Court Opinion

ID: 9369777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-09 18:02:17.41684+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:16.995673
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/9/23 In re J.A. CA2/3
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 THREE

 In re J.A. et al., Persons Coming Under                           B314664
 the Juvenile Court Law.
 _____________________________________
 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                                (Los Angeles County
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND                                        Super. Ct. No. 18CCJP05558)
 FAMILY SERVICES,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,

          v.

 C.A.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Debra R. Archuleta, Judge. Affirmed.
      Jesse Frederic Rodriguez, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                  ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
       C.A. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court’s orders
denying her Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388 petitions
to modify. Mother argues that the court abused its discretion by
denying her petitions without a hearing. We conclude otherwise,
and therefore affirm.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I.     Detention and petition.
       The family consists of mother, father, and six children: J.A.
(age 11 as of August 2018), N.M. (age eight), R.M. (age six), F.M.
(age five), J.M. (age three), and K.M. (age two) (the children). In
August 2018, acting on a child abuse hotline referral alleging a
woman had a knife, police found mother, father, and paternal
aunt arguing in front of the family’s home. The two youngest
children were present, but not injured. After the adults gave
conflicting versions of events and were observed to have several
injuries, mother was arrested on a felony domestic violence
charge. With mother incarcerated and father unhoused with

1All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.

                                 2
unknown whereabouts, maternal aunt2 was to care for the
children.3
        The children’s schools reported attendance issues and
problems with the older children’s behavior, which mother had
not addressed with recommended mental health services for
them. The children old enough to make a statement denied that
mother and father fought or mistreated them, and several were
emotional about being separated from mother, stating they liked
living with her.
        The Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services (DCFS) filed section 300 petitions alleging that
mother and father’s domestic violence endangered their children.
The petitions also alleged that father was a sex offender and
registered controlled substance offender, and that mother allowed
relatives to possess and abuse marijuana in the children’s home
and in their presence. At the detention hearing, the court
ordered the children detained, and granted mother monitored
visits.
II.     Jurisdiction and disposition.
        As documented in the September 2018
jurisdiction/disposition report, mother was released from custody
and soon tested positive for marijuana. The children remained
placed with maternal aunt. Mother admitted arguing with father
and paternal aunt, but claimed that paternal aunt had attacked
her, she did not have a knife, and her children were in the car

2The record also refers to maternal aunt as maternal great aunt.
We refer to her as maternal aunt for ease of reference.
3The children were the subject of numerous other referrals
dating back to 2013, only one of which was substantiated.

                               3
with a relative during the altercation. Mother denied prior
physical altercations with father. She knew father was a sex
offender, but claimed he never used drugs in her presence.
Several of the children, too, denied that their family members
used drugs or engaged in violent behavior, except F.M. said that
mother “whoop[ed]” him when he misbehaved.
       At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, mother pled no
contest to the section 300 petitions as amended, and the court
sustained the count alleging that mother and father engaged in
physical altercations.4 The children were declared dependents
and removed from parental custody. Mother’s court-ordered case
plan included participation in a domestic violence program,
individual counseling, a parenting program, and monitored visits.
III. Six-month and 12-month review hearings.
       In March 2019, DCFS reported that the children continued
to reside with maternal aunt, but those old enough to provide a
statement wished to return to mother’s care. Some of them were
receiving mental health services to address behavioral issues at
school. Mother was employed parttime and consistently
attending her courses, but not her individual counseling sessions.
She visited the children, with maternal aunt monitoring, three
times per week. Maternal aunt reported that mother was
attentive and affectionate toward the children, helping them with
their needs. At the six-month review hearing, the court

4The record does not include the minute orders or any section
388 petitions pertaining to R.M. We therefore agree with DCFS
that mother has failed to meet her appellate burden of producing
an adequate record on appeal with respect to R.M. (Ballard v.
Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574–575.)

