Court Opinion

ID: 9910927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 20:02:17.131658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:55:12.880096
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/18/23 In re Z.R. CA2/6
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re Z.R., A Person Coming Under                                         2d Juv. No. B329482
the Juvenile Court Law.                                            (Super. Ct. No. 22JD-00277, 22JD-
                                                                               00277-001)
                                                                       (San Luis Obispo County)

SAN LUIS OBISPO DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

     Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.R.,

     Defendant and Appellant.

     C.R. (Mother) appeals orders of the juvenile court denying
her modification petition, declaring that her minor child Z.R. is
adoptable, and terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst.
Code, §§ 388, 366.26, subd. (c)(1).)1 We conclude that sufficient
evidence supports the court’s orders and affirm.
             FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       Mother, the parent to eight children, has a long history
with the child dependency system, including for neglect and
abuse of her children, chronic drug abuse, and criminality. Prior
to the filing in Z.R.’s dependency proceeding, Mother’s seven
other children had been removed from her care at different times.
Mother’s parental rights to three children (Z.R.’s half-siblings)
were later terminated and those children have been adopted. In
2019, Mother reunified with three of her remaining children
(Z.R.’s full siblings) and a fourth child has now reached
adulthood.
       In July 2021, Mother was arrested and charged with child
abuse following her physical acts (grabbing by the throat,
striking in the face, and threatening with a screwdriver) against
two of her minor sons. As a result, another dependency action
was filed and family reunification services terminated regarding
these two minor sons. The father of one son later received full
legal and physical custody and the other son was placed in a legal
guardianship.
       In April 2022, Mother pleaded nolo contendere to child
abuse and received a grant of four years of formal probation with
a condition of 94 days’ confinement in county jail.
       In August 2022, the San Luis Obispo Department of Social
Services (Department) received a report alleging that Mother was
abusing drugs daily and neglecting infant Z.R. A Department
social worker spoke with Mother who then agreed to drug testing.

      1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code.

                                2
Mother missed testing on one occasion and tested positive for
methamphetamine on two other occasions. Further, between
August 16, 2022, and September 19, 2022, Mother was unable to
provide a urine sample for testing on three occasions, failed to
appear to test on one occasion, and gave a urine substitute on
another occasion. Mother also failed to regularly attend Drug
and Alcohol Services group meetings.
                    Jurisdiction and Disposition
       On September 27, 2022, the Department filed a dependency
petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,
subdivision (b)(1), alleging that Mother failed to protect infant
Z.R. due to her chronic substance abuse of methamphetamine.
The following day, the juvenile court removed Z.R. from Mother’s
care and set a jurisdiction hearing for October 13, 2022. Since
her September 28, 2022, detention, Z.R. was placed with a
maternal relative who now intends to adopt her.
       Mother and her attorney appeared at the jurisdiction
hearing and Mother submitted on the Department’s petition. The
juvenile court sustained the allegations of the petition and set a
disposition hearing for November 10, 2022. Prior to the
disposition hearing, Mother entered 90-day residential drug
treatment. Mother tested negative for drugs during her
residential treatment and expressed interest in remaining drug-
free. She also consistently visited Z.R. and interacted with her
positively and appropriately. Based upon Mother’s progress in
rehabilitation, the Department recommended that Mother receive
reunification services. Z.R.’s attorney disagreed with this
recommendation and a contested disposition hearing was then
scheduled.

