In re Jeremiah P. CA4/3 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  • Filed 9/10/14 In re Jeremiah P. CA4/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
    FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION THREE
    In re JEREMIAH P., a Person Coming
    Under the Juvenile Court Law.
    ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES
    AGENCY,
    G049561
    Plaintiff and Respondent,
    (Super. Ct. No. DP022015)
    v.
    OPINION
    TERESA S.,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Deborah C.
    Servino, Judge. Affirmed.
    William D. Caldwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Nicholas S. Chrisos, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Debbie
    Torrez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    *               *               *
    Teresa S. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her
    parental rights to Jeremiah P. (born July 2010). Mother contends the juvenile court
    abused its discretion by denying her modification petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388; all
    further statutory references are to this code unless noted) without an evidentiary hearing.
    For the reasons explained below, we affirm.
    I
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    On December 11, 2011, Joshua V., the father of Jeremiah’s half-siblings,
    called the police after mother refused to resume the care of their children after his visit
    with them was over. Mother complained father returned the children early, and she
    wanted to attend a party down the street. According to the investigating officers, mother
    smelled strongly of alcohol, had bloodshot, watery eyes, and slurred her speech. She
    admitted she suffered from depression and had taken antidepressant medication along
    with three or four glasses of brandy. Mother declared she did not want to take custody of
    the children.
    The officers concluded mother was incapable of caring for Jeremiah and his
    older brother Noel (born January 1999)1 and took them into protective custody.
    In the detention report, a social worker noted SSA had been involved with
    the family on 11 occasions since 2005. A 2008 report noted mother had a history of
    methamphetamine and marijuana abuse and was receiving services from Latino Health
    Institute, including parenting, drug relapse counseling, and mental health services. She
    was also on antidepressant medication, and a 2009 report stated she had been in crisis for
    about 18 months. The report noted the fathers of her children had drug and criminal
    1        Noel’s case is pending before this court (In re Noel P., G049705).
    2
    histories. In 2010, mother and [Jeremiah’s father] Mario [M.] 2 engaged in domestic
    violence. Mother continued to abuse marijuana, even while pregnant and later while
    breastfeeding. The family had been homeless, and mother stated she was depressed and
    anxious. In November 2011, mother reported she stopped taking prescribed psychotropic
    medication because it made her tired. During a conversation with a social worker,
    “mother was alternating between laughing and sobbing” and “wearing her bra on the
    outside of her clothing.” She was taking pain killers for back pain. She stated she
    suffered from depression, anxiety, and admitted she was not doing a good job of
    medicating herself. She had numerous prescribed medications, and also a “prescription”
    for marijuana. Mother was referred to counseling, but she was terminated for not
    participating.
    Joshua reported mother abused her prescription medication, marijuana, and
    alcohol. The children reported mother would not pick them up from school because she
    did not have gasoline, and she slept a lot. Mother frequently called Joshua for money,
    stating, “I need pot.” Noel reported he provided most of the daily care for his younger
    siblings.
    Mother claimed she was a “‘victim of circumstance.’” The social worker
    opined mother “did not accept any responsibility for her current situation.” Mother had
    asked father and family members for money so many times they would no longer accept
    her calls. She complained Medi-Cal would not pay for her antidepressant medication.
    She could not find a job that would accommodate her back pain disability. Mother’s
    transient lifestyle and lack of a stable residence “was because ‘[n]one of [her] friends
    wanted” to help her. Mother denied being “‘an alcoholic,’” but admitted she was a
    “‘pothead,’” explaining marijuana “‘kept [her] grounded. Without marijuana I can’t do
    2      The juvenile court terminated reunification services for Mario M. at the 12-
    month review in February 2013. Mario has not appealed from the order terminating his
    parental rights.
    3
    nothing.’” She and Mario met as “pot users” and were just friends when she became
    pregnant. She previously used methamphetamine, although she denied current use.
    Mother believed she had her situation “‘under control.’” According to the social worker,
    mother frequently “interject[ed] unrelated statements throughout the conversation” with
    the social worker and “jumped from one topic to another.”
