to allow the sibling to leave. The
sibling’s guardianship case from San Diego County was set for a hearing where father
intended to move to terminate the legal guardianship of the children. The children
recently began calling father almost 10 times each day.
       Father claimed grandmother was lying when she accused father of hitting the
children. Grandmother obtained a restraining order protecting the children and herself
from father, but M.H. was no longer protected by the restraining order. The restraining
order was filed by grandmother based upon allegations that father slammed her on the
ground in March 2021 and hit the children with a belt in July 2021.
       Grandmother became upset when the social worker contacted her to provide notice
of the detention hearing. She denied knowing why the children were removed, and she

                                             4.
claimed that she had always taken care of the children since they were born.
Grandmother reported that the children needed daily medication for their seizures and
epilepsy, but she refused to allow anyone from the agency to get any medication from her
home. Grandmother ended the conversation after telling the social worker that they had
to “figure it out,” and “those little n*****s can fen[d] for[] themselves.” The care
provider agreed to take the children to the hospital due to the alleged epilepsy conditions,
but the children denied that they had seizures. M.H. also informed the care provider that
he wanted to return to grandmother.
       The agency filed a petition alleging the children were described by Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g).1 The petition alleged the
children were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm as a result of
grandmother’s physical discipline of the children. The petition further alleged the
children were left without any provision for support due to mother’s whereabouts being
unknown. At the detention hearing held on January 26, 2022, grandmother and father
were both present and appointed counsel. All parties submitted on the agency’s report,
and the juvenile court ordered the children removed from the grandmother’s custody.
       After their initial removal, the children went through four placement changes due
to their behaviors and allegations of abuse in each of their foster homes. The children’s
behaviors consisted of running away from their care providers’ home, aggression toward
care providers’ children, threatening to make false reports of abuse against care
providers, and damaging property. According to the children’s first care provider, the
children made statements that they intended to report abuse in order to return to their
grandmother’s home. The children informed their social worker that they no longer

1     All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless
otherwise specified.

                                             5.
wanted to get “whooped” by their grandmother, but they loved her and wanted to return
home.
        The children were placed in separate homes after they made threatening
statements to each other such as “I am going to kill you.” M.H. told social workers that
he wanted to return to grandmother’s home, and he made threats to run away from his
placement until he was returned to grandmother. Jackson was initially willing to return
to grandmother’s home if the agency assisted her in no longer using physical discipline.
However, he then claimed he wanted a restraining order because he never wanted to see
her again.
        The social worker contacted the grandmother at her home on February 1, 2022, to
introduce herself as the ongoing social worker. Grandmother explained that the children
previously received counseling and behavioral services through a provider in San Diego.
The children were enrolled in regional center services, occupational therapy, and physical
therapy until services stopped at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in February 2020.
Grandmother reported that she decided to home school the children to keep them safe
from being exposed to COVID-19.
        The children were diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD), Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS), and epilepsy. M.H. was diagnosed with
Cerebral Palsy, and the children were not taking any medication to manage their
behaviors. Grandmother claimed she was able to manage the children’s behaviors with
constant supervision, stimulation, structure, boundaries, and organization. The social
worker observed that the children’s learning materials and medication were organized.
Grandmother was concerned for the children’s medical and educational needs, and she
did not want the children attending school in person due to them being
immunocompromised.
        Grandmother claimed Jackson called law enforcement on the day before their
removal because “he did not get his way and was upset.” Jackson was eating “like a wild

                                            6.
animal” and making noises while the children were racing each other to finish their
dinner. Grandmother informed the children their behavior was unacceptable, and she told
M.H. to “stop acting like a freak,” after he put his plate above his head and scraped the
dessert off his plate. Jackson became upset and yelled at grandmother to stop calling
M.H. a “freak.” Grandmother sent Jackson to his room and did not allow him to watch
television because he yelled at her.
       Grandmother denied that she hit Jackson on that night. However, she
acknowledged that she had spanked the children on the buttocks with a belt in the past.
She explained that she last spanked them in October or September of 2021, and she
denied ever leaving marks or bruises on the children. Grandmother claimed to be
unaware that she was not able to use objects to spank the children, and she would no
longer spank the children with objects in the future.
       Grandmother participated in supervised visits for the period of time that the
children were in foster care. During grandmother’s first visit, both children became
upset, yelled, and walked out of the visitation room. On February 2, 2022, grandmother
had a visit with the children while the agency attempted to secure a new placement for
each of them. Grandmother attempted to engage the children in conversations and
appeared to be affectionate towards the children. Jackson left the room after grandmother
redirected his negative behavior, and he stated, “I don’t want you to let her … come into
the room.”
       The children’s sibling, who was nine years old and living with father, was
interviewed by a social worker on February 4, 2022. Sibling lived with grandmother for
almost his entire life, and he asked to return to his father the previous year. Sibling
explained that grandmother’s home “wasn’t good for us” because they had no interaction
with other kids, attended school via Zoom, and were only allowed to play in the front
yard if no one else was outside. Grandmother would send children to their room, put
them in the corner, or take away video games if they misbehaved. Sibling reported that