                                4
continued mother’s services and gave DCFS discretion to
liberalize mother’s visits.
      In August 2019, DCFS received a referral claiming that
father attended mother’s graduation from her domestic violence
program and mother threw coffee on him. The caller further
alleged that mother was selling methamphetamine and had lied
about living with a relative. The caller claimed that mother was
unhoused and spent time with a 17-year-old who mother
“hooked” on methamphetamine and was “prostituting.” Mother
denied these allegations, insisting she had no contact with father
since the children’s detention.
      In September 2019, DCFS reported that mother and father
had been arrested together in April 2019 and charged with
driving with a suspended/revoked license and possession of drug
paraphernalia, respectively. Mother failed to appear at her
arraignment. Several of the children, who were still residing
with maternal aunt, continued to act out in school but were
receiving mental health services to address those issues. Mother
was still employed and visited the children three times per week,
actively engaging with the children and assisting with chores.
Four of the children said they wanted to reunify, while the others
were too young to provide statements. Mother also completed
several of her programs but had not attended therapy since
January 2019, despite telling DCFS otherwise. Mother’s
dishonesty caused maternal aunt to be reluctant to continue to
care for the children.
      In September 2019, DCFS received information that
mother frequently used marijuana and methamphetamine.
Mother, who claimed she used marijuana but no other
substances, tested positive for marijuana in August and

                                5
September 2019. The court ordered mother to submit to weekly
drug tests.
       In September and October 2019, mother had six drug tests,
testing positive for marijuana five times. In September 2019,
DCFS received another referral reiterating the allegations
regarding the 17-year-old. Mother again denied the allegations.
When interviewed, the 17-year-old denied knowing mother and
that she was exploited, but acknowledged using
methamphetamine and that an unhoused woman named “Marie”
bought her a “blunt” and smoked it with her. She had met Marie
when she was 12 years old, and Marie had six children not in her
care. DCFS reported mother went by “Marie,” her middle name.
       After obtaining the police report from mother’s April arrest,
DCFS interviewed mother, who denied contact with father prior
to or after the incident. In October 2019, mother was arrested on
an outstanding warrant.
       Mother was consistently attending therapy sessions and
the social worker observed a positive visit with the six children in
October 2019. However, later that month, maternal aunt
reported that mother had yelled and cursed at maternal aunt and
uncle and spat at maternal aunt in front of the home while the
children were inside of it, and the uncle had to carry mother off
the property. Maternal aunt wanted a restraining order. Mother
claimed that the uncle had started the argument and choked her,
prompting mother to seek law enforcement intervention. At the
12-month review hearing in November 2019, the court continued
reunification services, ordering that mother’s visits remain
monitored, but not by maternal aunt or in her home.

                                 6
IV.    18-month review; termination of mother’s
       reunification services.
       From October 2019 to February 2020, mother attended
monthly individual counseling sessions, despite her statement
that such sessions were weekly. She had 15 clean drug tests
between October 2019 and January 2020. However, she was
observed in contact with father, despite insisting otherwise.
Then, in November 2019, they were arrested together for
shoplifting. They were later convicted and sentenced to 36
months of probation. Despite the arrest and having been
witnessed contacting father during a visit so that the children
could speak with him, mother denied contact with father,
insisting that he had been following her.
       In December 2019, N.M. and R.M. reported that mother
instructed them to falsely report that maternal aunt was
physically disciplining them. Mother advised N.M. to report that
one of maternal aunt’s adult sons was sexually abusing N.M. The
children denied being physically punished or touched
inappropriately. R.M. and N.M. reported mother called father
during visits, and R.M. said that mother told her not to disclose
the conversations. Mother informed N.M. that she was going to
call the police and “make damn sure” the children were removed
from maternal aunt’s care.
       During January and February 2020, scheduling visitation
was difficult due to conflict between maternal aunt and the
DCFS-approved monitor, maternal uncle. During the visits that
occurred, the children reportedly acted out and did not listen to
mother. The monitor reported that J.M. stated “my auntie told
me not to listen to you” when the monitor attempted to direct
J.M., while J.M.’s teacher and maternal aunt reported that J.M.