                                3
       At the December 14, 2022, disposition hearing, the
Department social worker, a drug and alcohol counselor, and
Mother testified. Following the receipt of testimony and
Department reports, the juvenile court decided to bypass
reunification services to Mother in part based upon her failure to
reunify with three of Z.R.’s half-siblings. (§ 361.5, subd.
(b)(10)(A).) The court found by clear and convincing evidence
that reunification services were not in Z.R.’s best interests. In
ruling, the juvenile court judge stated: “[B]ased on the history,
based on how much [Mother] needs to overcome, I just don’t see a
reasonable likelihood the services are going to be successful; . . .
that she’ll benefit from them. And then, of course, the competing
interest is the desire to provide permanency to the child.” The
court then set a permanent plan hearing.
       Mother sought an extraordinary writ vacating the juvenile
court’s order denying reunification services and setting a
permanent plan hearing. She also sought reinstatement of
reunification services, visitation, and return of custody of Z.R.
We denied her petition for relief in an unpublished opinion. (C.R.
v. Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County (Apr. 18, 2023,
B325166).)
                    Mother’s Section 388 Petition
       On March 17, 2023, Mother filed a section 388 petition
requesting that the juvenile court order reunification services for
six months. In support of her petition, Mother provided a
certificate of completion of residential drug treatment. Mother
requested a change in previous court orders due to her continued
sobriety, mental health treatment, therapy, and employment.
Mother asserted that she could now provide a safe and loving
home for Z.R. with whom she was strongly bonded.

                                 4
       The Department contested Mother’s section 388 petition
due to its concerns that she could not sustain her sobriety and
treatment services in view of nearly two decades of extensive
substance abuse and criminality. The Department stated that it
was in Z.R.’s best interests to achieve permanency through
adoption and noted that the infant had lived half of her young life
in foster care.
            Combined Sections 388 and 366.26 Hearing
       The Department filed a section 366.26 report
recommending that Mother’s parental rights be terminated and
Z.R. found adoptable. The Department noted that Z.R. entered
the dependency with significant development delays and a
diagnosis of failure to thrive. Z.R. continued to struggle with
communication and emotional skills likely due to previous
neglect by Mother.
       On May 22, 2023, the juvenile court held a combined
sections 388 and 366.26 hearing. Mother and the Department
social worker testified. Mother testified regarding her sobriety
since October 2022, her commitment to remaining sober, and her
current employment.
       The juvenile court commended Mother for her recent
reformation but stated that a 20-year history of drug use is
significant to overcome, and that seven months of sobriety is
simply too short to establish long-term sobriety.
       At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found
that Mother had established changing, but not changed,
circumstances and it denied her modification petition. The court
also found that Z.R. was adoptable and it terminated Mother’s
parental rights. The court found that the beneficial parental

                                 5
relationship exception to adoption did not apply. (§ 366.26, subd.
(c)(1)(B)(i); In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614.)
       Mother appeals and contends that the juvenile court
abused its discretion by: 1) denying the section 388 modification
petition, and 2) not applying the beneficial parental relationship
exception to adoption. Father did not appear in the proceedings
and is not a party to this appeal.
                            DISCUSSION
                                  I.
       Mother argues that the juvenile court erred by denying her
modification petition because she established changed
circumstances and the best interests of Z.R. She asserts that
findings otherwise are not supported by substantial evidence.
Mother relies upon In re J.M. (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 833 [juvenile
court erred by denying modification petition concerning infant
where mother reformed, evidentiary hearing occurred, and
infant’s counsel joined in the petition].) She adds that the court
abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard, i.e.,
that Mother must show completely changed circumstances.
       A petition to change or modify a juvenile court order
pursuant to section 388 must factually allege: 1) changed
circumstances or new evidence to justify the requested order, and
2) the requested order is in the minor’s best interests. (§ 388,
subds. (a)(1) & (b).) The petitioner bears the burden of proof on
each issue by a preponderance of evidence. (In re Casey D. (1999)
70 Cal.App.4th 38, 48, overruled on other grounds by In re Caden
C., supra, 11 Cal.5th 614. 636, fn. 5.) The change of
circumstances supporting the modification request must be
material. (In re N.F. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 112, 120.)