                                              7.
for “certain things” grandmother would “whoop” them with the long part of the belt
“everywhere besides the head,” but grandmother would not “whoop” them often. Sibling
never received marks or bruises from being “whooped.” However, he remembered
Jackson receiving a mark between his left shoulder and elbow because he was “the
baddest.” The children’s aunt would stop grandmother from “going crazy” on them. He
did not feel safe with grandmother, and he reported feeling safe with father. Sibling did
enjoy being with grandmother because they baked cookies and ate them at lunch time.
          At an interim review hearing held on February 8, 2022, the agency requested that
the juvenile court grant it discretion to return the children to grandmother’s care under
specific terms and conditions. The agency made the decision after determining that
grandmother had the necessary tools to address their medical, educational,
developmental, and behavioral needs. Grandmother would allow the agency and
children’s attorney to conduct in-person unannounced visits to ensure the children’s
safety.
          B.    Jurisdiction Hearing
          The agency’s jurisdiction and disposition report, dated February 28, 2022,
recommended that the allegations in the petition be found true, the children remain in
grandmother’s custody with family maintenance services, and the father be provided with
family reunification services. Mother’s whereabouts remained unknown, but
reunification services were recommended if she made an appearance.
          M.H. was returned to grandmother’s home on February 9, 2022. A meeting was
held on February 16, 2022 to discuss Jackson’s return to grandmother’s home. Jackson’s
clinician and support counselor were present with Jackson at the meeting. Jackson
initially told the social worker that he did not want to go back to grandmother’s home and
threatened to leave the meeting. Upon the arrival of his grandmother, aunt, and uncle,
Jackson began to yell, “I don’t want to see you, I don’t love you, I don’t even miss you”
towards grandmother. Jackson claimed he felt that way because grandmother’s discipline

                                               8.
is harsh and he did not know what he was doing at times. Grandmother apologized to
Jackson, and she told him that she loved and missed him. Jackson agreed to return to
grandmother’s home before changing his mind again. Jackson became violent toward the
social worker and made threatening statements to grandmother. Jackson began crying
after he left the visitation room, and he agreed to return to grandmother’s home. Jackson
was transported to grandmother’s home without further incident after the meeting
concluded.
       The agency’s report included descriptions of the child welfare investigative history
involving the children. Past referrals in San Diego County from 2013 to 2018 involved
reports of domestic violence between mother and father and physical abuse of the
children’s sibling by grandmother. In March of 2021, law enforcement observed
grandmother and father in a verbal altercation in Jackson’s presence. A few days later, it
was reported that father and his girlfriend were involved in a physical altercation while
the children were inside the home.
       Over the next several months there were five separate referrals regarding father
that were ultimately determined to be unfounded. Four of them involved allegations of
general neglect of the sibling by father as a result of his leaving the sibling unsupervised
and engaging in domestic violence altercations in the sibling’s presence. A July 2021
referral investigated allegations that father beat Jackson with a belt, which were
referenced in grandmother’s prior restraining order request. Law enforcement responded
to the home and determined Jackson had no visible injuries.
       In December 2021, the agency received a referral alleging grandmother hits the
children and caused M.H.’s lip to bust open a couple of months earlier. During the
investigation, grandmother indicated M.H. busted his lip at father’s home, and M.H.
described a verbal and physical altercation he witnessed between grandmother and father.
M.H. stated grandmother grabbed and pushed him toward the gate after he indicated his

                                             9.
desire to stay at father’s home with the sibling. M.H. busted his lip on the gate after
grandmother’s push, which resulted in father slamming and grabbing grandmother.
       The report also included descriptions of father and grandmother’s criminal history.
Grandmother had convictions for trespass, fraud, perjury, driving under the influence,
and driving with a suspended license. Father’s convictions involved trespass, false
identification to peace officers, driving without a license, obstruction of a public officer,
and driving with a suspended license.
       During the social worker’s family assessment, grandmother expressed her
disagreement with the agency’s intervention. Grandmother believed the children were
only removed as a result of her refusal to cooperate with law enforcement. She also
claimed Jackson called 911 because she would not let the children play with neighbors
who did not wear a mask. Grandmother denied ever abusing the children, and she
expressed her willingness to cooperate with the agency’s efforts to return the children to
her care. Grandmother claimed she would rely on alternative disciplinary methods for
the children such as redirecting their negative behavior, sending them to their room for a
time out, removing their electronics, watching church movies, or reading children’s
books on discipline or lying.
       Father informed the social worker that he was disciplined by his parents with a
belt, but he did not believe that the “whoopings” were in an abusive manner. As a last
resort, father acknowledged that he would spank his own children with a belt without
leaving welts, marks, or bruises. Father believed the children should have remained in
grandmother’s care and that the children’s separation from each other was not beneficial.
Father reported his last use of illicit substances as approximately 20 years ago, and he
denied having any mental health issues. Father told the social worker that he agreed to a
legal guardianship for the children when he was “roaming the streets” and unable to care
for the children. Father was currently working on himself and trying to get his family
back together. In order to regain custody of the children, father believed he would