                               7
would say “my mom told me not to listen to you” when being
directed at maternal aunt’s home and school. Maternal aunt
gave DCFS notice to remove the children from her home, but
then rescinded that notice. After maternal aunt inquired about
adopting some of the children but not others, DCFS expressed
concern about separating the children. The three oldest children
stated they wanted to reunify with mother.
       The 18-month hearing was continued many times, first at
mother’s request for a contested hearing, and then due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. In September 2020, mother tested positive
for methamphetamine. She was “shocked,” as she had “never
used methamphetamine”—only marijuana—and suggested she
must have had intercourse with someone who used the drug, was
exposed to secondhand smoke, hugged someone who used the
drug, or that someone put the drug in her beverage.
       In November 2020, mother enrolled in a six-month
outpatient substance abuse program. She attended all therapy
sessions and was making progress. Later that month she again
tested positive for methamphetamine. When DCFS informed
mother’s program, the program indicated that mother had not
disclosed the positive test and later denied using
methamphetamine to them. Mother’s case manager said her
methamphetamine levels were unlikely the result of secondhand
exposure.
       In or about January 2021, mother was arrested for grand
theft auto, fraud, and driving with a suspended license. Police
recovered various items from the car, including: Sawzall blades,
power tools, a cut catalytic converter, a nitrous oxide container,
several balloons, saw blade batteries, a substance resembling
methamphetamine, a social security card that did not belong to

                                8
mother, EBT cards with the children’s names on them (among
others), credit or debit cards belonging to other people (including
father), a notebook containing other people’s identifying
information, and $4,622 in cash.
      From November 2020 to February 2021, mother had weekly
negative drug tests for her treatment program. Mother
continued to attend and participate in scheduled sessions,
complete assignments, and attend three weekly NA/AA meetings.
During dozens of visits with the children over that period, mother
engaged positively, although J.M. continued to act out and insist
he did not have to listen to mother. As of February 2021, the
children wanted to reunify.
      Meanwhile, DCFS was becoming concerned about the
children’s placement with maternal aunt, given her refusals to
make the children available for visits, her requests to remove the
children, and her calling one of the children an “asshole.” The
children reported that she physically disciplined them, and she
was seen hitting J.M. with a shoe during a Zoom call.
      At a February 2021 court appearance, mother provided
proof of drug programming compliance, which also showed that
her drug tests had been negative during the program’s course.
However, the court found that mother’s progress was
insufficiently substantial and that returning the children to her
would create a substantial risk of detriment to them. Mother’s
reunification services were terminated and a section 366.26
hearing scheduled.

                                9
V.     Children’s removal from maternal aunt’s home.
       In April 2021, DCFS placed the children with Raquel L.5
after N.M. ran away from home, and maternal aunt reported the
children continued to act out after visits with mother. Raquel L.
reported that the children were adjusting positively to her home.
However, mother continued to violate DCFS’s rules. Among
other things, mother asked Raquel L. if she could spend the night
in her home, instructed N.M. to walk away from the monitor
during a phone call, and asked to take the children shopping
unmonitored.
       Later that month, the court authorized placement with
Raquel L. or another DCFS-approved home, ordered that
mother’s monitored visits not occur in children’s placement, and
limited contact between the children and maternal aunt.
       In May 2021, the children’s therapists reported mother’s
visits negatively impacted all but the youngest child. Mother did
not follow instructions not to argue with caregivers or to discuss
the case with the children. The therapists suspected mother was
giving the children false information about the case and
instructing them to lie. The therapists believed mother
effectively “split” the children between mother and caregivers,
which adversely affected the children’s mental health and
escalated their defiant behavior in the days and hours following
visits with mother.
       In April and May 2021, R.M., F.M., and J.M. were removed
from Raquel L.’s home and placed at a transitional shelter after
they engaged in destructive behavior, including throwing rocks at

5Some reports indicate Raquel L. was a “relative,” while others
state she was a nonrelative extended family member.

                               10
neighbors’ cars. They initially did well at the shelter, but after
speaking with mother on the telephone, they began fighting,
stopped following the rules, and engaged in further destructive
behavior. Staff was able to calm F.M. and J.M., but had to place
R.M. on a one-day psychiatric hold. The three children were then
placed with nonrelative extended family member Daisy D., who
indicated that the children’s negative behavior escalated during
mother’s visits.
       J.A., N.M., and K.M. remained with Raquel L. However,
after Raquel L. reported in May 2021 that J.A. did not listen to
her and that Raquel L. was stressed, DCFS placed K.M. with
Daisy D. and placed J.A. and N.M. in two separate foster homes.
N.M. ran away within three hours and was located the next
morning. DCFS noted that the children’s behavior had improved
recently, which DCFS believed was due to less frequent visits
with mother.
       Due to the uncertainty of the children’s placements, DCFS
requested a continuance of the section 366.26 hearing. Later that
month, the court granted that request and reduced mother’s
visits to one visit per week. The court admonished the parents
not to discuss the case with the children outside of a therapeutic
setting.
VI. Mother’s section 388 petitions.
       In May 2021, mother filed five identical section 388
petitions (one for each child, except, as discussed above, there is
no petition for R.M. in the record). The petitions requested that
the court change its February 2021 orders terminating
reunification services and requiring that mother’s visits with the
children be monitored. Mother asserted her circumstances had
changed because she had reenrolled and participated in a