    SSA filed a dependency petition alleging mother failed to protect Noel and
    Jeremiah from a substantial risk of serious harm. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The juvenile court
    detained the children and ordered SSA to provide the family with reunification services.
    The court authorized funding for drug testing and ordered twice-weekly monitored visits
    for the parents. The social worker referred mother to drug testing and various resources,
    and suggested mother seek an assessment from a mental health provider.
    During her interview with the social worker before the jurisdiction hearing,
    mother tended to “jump around in her statements.” She presented a physician’s statement
    recommending the use of marijuana. Mother claimed she needed marijuana to get up in
    the morning because it relaxed her and “lighten[ed] [her] spirit,” and if she did not “have
    it, it’s crazy.” She admitted smoking marijuana before the interview, and explained she
    did not have enough money to buy marijuana as often as she liked. She smoked it while
    pregnant, and later while nursing Jeremiah because they were homeless and he had a
    cold. Mother also took eight prescribed medications for a herniated disk and back pain
    caused from a slip and fall accident in 1999, and admitted she took several of the
    medications on the day officers placed her children in protective custody. She admitted
    she was “‘unstable because [she] blew up on the cop.’” Mother stated she had last used
    methamphetamine in 2009, and never participated in a substance abuse program because
    she “never had an abuse problem.” She revealed Mario had once “‘smacked’” her in the
    mouth, and Noel’s father, Nicholas, currently in prison, was “‘very abusive’” towards
    her.
    4
    The social worker opined “the mixture of alcohol and prescription
    medications impaired the mother’s ability to properly care for and supervise her
    children,” and concluded mother was addicted to marijuana, but cautioned that mother
    failed to understand she needed substance abuse treatment.
    Orangewood staff reported mother acted strangely and erratically over the
    Christmas holidays. She told a staffer she still loved Mario, and asked for advice.
    Mother complained about the boys visiting with Jeremiah’s paternal aunt, Rosemary M.,
    and made it clear she did not want the boys placed with her. The worker felt mother was
    jeopardizing a possible placement.
    In early January 2012, mother submitted on the amended petition based on
    SSA’s reports. The court sustained the petition, made jurisdictional and dispositional
    findings, and adopted the social worker’s proposed case plan, including a domestic
    violence (PEP) program, drug testing and outpatient substance abuse treatment, a 12-step
    program, and general counseling. Mother was directed to undergo an evaluation
    concerning her prescribed medications. SSA placed the children with Albert P., their
    maternal uncle.
    In the initial report for the July 2012 six-month status review, the social
    worker explained mother had been difficult to reach, and when they spoke mother had
    difficulty focusing and staying on track. Mother described her time spent away from the
    children as “‘a vacation’” and expressed doubts about whether she wanted to resume
    caring for her children. She visited the children sporadically, and these visits were “not
    strong in quality.” Mother had been evicted from her residence, and got into a major auto
    accident rendering her car inoperable. The social worker described mother’s case plan
    participation as “minimal to none.” She declined counseling, did not provide
    documentation showing she had completed a PEP program, stopped taking her prescribed
    medication, and declined to participate in drug treatment. She continued using marijuana
    “‘as often as [she] could get it.’”
    5
    In late June, mother changed her mind and decided she wanted to reunify
    with her children. She began participating in a domestic violence program, parenting
    classes, and counseling, but decided not to enroll in a drug treatment program because
    she felt she did not have a problem. She still had a marijuana card, but claimed she
    recently stopped using the drug. She attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings
    because she felt she did have an “‘issue’ with alcohol.” Her visitation remained
    monitored at four hours per week. Albert reported the visits were “inconsistent, and poor
    in quality.” Mother often called to cancel or reschedule and spent time during visits
    arguing with landlords, boyfriends, and others on her cell phone. Albert’s commitment to
    his own children prompted him to ask SSA to move Jeremiah. In August, SSA placed
    Jeremiah in a concurrent foster adoptive home with the G.’s.
    At the July 2012 six-month review, the court found mother’s progress with
    the case plan was minimal, and continued the case to a 12-month permanency review
    hearing.