                                             10.
benefit from family counseling to improve his relationship with the children and
grandmother.
       In March 2022, the agency filed amended petitions to update the children’s status
as no longer being detained and correct a typo in the spelling of grandmother’s name. At
the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing held on March 17, 2022, grandmother
testified regarding her relationship with the children and their significant developmental
and medical needs. Both children were developmentally delayed, and Jackson had more
violent tendencies.
       Grandmother then described the events that led to law enforcement’s response at
her home in January 2022. She explained how she told M.H. to “quit acting like a freak”
after he held his bowl above his head while eating at dinner time. Grandmother believed
Jackson called the police because “he couldn’t get his way,” and she explained how he
previously called police 47 different times for the same reason. She did not believe she
did anything wrong on the night that Jackson called the police, and she denied ever
hitting either of the children in the back of the head or grabbing Jackson by the jaw.
Grandmother admitted to using a belt to spank the children without ever leaving a mark.
She utilized physical discipline in comparison to the offense the children committed, and
she also had the children separate, take a time out, and lose the use of electronics for
punishment.
       At the close of evidence, counsel made arguments regarding jurisdiction and
whether the agency had met its burden to prove the allegations of the amended petition
by a preponderance of the evidence. The juvenile court found that the children came
within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b) and sustained the allegations in the
amended petition. The disposition portion of the hearing was continued to April 5, 2022,
for the children’s attorney to speak with the children and conduct an investigation into the
father’s home.

                                             11.
        C.    Petition for Termination of Guardianship and Disposition Hearing
        The agency filed an addendum report, dated April 1, 2022, in advance of the
continued disposition hearing. The social worker visited the grandmother’s home on a
weekly basis, and she observed grandmother redirect the children in an age-appropriate
manner. Grandmother had concerns that the children acted out when they did not get
their way, and the paternal aunt believed the children had the impression that they could
get grandmother in trouble by speaking to the social worker when they did not get their
way. M.H. told grandmother that one of the children had to leave the home, and Jackson
made threats to leave grandmother’s home.
        During a meeting with the agency, the social worker noted concerns that
grandmother was intervening during the children’s Full Service Partnership (FSP)
sessions. Grandmother responded that the social worker was lying, and she denied ever
intervening in the service providers’ sessions. Grandmother was receptive to scheduling
various assessments to address the children’s behavioral, mental health, and
developmental needs, and she agreed to meeting with the FSP team outside of
grandmother’s home.
        At a home visit on March 4, 2022, M.H. expressed his desire to leave the home if
Jackson continued to live in the home, but grandmother was able to redirect M.H. by
having him engage in another activity. The following week, M.H. complained that he
had to vacuum the living room and play outside for an hour. M.H. told the social worker
that he wanted to leave grandmother’s home, and he felt he would be better off in foster
care.
        On March 18, 2022, Jackson’s behavior was self-reported as “good,” and the
children were not fighting as often. M.H. claimed Jackson was being nicer to him
because they were spending more time apart. The children expressed no concerns or
needs to the social worker. Grandmother stated Jackson’s behaviors were stabilized, but
M.H. would become upset when Jackson did not pay attention to him. Grandmother was

                                            12.
coordinating the children’s various appointments and in the process of enrolling the
children in school and community activities.
       Later that day, the agency received a referral after M.H. ran away from
grandmother’s home and banged on the door of the reporting party. M.H. told the
reporting party that Jackson was attempting to sexually abuse him and grandmother was
going to spank M.H. M.H. was not able to provide any details and only stated that
Jackson was getting “freaky” with him. M.H. was telling everyone a different story
regarding the reason that he ran away from the grandmother’s home. The reporting party
did not believe M.H.’s stories added up. M.H. was supposed to be playing in the
backyard with Jackson, but he ran away from home when Jackson went inside.
       M.H. denied the sexual abuse when law enforcement arrived, and grandmother
was in front of the home looking for M.H. when he was brought back home. Upon the
social worker’s arrival, M.H. disclosed that Jackson abused him by hitting and bashing
him. Grandmother was not aware of Jackson’s hitting, and M.H. did not want to tell
grandmother because he believed she always takes Jackson’s side. M.H. stated he
wanted to go to foster care or have his brother leave the home.
       On March 22, 2022, Jackson appeared to be happy and reported he was doing
“good” during the social worker’s home visit. M.H. informed the social worker that he
wanted to leave the home because Jackson still lived there, and he denied getting a
“whooping” after he ran away from the home. Grandmother reported she enrolled the
children at an in-person school with specialized programs for children with special needs.
       The social worker contacted father, sibling, and father’s partner T.T. at father’s
home on March 30, 2022. Father’s home appeared to be clean and furnished with plenty
of food. Father explained that guardianship of M.H. was provided to grandmother at the
time of M.H.’s release from the hospital after a child welfare investigation. Father
reported that he saw the children often, and he interacted with them while the paternal
aunt would babysit them. Father claimed grandmother prevented him from knowing

                                            13.
about the children’s medical and emotional needs. He believed the children’s diagnoses
were “not as bad as they say they are.” Father suggested grandmother was
“handicapping” the children by going to several providers until she received the
“diagnosis or answers” that she wanted to hear.
       Father attended Individualized Education Plan meetings for the sibling, and he was
able to connect with the school to obtain community resources. Father recently started a
new job, and he had access to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Father
and T.T. had been in a relationship for four years. T.T. helped care for sibling, and she
stayed home to care for her and father’s younger children. T.T. described father as being
family oriented and a stable parent, and she had no concerns with his ability to care for
the children.
       Sibling told the social worker that he was doing well in father’s care and he had a
good relationship with father. Sibling had no concerns, worries, or fears while residing in
father’s care. Sibling wanted to have visits with the children, but he was not worried for
the children because he felt it was “a matter of time before they return home.”
       The agency continued to recommend that the children remain in grandmother’s
care, but it also requested that the restraining order be modified to allow supervised
contact between Jackson and father. At the continued disposition hearing held on
April 5, 2022, the attorneys for the children and father each requested a contested
hearing, which was set for May 5, 2022. The children’s attorney intended to present
evidence bearing on substantial risk to the children, and it had completed an investigation
of father’s home in San Diego. Father’s counsel did not believe the children were safe in
grandmother’s care, and she commented that “grandmother continues to thwart the
process .…”
       On April 12, 2022, the children’s attorney filed petitions to terminate
grandmother’s guardianship of the children. The petition alleged that termination was in
the best interests of the children because “the guardian has acted in bad faith with respect