                                11
parenting class, recently completed a six-month outpatient drug
treatment program, attended AA/NA meetings regularly, and
regularly participated in individual counseling. She further
asserted that such a modification was in the children’s best
interest because she maintained a deep bond with them, through
weekly visits and almost daily telephone contact, and given the
lack of a permanent plan for the children, reunification services
would facilitate the children’s return home and afford them the
most stability. In a declaration, mother stated that she had
learned from her prior mistakes, including her drug use and
criminal conduct, and had grown into a better person. She
acknowledged drug use and contact with father during
reunification, but claimed that she had recently made progress in
her programs, had ceased contact with father, was employed, and
was not on parole or probation. Mother’s petitions attached proof
of attendance at AA/NA meetings, completion of an outpatient
drug program, enrollment and participation in a parenting
program, and participation in individual therapy and other
mental health services since 2019.6
       In July 2021, the court increased mother’s monitored
visitation to twice per week. The court summarily denied
mother’s section 388 petitions.

6 Mother also attached a Form JV-180 proposed order indicating
a June 18, 2021 hearing date for the section 388 petition, which
was the day of the section 366.26 hearing that took place three
days before the petitions were filed. Despite mother’s suggestion
in her brief that the court “ordered a hearing on whether the
court should grant or deny an evidentiary hearing,” the form was
not signed or dated by a judicial officer.

                               12
       Later that month, DCFS reported that Raquel L.’s sister,
nonrelative Brenda L., had initially expressed a willingness to
care for N.M., but changed her mind after experiencing problems
with N.M., mother, and maternal grandmother. Brenda L. and
Raquel L. reported that N.M. was abusive and disrespectful, and
that mother had given N.M. a telephone and $130. As a result,
Brenda L. did not know how much unmonitored contact mother
and N.M. were having.
       At a June 2021 visit, mother reportedly had difficulty
managing F.M. and J.M.’s behavior, and the boys fought when
mother gave one or the other more attention. The boys would not
follow her direction, and N.M. became argumentative. J.M. tried
to hit N.M., and N.M. cursed and taunted him. Mother and the
monitor tried to intervene, but N.M. would not listen to them.
N.M. screamed at mother, complained about not being able to
have maternal aunt and grandmother at her placement, and ran
away. Mother responded by complaining to the monitor that the
caregivers were only caring for N.M. for the money. When N.M.
returned, she was talking on the phone to someone she referred
to as “aunt.” N.M. became upset at J.A. when he took the phone,
and had to be calmed down.
       After N.M. hung up the phone, she continued to cause her
siblings to misbehave and mother struggled to manage them.
The monitor suggested that N.M.’s future visits be separate from
her siblings. Assessing the situation, DCFS noted mother’s
pattern of manipulating her children into making false
allegations and acting out when she had unmonitored access to
them. It was concerned about N.M.’s behavior and her mental
health.

                               13
       On August 2, 2021, mother refiled the same section 388
petitions she previously filed in June 2021. On August 5, 2021,
the court summarily denied the petitions, reasoning that mother
failed to make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances or
that the requested modification would promote the children’s best
interest.7 Mother timely appealed from the August 5, 2021 order.
                         DISCUSSION
      Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by
summarily denying her August 2021 section 388 petitions and
denying her request to reinstate reunification services.8 We
disagree.
      A.    Governing law and standard of review.
      Section 388 permits a parent to petition the juvenile court
to modify any of its orders based on changed circumstances or
new evidence. To obtain the requested modification, the moving
party must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence both
a change of circumstance and that the proposed change of court
order is in the child’s best interest. (In re Mickel O. (2011) 197

7 An August 23, 2021 status report reflects statements from five
of the children as to where they wanted to live: “I want to live
with . . . maternal aunt. I see her as my mother.”; “I want to be
with them (siblings).”; “I like it here (caregiver [Daisy D.]). I’m
happy here.”; “Happy here with Daisy.”; “I want to stay here
(caregiver Daisy [D.]).” The precise dates of these statements and
whether they were available to the juvenile court at the time of
its August 5, 2021 order are unclear from the record.
8Mother advances no challenge to the court’s adjudication of the
portion of her section 388 petitions requesting unmonitored
visits.