                                 6
       The juvenile court must liberally construe the modification
petition in favor of sufficiency. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(a);
In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309-310.) On review, the
appellate court reviews denial of a section 388 petition for an
abuse of discretion. (In re J.T. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 953, 965.)
       The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Mother’s section 388 petition because Mother’s recent sobriety
reflects changing, not changed, circumstances. (In re Ernesto R.
(2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 219, 223.) Mother’s rehabilitation must
be considered in view of her 20-year history of drug abuse,
criminality, repeated participation in services, and relapses into
drug abuse. When so viewed, Mother’s seven-month reformation
is insufficiently substantial to establish changed circumstances.
       Moreover, Mother did not establish that it was in Z.R.’s
best interests that the juvenile court order reunification services.
Z.R., an infant with development delays who failed to thrive in
Mother’s care, lived only 9 months with Mother. She has lived
longer now in her foster/adoptive home. Mother has had
approximately 20 years of Department referrals, multiple
voluntary family maintenance cases, and five prior dependency
cases. Mother gave birth to twin babies in 2014 while addicted to
methamphetamine. Mother has previously attained sobriety
through services but continues to relapse. The two decades of
child welfare history as well as the issues that existed at the time
of Z.R.’s removal, speak to the seriousness of Mother’s drug
addiction and the difficulty she has experienced in attaining
lasting rehabilitation. The court’s denial of the modification
petition was not an abuse of discretion.

                                  7
                                  II.
       Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by not
analyzing each element of the beneficial parent exception to
adoption. She adds that the court’s findings are not supported
by sufficient evidence. Mother asserts that Z.R. would benefit
from continuing their relationship to such a degree that Z.R.
would be harmed by termination of parental rights.
       Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B), requires the juvenile
court to terminate parental rights if it finds by clear and
convincing evidence that a child is likely to be adopted, unless the
court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination
would be detrimental to the child due to an enumerated statutory
exception. (In re Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th 614, 629.) The
beneficial parental relationship exception of section 366.26,
subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), requires a showing by a preponderance of
the evidence that the parent has regularly visited the child, that
the child would benefit from continuing the relationship, and that
terminating the relationship would be detrimental to the child.
“[T]he exception applies in situations where a child cannot be in a
parent’s custody but where severing the child’s relationship with
the parent, even when balanced against the benefits of a new
adoptive home, would be harmful for the child.” (Caden C., at
p. 630.)
       Application of the beneficial parental relationship exception
rests upon factual determinations and is reviewed for substantial
evidence. (In re Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th 614, 630.) The
“ultimate decision” that termination would be harmful, however,
is discretionary and reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (Ibid.)
The parent bears the burden of establishing the three elements of
the exception: 1) regular visitation and contact as permitted; 2) a

                                 8
relationship, the continuation of which would benefit the child;
and 3) termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the
child. (Id. at p. 631, 636.) Ultimately, the juvenile court must
decide “whether the harm from severing the child’s relationship
with the parent outweighs the benefit to the child of placement in
a new adoptive home.” (Id. at p. 632.) What the court must
determine “is how the child would be affected by losing the
parental relationship – in effect, what life would be like for the
child in an adoptive home without the parent in the child’s life.”
(Id. at p. 633.) There is no requirement that the juvenile court
make specific findings regarding each element of the exception.
(In re A.L. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1156.)
       Mother did not meet her evidentiary burden to establish
that her relationship with Z.R. was sufficiently compelling to
outweigh the legal preference for adoption. Although Z.R. and
Mother had positive, appropriate, and loving visits, Z.R. was an
infant who had lived with Mother for only nine months before her
removal. (In re Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th 614, 632.) During
foster care, Z.R. was making progress overcoming her
developmental delays and her emotional and communication
issues. She also separated from Mother easily following visits.
To overcome the preference for adoption and avoid termination of
parental rights, the parent must show that severing the natural
parent-child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial,
positive, emotional attachment such that the child would be
greatly harmed. (In re G.H. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 15, 25.) The
emotional bond here is not the substantial, positive, emotional
attachment establishing the exception to adoption. The juvenile
court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that termination
of Mother’s parental rights would not be detrimental to Z.R. The

                                 9
“ ‘exceptional circumstances’ ” that would allow the juvenile court
to circumvent adoption were not present here. (Caden C., at
p. 631.)
                           DISPOSITION
       The orders are affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                     GILBERT, P. J.
We concur:

             YEGAN, J.

             BALTODANO, J.

                                10
                     Gayle L. Peron, Judge

           Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

                ______________________________

     L. Richard Braucher, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
     Rita L. Neal, County Counsel, and Valerie Janiel, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.