                                            14.
to the child[ren]’s interest in a relationship with [their] father and [sibling]; it appears the
child[ren]’s father is able to provide a safe home for the child[ren], and that [father]
desires to do so now.” The investigator’s report and an email from the sibling’s attorney
were attached to the petitions.
       According to the investigator’s report, father and the sibling’s mother agreed to let
grandmother provide temporary care for the sibling shortly after his birth. Grandmother
obtained guardianship of sibling due to father’s unstable lifestyle. Father was prevented
from taking sibling out of state after grandmother reported father for kidnapping sibling
when he was approximately one year old.
       Grandmother obtained guardianship of M.H. in order to authorize medical care
with the agreement of father and mother. Father was absent while he was working
various jobs, and grandmother “pushed back” when father felt prepared to take care of his
children. Father alleged grandmother obtained guardianship of Jackson by default based
upon a forged proof of service. Father attempted to regain custody of sibling in 2018, but
he claimed grandmother moved to Lemoore to hinder the process. Sibling returned to
father’s care in 2020 after grandmother and sibling had a “falling out.”
       Father continued to be involved in the children’s lives while they were in
grandmother’s care. He claimed grandmother dropped the children off at his home for
weeks at a time. However, father also suggested grandmother would attempt to push him
away from the children. He also reported concerns with grandmother’s discipline of the
children by alleging that she was “beating them” in the same manner that she parented
him.
       Father was also concerned that grandmother had a drinking problem, and he
believed she kept the children out of school to conceal any possible abuse. He also
believed grandmother taught the children how to manipulate the child welfare system in
order to “get their way.” Father insisted that he was prepared for the children to return to
his home and that he had the means and support to care for the children.

                                              15.
       Sibling informed the investigator that he hoped the children would be allowed to
return to father’s home. He reported that grandmother “is not all there” and often lies,
and she did not require him to complete any school assignments. Sibling stated that
grandmother had a bad temper and often hit him and the children with a belt for minor
things. He also felt that grandmother manipulated the children by telling them they
“would straight up die” if they had contact with anyone outside of grandmother’s home
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sibling was happy to be back in father’s home and in
school.
       Father’s relationship with T.T. recently ended; however, they continued to co-
parent their two children. T.T. supports father by caring for sibling while father works.
T.T. reported having observed grandmother lie and manipulate father and the children.
She also alleged grandmother forged a proof of service to obtain guardianship of the
children and moved to Lemoore to interfere with father’s attempt to regain custody of the
children.
       T.T. observed grandmother to have a drinking problem when she lived with father,
and she also saw grandmother use a belt on the children’s face, arms, and legs for
discipline. T.T. never saw the children complete any schoolwork during the time she
visited grandmother. T.T. planned to care for the children while father was at work if
they were returned to father’s home. T.T. would call father when the children acted out
because she believed he knew how to calm the children down.
       The attorney representing sibling in his probate guardianship case described
grandmother’s attempt to enforce a restraining order from a different court after the
probate court ordered sibling placed with father pending a trial. The other restraining
order was eventually dismissed, and the probate court terminated grandmother’s
guardianship over the sibling in August 2021. Grandmother continued to file restraining
orders to obtain custody of sibling, but sibling was eventually returned to father’s care.

                                             16.
       On April 19, 2022, the agency filed a request to modify the restraining order
protecting Jackson from father to allow for supervised visitations to occur. Temporary
orders were denied pending a hearing that was set for the same date as the contested
disposition hearing on May 5, 2022.
       In an addendum report dated May 3, 2022, the agency requested a continuance of
the contested disposition hearing for further assessment of the appropriate services for the
family due to the pending petition to terminate the grandmother’s legal guardianship of
the children. The report noted additional details from the social worker’s home visit on
March 22, 2022, after M.H. ran away on March 18, 2022. Grandmother told the social
worker that M.H. ran away due to the social worker’s statement that Jackson would be
removed from the home if the children were not able to get along. The social worker
denied making that statement and provided clarification. However, grandmother called
the social worker a liar, and grandmother wished to discontinue the children’s FSP
services. The social worker noted that grandmother slammed the front door as the social
worker left the home.
       At a home visit on April 4, 2022, grandmother expressed her disagreement with
the agency’s request to modify the restraining order, and she refused the social worker’s
attempts to arrange virtual visits between father and the children. The social worker
noted that grandmother slammed the door shut.
       On April 8, 2022, grandmother did not want to talk to the social worker because
she believed the social worker was a “liar.” After expressing her disagreement with the
agency’s recommendation to provide father services, grandmother stated, “you are out
there going to San Diego to meet with that n*****.” The social worker then explained
that the agency was “attempting to work with [grandmother] to have the children remain
in her care but due to challenges with her cooperation with the [a]gency and Court orders,
it is difficult to assess and ensure the children will receive the necessary services to
remain safely in her care.” Grandmother informed the social worker that she had not