                                14
Cal.App.4th 586, 615 (Mickel O.).)
       To obtain a hearing on a section 388 petition, the moving
party must make a prima facie showing of both elements. (In re
Brittany K. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1504–1505.) The
petition must be liberally construed in favor of granting a
hearing, and the prima facie requirement is met if the facts
alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing,
would sustain a favorable decision on the petition. (Ibid.) “If it
appears that the best interests of the child or the nonminor
dependent may be promoted by the proposed change of order . . .
the court shall order that a hearing be held.” (§ 388, subd. (d).)
       The change in circumstance must be such that the problem
that brought the child into the dependency system has been
removed or ameliorated; the change must therefore be significant
or substantial. (In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 612.)
Circumstances must have changed and not be merely changing.
(Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 615.) To determine
whether this showing has been made, the court may consider the
entire factual and procedural history of the case. (Id. at p. 616.)
       Whether to modify an order under section 388 rests in the
juvenile court’s discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal
unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. (Mickel O.,
supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 616.)
      B.    The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion
            in summarily denying mother’s August 2021
            section 388 petitions.
      Mother principally contends that she made a prima facie
showing that there were changed circumstances and that
additional reunification services were in the best interest of the
children, and thus the juvenile court abused its discretion in

                                 15
denying her an evidentiary hearing on her section 388 petitions.
Mother is mistaken.
       First, the juvenile court’s conclusion that mother had not
demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances warranting
reinstatement of reunification services was well within its
discretion. (Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 615.)
       The children were declared dependents due to their
exposure to domestic violence and father’s status as a sex
offender and substance abuser. To address these issues, the
court approved a case plan that included domestic violence and
parenting classes, individual counseling, and monitored visits.
Initially, mother was partially compliant with her case plan,
attending and positively engaging in her visits and participating
in some (but not all) of her required programming. Soon,
however, mother engaged in troubling behaviors that threatened
the children’s placements and significantly called into question
the effectiveness of any programming.
       Significantly, mother was arrested several times
throughout the dependency proceedings, including in April 2019,
when mother was arrested with father with drug paraphernalia
found in the vehicle, in October 2019, for failing to appear for her
arraignment for her April 2019 arrest, in November 2019, for
shoplifting with father, and finally in 2021, for stealing a car and
for credit card fraud. Mother also allegedly engaged in a violent
altercation with father at her graduation from her domestic
violence program. Further, in spite of her participating in drug
rehabilitation and AA/NA, mother possessed, sold, and/or used
various controlled substances as recently as 2021, just a few
months before she filed her section 388 petitions and well after
she had started the programming which formed the basis for her

                                 16
petitions. And, even after mother began to regularly attend
therapy, she engaged in another violent altercation with family
members in front of her children.
       Further, despite mother’s participation in parenting
programs, mother repeatedly made decisions that had materially
adverse effects on the children’s placements, with reports that
the children were acting out against their caregivers and teachers
at mother’s encouragement, causing their caregivers to have
doubts about, or bow out of, their responsibilities. Although
mother had difficulties responding to situations where the
children acted out dating back to early in the proceedings, these
occurrences only multiplied as the proceedings dragged on. After
a few troubling events occurred in which the children committed
destructive and defiant acts after visiting with mother, it became
clear that their interactions with mother had a direct, adverse
effect on their behavior, and the court had to reduce mother’s
visitation in the days before mother filed her first section 388
petitions. These difficulties continued at subsequent visits while
mother’s first section 388 petitions were pending, with mother
unable to redirect the children’s fighting over a telephone that
mother had given one of the children (which had enabled
unmonitored contact with relatives). Relatedly, the record is
replete with examples—well over a dozen occurring both before
and during the pendency of her section 388 petitions—of mother’s
disregarding court orders and/or being dishonest with various
authorities, frequently roping her children into her misdeeds and
even causing them to mimic her deceptive behavior.9