                                             17.
been able to re-enroll the children in school because it was the middle of the school year.
The social worker obtained information to assist with grandmother’s efforts to re-enroll
the children, but grandmother indicated she would talk to her attorney prior to enrolling
them in school.
       Grandmother told the social worker that she would not attend parenting classes
until father did after the social worker asked if she was attending parenting classes. The
social worker noted that grandmother slammed the door as the social worker was leaving.
       The social worker met with Jackson outside of grandmother’s home on April 13,
2022. Jackson told the social worker he did not want to speak with her because she was
meeting with his father. The report stated that Jackson did not want to return to his
father’s care because “he whoops them and yells at them.” Jackson emphasized that he
would not go to his father’s home even if the juvenile court ordered him to go. He also
threatened to run away if he was returned to his father’s care. Jackson provided a
confusing statement when asked to identify the reason he did not like his father.
       M.H. told the social worker that he would choose foster care because he did not
want father or grandmother to feel betrayed. M.H. was “fine” living with grandmother,
and he wanted to get along with his brother. He described a verbal argument with
grandmother two weeks earlier after she discovered statements that M.H. made to the
social worker. M.H. asked the social worker to tell grandmother that he was “fine”
because he did not want to upset grandmother.
       On April 15, 2022, virtual visits began between M.H. and father with no noted
concerns during the visit. M.H. and father had appropriate conversations, and M.H.
interacted with sibling, and younger half siblings during the last 10 minutes of the visit.
The children also participated in virtual visits with sibling.
       During a meeting with the social worker on April 20, 2022, grandmother
expressed concerns of domestic violence in father’s home, and she alleged father and

                                              18.
T.T. had an active restraining order. Grandmother claimed she had proof of ongoing
abuse in father’s home, and she agreed to provide documents to the social worker.
       Grandmother informed the social worker that the children were not available
during an unannounced home visit on April 29, 2022. Grandmother clarified that all
weekly contacts were not to be conducted as unannounced based upon an advisement
from her attorney.
       The children’s school records reflected 27 absences for Jackson, 30 absences for
M.H., and poor academic performance for both children from August 2021 through
January 2022. The children were participating in mental health services through the
KIND center after grandmother declined further services through the FSP program.
Jackson was attending all of his weekly counseling sessions through the KIND center,
and the rehabilitation specialist had not identified any concerns in the early stages of his
treatment. Jackson’s rehabilitation sessions took place at a local park, and the paternal
aunt and M.H. accompanied Jackson to the sessions. M.H.’s intake appointment was
rescheduled twice due to missed appointments.
       The social worker’s assessment identifies grandmother’s inconsistent participation
in services as a reason that providing reunification services to the father would be in the
best interest of the children. The social worker was concerned with grandmother’s failure
to enroll the children in school, missed appointments to initiate mental health services for
M.H., and use of negative terms when speaking of father.
       In a declaration attached to the addendum report, grandmother provided a timeline
of various court hearings since October 2021. She described an allegation from October
2021 that sibling was injured after being pushed around during father and T.T.’s fight
over a gun. There are also references to probate court rulings and domestic violence
restraining orders with limited details provided. Grandmother alleged father and T.T.
were “wickedly dangerous people who use the children as pawns or weapons in their
battle for control of each other.” She also stated father was “instable and the exposure to

                                             19.
him is dangerous for all three of my special needs grandchildren…” Grandmother
referenced multiple documents that the agency claimed it was unable to attach to the
report absent sufficient time to review and verify the documents.
         D.    Contested Disposition and Termination of Guardianship Hearing
         On May 5, 2022, the juvenile court continued the contested hearing on disposition
and petitions to terminate guardianship at the agency’s request to May 12, 2022. The
agency requested a continuance based on its need to provide the juvenile court with
“good information regarding the relationship between the father and Jackson as it bears
on all of the issues before the Court and without doing some supervised visits the
[a]gency [was] at a loss in terms of how to assess or make a recommendation.” The
juvenile court modified the restraining order involving father and Jackson to allow
supervised visitation between Jackson and father despite grandmother’s objection to the
modification. Grandmother also voiced her disagreement with the children having
supervised visitation with father.
         The agency prepared an additional addendum report, dated May 10, 2022, which
recommended that the children be returned to father’s custody on a plan of family
maintenance services. It also joined the children’s attorney’s request that grandmother’s
legal guardianship be set aside. The social worker transported the children to a visit with
father after they each agreed to attend the visit on May 5, 2022. M.H. felt “safe” and was
happy to visit father. Jackson felt “good about it,” but he did not want the social worker
to tell grandmother about his positive feelings. The children also wanted to take pictures
with their father without the social worker telling their grandmother. Jackson indicated
he wanted to live with father “as long as I don’t get a whooping.” M.H. and Jackson felt
sad that grandmother and paternal aunt did not like the children talking about father.
M.H. would have been happy if grandmother and father were able to get along, but
Jackson stated, “I would not like that because I wouldn’t be able to say my little white
lies.”

                                            20.
       Upon their arrival at the visit, Jackson and M.H. ran toward father to hug and kiss
him. The children asked father about returning to his care, and he asked the children if
they wanted to return to his care. M.H. responded affirmatively and Jackson again
qualified his response by stating “only if I don’t get a whooping.” Father engaged the
children in age-appropriate conversations and actively engaged with them throughout the
visit. The children also interacted with their siblings, and father used encouragement and
redirection with the children.
       In the social worker’s assessment of father’s relationship with the children, she
observed that all of the interactions between the children and father were appropriate
without any concerns noted during the visits. Both children were happy to spend time
with father and were excited for their next visit. The social worker also believed
grandmother was not consistent in her level of cooperation with the agency and ensuring
that the children’s needs were met. It was also a concern that grandmother would be a
barrier to any efforts to reunify the children with father.
       At the contested hearing, held on May 12, 2022, regarding the petitions to
terminate legal guardianship, request to modify the restraining order, and disposition,
grandmother was not present at the start of the hearing. Counsel for all parties agreed to
address the petitions to terminate legal guardianship prior to disposition, and counsel for
the agency noted that “in some ways, it is dispositive.” The children’s counsel requested
that the parties stipulate that father would testify consistent with his statements in the
investigator’s report. Grandmother’s attorney offered no objection and the juvenile court
accepted the investigator’s report into evidence.
       Counsel for the agency, children, and father each requested that the juvenile court
grant the petitions to terminate the grandmother’s legal guardianship of the children.
Grandmother’s counsel explained that he intended to have grandmother testify after their
earlier preparation, but he presented argument in opposition to the petitions since
grandmother was not present. Her counsel argued that it was not in the children’s best

                                              21.
interest to terminate the legal guardianship because they lived with grandmother for most
of their lives and had a strong bond with her.
       During its rebuttal argument, the agency’s counsel acknowledged that
grandmother raised the children for the majority of their lives. However, it was argued
that grandmother was “increasingly unresponsive” to direction from the agency and her
failure to attend the hearing evidenced the “downward trajectory of how things have gone
related to her care of the children.” The agency was not initially seeking to terminate her
guardianship, and there were concerns about where the children were. After hearing
argument from counsel and reviewing all reports in evidence, the juvenile court found
that it was in the children’s best interests to terminate the grandmother’s guardianship
over the children.
       The juvenile court then proceeded to the disposition portion of the hearing.
Counsel for the agency and children explained their position that there was not clear and
convincing evidence of a substantial danger to the children to prevent the children from
being placed with their father. The counsel for the agency, children, and father each
requested that the restraining order be terminated and family maintenance services be
provided to father. Grandmother’s counsel made no arguments as to disposition because
any of grandmother’s issues on disposition were believed to be moot.
       Grandmother entered the courtroom with the paternal aunt as the juvenile court
was reciting its orders as to disposition, which was 25 minutes after the hearing was
scheduled to begin. The juvenile court then terminated the restraining order protecting
Jackson from father, ordered the children placed with father, and provided father with
family maintenance services. The case was subsequently transferred to father’s county of
residence, San Diego County, on May 31, 2022. Grandmother filed a timely notice of
appeal on June 10, 2022.

                                            22.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Grandmother contends the juvenile court erred in terminating her probate
guardianship of the children under subdivision (a) of section 728. She argues that there
was no substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that termination was in
the children’s best interest. Grandmother further argues that there was no substantial
evidence to support a finding that grandmother’s home posed a substantial danger to the
children pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c).
       A.     Applicable Law
       California law recognizes two types of guardianships pertaining to minor children
governed by two separate statutory schemes. A guardianship can be established by the
superior court, before the commencement of dependency proceedings, under the authority
of the Probate Code. (Prob. Code, § 1514; Guardianship of Zachary H. (1999) 73
Cal.App.4th 51, 61.) Juvenile courts may also create guardianships under the authority of
the Welfare and Institutions Code. (§ 366.4, subd. (a); In re Heraclio A. (1996) 42
Cal.App.4th 569, 575.) These two types of guardianships are commonly referred to as
“probate guardianships” and “dependency guardianships,” respectively. The present case
involves a probate guardianship, which was created before the commencement of the
current dependency proceedings.
       The procedure for terminating a probate guardianship in a dependency proceeding
is set forth in section 728 and California Rules of Court, rule 5.620(e). (In re Z.F. (2016)
248 Cal.App.4th 68, 73 (Z.F.).) The juvenile court may terminate a probate guardianship
on the social service agency’s motion at any stage in the dependency proceeding. (§ 728,
subd. (a) [the hearing on a termination motion “may be held simultaneously with any
regularly scheduled hearing held in proceedings to declare the minor a dependent
child ..., or at any subsequent hearing concerning the dependent child .…”]; rule 5.620(e);
In re Xavier R. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1398, 1413 (Xavier R.) [recognizing that the