9We also note that mother was serving a term of 36 months’
probation when at least some of these events occurred, although

                               17
       Mother emphasizes the evidence in her section 388
petitions that she was employed, had completed a parenting class
and drug treatment program, attended AA/NA meetings and
biweekly therapy sessions, and maintained sobriety and regular
visits with her children. But while mother completed some
additional coursework and regularly visited with the children,
mother’s behavior, as described above, called into doubt whether
she derived any benefit from these programs. Indeed, as we have
described, even after completing various elements of her case
plan, mother continued to engage in illegal behavior and disrupt
the children’s placements. (See In re N.F. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th
112, 121 [where parent’s issues have “repeatedly resisted
treatment in the past, a showing of materially changed
circumstances requires more than a relatively brief period of
sobriety or participation in yet another program”].) As such, the
court did not abuse its discretion in determining that any change
in circumstances was not sufficiently substantial to warrant
reinstatement of services. (Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 615–616.)
       But even were that not the case, we nonetheless discern no
clear abuse as to the second prong of the analysis—whether the
proposed modification—namely, reinstatement of reunification
services—was in the children’s best interest.
       Mother continued to fight with relatives in the presence of
the children and to involve herself in serious criminal conduct.
Further, mother persistently refused to follow instructions not to
argue with caregivers or to discuss the case with the children,

it appears, based upon mother’s declaration appended to her
petitions, that her probation might have been terminated early.

                               18
instead giving the children false information about the case and
instructing them to lie. As a result, the children’s therapists
concluded that interactions with mother were adversely affecting
her children’s mental health and escalating their defiant
behavior. In short, the record amply supported the juvenile
court’s conclusion that permitting mother additional contact with
the children and further reunification services were not in their
best interests.
      Mother’s citation to In re Aljamie D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th
424 (Aljamie D.) does not compel a different conclusion. In
Aljamie D., dependency proceedings were instituted based solely
on mother’s drug abuse, and mother was ordered to participate in
rehabilitation and parenting classes, with monitored visitation.
(84 Cal.App.4th at p. 427.) Approximately three years later,
mother alleged in a section 388 petition that she had completed
“numerous educational programs and parenting classes, and had
tested clean in weekly random drug tests for over two years. She
had visited consistently with the children and continued to have
a strongly bonded relationship with them.” (84 Cal.App.4th at p.
432; see id. at pp. 426–428.) Because mother had substantially
complied with her case plan, including no positive drug tests, the
Court of Appeal concluded, as DCFS conceded, that mother had
demonstrated changed circumstances. (Id. at p. 432.) Here,
DCFS has made no such concession, instead correctly
highlighting that mother’s periods of adherence to her case plan
were hardly unblemished, and that her more recent periods of
progress occurred over a much shorter period than was at issue
in Aljamie D. (See, e.g., In re N.F., supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p.
121 [relatively brief period of sobriety insufficient].)

                               19
       As to the best interest question, mother posits that Aljamie
D., supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at page 432, supports the proposition
that a parent’s consistent visitation and a bonded relationship
with the children suffices to demonstrate that modification is in
those children’s best interest. Preliminarily, we note that the
best interest analysis in Aljamie D. focused not on these
elements, but instead on the fact that the child had testified in
the subsequent section 366.26 hearing that she wanted to reunify
with mother. (Aljamie D., at pp. 430–432.) This too, varies from
the record in the case before us, where evidence submitted
shortly after the section 388 orders suggested that the children
wanted to remain with caregivers, and not reunify with mother.
Finally, unlike in the present case, there was no suggestion in
Aljamie D. that the child’s contact with mother had adverse
mental health effects or threatened her school performance or
foster care placement.
       For these reasons, the juvenile court did not abuse its
discretion in denying mother’s August 2021 section 388 petitions
without a hearing. (Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 616.)

                                20
                        DISPOSITION
       The August 5, 2021 orders denying mother’s section 388
petitions are affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

                                         EDMON, P. J.

We concur:

                 LAVIN, J.

                 EGERTON, J.

                               21