                                            23.
juvenile court has authority to terminate a probate guardianship at any stage in the
dependency proceedings].)
       A juvenile court must focus on the best interests of the child when deciding
whether to terminate a probate guardianship. (Xavier R., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1416; see also Z.F., supra, 248 Cal.App.4th at p. 73; In re Michael D. (1996) 51
Cal.App.4th 1074, 1087.) When assessing a child’s best interests, a juvenile court may
consider, among other factors, “the seriousness of the problem leading to the dependency;
the strength of relative bonds between the child and both the parent and the caretaker; and
the degree to which the problem may be/has been easily removed.” (In re Jacob P.
(2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 819, 832.)
       B.     Standard of Review
       We review a juvenile court’s order terminating a probate guardianship under the
substantial evidence standard. (In re Merrick V. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 235, 254.) This
means, among other things, that we resolve all evidentiary disputes in favor of the
juvenile court’s rulings and draw all reasonable inferences to support them. (In re Alexis
E. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 438, 450–451.)
       C.     Analysis
       First, we reject grandmother’s contention that the juvenile court erred by applying
improper legal standards and failing to make various findings in order to remove the
children from grandmother. The juvenile court terminated grandmother’s probate
guardianship prior to the disposition hearing where custody orders were made in father’s
favor. Since a probate guardianship may be terminated at any time during the
dependency proceedings, even prior to the dispositional hearing, and is governed only by
the child’s best interests, whether a guardianship should be terminated is not dependent
on the juvenile court’s findings concerning a substantial danger or reasonable means to
protect the children from their former guardian.

                                            24.
       Here, the juvenile court terminated the guardianship after finding it was in the
children’s best interests to do so. Since the guardianship was terminated, the juvenile
court was not required to make additional findings regarding a former guardian in order
to grant father custody of the children. Grandmother’s trial counsel even acknowledged
the fact that they were unable to make any arguments as to disposition once the legal
guardianships were terminated. Grandmother was no longer the children’s guardian such
that the provisions of section 361 acted to protect any existing right of custody to the
children. (See A.H. v. Superior Court (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1379, 1393, fn. 6 [“Once
the juvenile court terminated [the] Grandmother’s probate guardianship, the clear and
convincing evidence standard under section 361, subdivision (c), no longer applied.”].)
       The juvenile court appropriately conducted the disposition hearing by granting
father custody of the children after grandmother’s legal custody of the children ceased by
operation of law. At the time of the disposition hearing, grandmother was no longer the
children’s guardian and had no legally cognizable interest in whether the juvenile court
placed the children with father. Accordingly, grandmother fails to demonstrate that the
juvenile court was required to make any additional findings prior to its termination of the
legal guardianships or otherwise erred when it placed the children in father’s custody.
       Next, grandmother argues that the juvenile court was required to find by clear and
convincing evidence that termination of the guardianship was in the children’s best
interests because the agency joined in the requests of the children and father. In support
of this argument grandmother cites to this court’s decision in the case of In re Priscilla D.
(2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1207, 1218 (Priscilla D.), which held that a parent seeking to
terminate a dependency guardianship under section 388 need only show termination is in
the child’s best interest and “does not have to show that the guardianship is detrimental to
the children.” However, an agency was still required to show that “the child will suffer
detriment by clear and convincing evidence before the department can remove the child
from the guardian and initiate termination of the guardianship.” (Priscilla D., at p. 1218.)

                                             25.
       The Priscilla D. court’s holding is not applicable to the present case. Here, the
petitions to terminate the children’s legal guardianship were filed by the children’s
attorney. Both the agency and father were in support of the petitions and made
arguments that they be granted, but they were not the parties that made the formal motion
to initiate a termination of the guardianship. (See Decker v. U.D. Registry, Inc. (2003)
105 Cal.App.4th 1382, 1391 [although “standard practice” permits parties to join in each
other’s arguments, “joining in an argument is different from joining in a motion”].)
       The juvenile court’s ruling concluded that termination of the legal guardianship
was in the children’s best interests without articulating which standard of proof it was
applying. “Because Welfare and Institutions Code section 728, Probate Code section
1601 and [California Rules of Court,] rule 5.620 are silent with respect to standard of
proof, the default standard of preponderance of the evidence applies.” (In re Z.F., supra,
248 Cal.App.4th 68, 74.) Therefore, “where, as here, the juvenile court is terminating a
probate guardianship pursuant to section 728, the best interests of the minor finding need
only be made by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Ibid.) Even accepting
grandmother’s argument as to the application of a heightened standard of clear and
convincing evidence, we believe the juvenile court’s finding was supported by substantial
evidence under either standard of proof.
       Finally, we address grandmother’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to
support the juvenile court’s finding that termination of the legal guardianships was in the
children’s best interests. Grandmother argues that termination of the legal guardianships
was not in the children’s best interests because (1) grandmother provided stability for the
children; (2) the children’s bonds with grandmother were disrupted; (3) grandmother did
not fail to supervise the children; (4) grandmother met the children’s mental health and
educational needs; (5) grandmother’s conflict with the social worker did not affect the
children; and (6) grandmother would no longer engage in unreasonable discipline.

                                            26.
       In doing so, grandmother essentially requests that we reweigh the evidence by
only considering the evidence in a light that is favorable to her. However, “[w]e cannot
reweigh the evidence; we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the
judgment, giving every reasonable inference which could be drawn from the evidence in
support of the judgment. If there is any substantial evidence which supports the trial
court’s ruling, we must uphold the order. [Citation.]” (Guardianship of M.S.W. (1982)
136 Cal.App.3d 708, 711.)
       The best interest of a child is a “complex idea.” (In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56
Cal.App.4th 519, 530 [discussing best interests in the context of a section 388 petition].)
A “one-dimensional ‘better household’ test is not dispositive” and many factors must be
considered. (In re Kimberly F., at p. 530.) Typically, a court begins by examining “the
seriousness of the reason for the dependency in the first place.” (Ibid.) Here, the
dependency proceedings were initiated as a result of grandmother’s inappropriate
discipline of the children. Grandmother acknowledged that she utilized a belt to
discipline the children, but she denied ever leaving marks on the children.
       The filing of the petition was preceded by months of back-and-forth allegations
that both grandmother and father were either involved in altercations with each other or
abusing the children. Father had recently regained custody of sibling after a “falling out”
with grandmother, and the children were beginning to call father multiple times per day.
The children were well aware of the fact that they could manipulate the volatile
relationship between grandmother and father by making false reports of abuse. After
going through four foster placements due to the children’s behaviors and unfounded
reports of abuse against care providers, the children were returned to grandmother’s
home. Although there were no additional reports of inappropriate discipline by
grandmother, she continued to involve the children in her dysfunctional relationship with
father by discouraging the children from speaking positively of their father and
interfering with the scheduling of father’s visitation.

                                             27.
       It is important to acknowledge that the children had a long-standing relationship
with grandmother as their primary care provider for the majority of their lives. However,
there is no indication in the record that the children were so bonded to her that they
would be harmed by termination of the legal guardianship. (See In re Randalynne G.
(2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1169 [“What is in the best interests of the child is
essentially the same as that which is not detrimental to the child.”].) We find support for
this conclusion in the fact that the children’s sibling had also lived with grandmother for
most of his life, but he was found to be enjoying his time in father’s care after recently
returning to his custody. Father had been able to maintain a relationship with the children
over the years, and the children interacted positively during visits with father and his
family. The children’s bond with grandmother was more established than father’s, but
the children’s relationship with grandmother was complicated by her disapproval of their
developing relationship with father. Such disapproval resulted in M.H. informing the
social worker that he preferred foster care over the home of father or grandmother
because he did not want to betray either of them.
       In addition, we must also consider that father’s custody was not interrupted by
dependency proceedings. Grandmother obtained legal guardianship of the children
through probate proceedings, where “[i]t is the family members and the guardians who
determine, with court approval, whether a guardianship is established, and thereafter
whether parent and child will be reunited, or the guardianship continued, or an adoption
sought under [Probate Code] section 1516.5.” (Guardianship of Ann S. (2009) 45 Cal.4th
1110, 1122.) With an appropriate consideration of this fact, “the juvenile court is in the
best position to decide the means most likely to lead to stability and permanency in these
children’s lives .…” (In re Jessica C. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 474, 484.)
       Accordingly, the children’s interest in permanency and stability must still be
balanced against the statutory preference for family reunification. (See § 202, subd. (a)
[a primary objective of the juvenile court law is “to preserve and strengthen the minor’s

                                             28.
family ties whenever possible”]; see also In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309
[“The parent’s interest in having an opportunity to reunify with the child is balanced
against the child’s need for a stable, permanent home. The parent is given a reasonable
period of time to reunify and, if unsuccessful, the child’s interest in permanency and
stability takes priority.”].)
       The present record establishes that grandmother tried to interfere with the
children’s visitation and bonding with father. This suggests the children’s best interests
would not be served by maintaining the legal guardianship where father had finally
reached a place of stability in his life. The reports of both the agency and children’s
attorney indicated that father’s home was appropriate and the other children living in the
home were well cared for without any signs of abuse or neglect. Initially, the focus of the
dependency case was to allow the children to remain in grandmother’s home while father
participated in reunification services. Grandmother repeatedly and explicitly expressed
her disagreement with any plan to return the children to father. The children informed
their social worker that grandmother did not approve of the children speaking about their
father, and each of the children was afraid that the social worker would tell grandmother
that they were happy to visit with father.
       Allowing the children to remain in grandmother’s home while father sought to
progress in his visitation with the children would have exposed them to grandmother’s
longstanding pattern of making unsubstantiated claims of abuse against father. (See In re
A.J. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1106 [substantial evidence supported removal from
the mother who repeatedly made false allegations of the father to obtain custody of their
child, and the mother never recognized her bad behavior or expressed a willingness to
change]; see also In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73, 85 [findings of
emotional harm upheld where children were “utilized as weapons in an ongoing familial
fight”].) In fact, the children had already adopted grandmother’s technique by making
false reports of abuse against various care providers to achieve their goal of returning to

                                             29.
grandmother’s care. Father strongly believed that grandmother taught the children how
to manipulate the child welfare system despite the claims contained in grandmother’s
declaration that father was the person using the children as “pawns or weapons” in a
battle with T.T. This provides a strong inference that the juvenile court afforded father’s
claims against grandmother with more merit when it chose to terminate the guardianship
in the face of this conflicting evidence.
       In sum, it was in the children’s best interest to be raised in father’s home to allow
them to be reunited with their father, sibling, and other half siblings. There is no
indication that grandmother was pursuing an adoption such that a more permanent
placement would be achieved. Thus, the juvenile court determined that father provided
the children with the best option for their long-term emotional health and stability. The
juvenile court retained its jurisdiction over the children to monitor the children’s progress
in father’s home, which allowed the agency to ensure that their needs would be met.
Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there was substantial evidence that
terminating the grandmother’s legal guardianships was in the children’s best interest.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The orders appealed from are affirmed.

                                                                     LEVY, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

POOCHIGIAN, J.

DETJEN, J.

                                             30.