    By December 2012, mother’s communication with the social worker had
    markedly improved, but the social worker characterized her efforts and progress with the
    case plan as minimal and recommended termination of reunification efforts. Mother’s
    housing situation was unstable, and she had not filled her psychiatric prescriptions,
    explaining she could not afford them. She had attended AA/Narcotics Anonymous (NA)
    meetings and completed PEP and parenting programs. She also pursued counseling
    services, participated in an outpatient program, and submitted to drug testing with no
    missed or positive tests. Despite mother’s efforts, the social worker remained “very
    concerned as to [mother’s] understanding and ability to understand the information she
    should have learned from her various case plan services.” For example, mother admitted
    she relapsed on August 25 when she succumbed to peer pressure and decided to smoke
    marijuana with some men she met recently. Mother missed some of her monitored visits,
    and when visiting she continued to spend time on her cell phone rather than interact with
    6
    the children. She failed to bring diapers or other basic items to visits with Jeremiah. The
    social worker concluded mother’s parenting skills had not improved, nor had she gained
    the insight necessary to implement the information she received while attempting to
    comply with the case plan.
    Mother contested SSA’s recommendation. In a January 28, 2013
    addendum, the social worker reported mother had provided a November 2012 certificate
    of completion from a behavioral health outpatient program showing she had attended the
    required 22 group sessions and four individual sessions. She also provided proof she
    attended AA/NA meetings, and a letter from the county’s Behavioral Health Services
    Agency indicating she did not meet the eligibility criteria for specialty mental health
    services. She was recently approved for government-subsidized housing and provided a
    copy of her lease. She also had completed her first college class and was awaiting
    approval for financial aid. She now visited the children on a regular basis. Mother
    explained it took her “time ‘away from the kids, to grow up.’” But mother missed a drug
    test (considered a positive test) on January 3, and “continued to report her belief that the
    [dependency] case was opened [due] to no fault of her own,” claiming she was “not
    drunk, and that her only real action was to argue with the police officer.”
    In early February 2013, the social worker confirmed mother had completed
    a 10-week parenting program, a 10-week PEP program, and 12 sessions of one-on-one
    counseling between May and August 2012. A counselor reported mother did well in
    sessions and groups, but mother was “‘emotional’” and believed “she did not need to
    attend counseling because she was not at fault for the children’s removal. “ Mother
    terminated her counseling sessions because of scheduling issues, stating she wanted to
    return to school and work. The counselor opined with continued therapy or parenting
    services mother “‘may be capable’” of caring for the children. But mother stated she was
    not interested in additional referrals for parenting or other programs, although she
    accepted a referral list for AA/NA meetings. Mother’s counselor at the behavioral health
    7
    outpatient program stated mother “seemed to have incorporated knowledge from her
    participation.” Both counselors “expressed hesitation” and “would not be comfortable
    with the mother . . . caring for children.”
    Both Noel and Jeremiah were doing well in their placements. Noel was
    “conflicted” about visiting with his mother, but was “open” to reunification with her. He
    enjoyed his current school and noted he was never able to stay in one school very long
    when he lived with mother.
    At the 12-month review held February 26, 2013, mother submitted on
    SSA’s reports and proposed orders and findings. Although it characterized mother’s
    progress as “minimal,” the juvenile court continued the case for an 18-month review.
    The court ordered immediate counseling for mother to address issues in the petition. The
    court also directed SSA to transport Noel for visits with mother at a neutral location with
    a neutral monitor. The court terminated reunification services for Mario. On March 26,
    the court granted the G.’s request for de facto parent status.
    In the June 2013 report for the 18-month review, the social worker again
    recommended terminating mother’s reunification services. The social worker noted
    mother had secured stable housing, and wanted to reunify with all her children. Mother
    was apparently not employed. She had a new boyfriend who wore a wedding band, and
    mother was evasive when asked whether he was married. Mother had been participating
    in case plan services, and recently began counseling with therapist Richard Kauffman.
    Kauffman reported “his clinical impression of the mother was that she suffers from
    borderline personality disorder,” citing “mother’s abuse and trauma history, her lack of
    acceptance of responsibility of her actions, her pattern of poor choices especially with
    relationships, her reactive emotionality, and other factors . . . .”
    Mother complained Jeremiah called the foster mothers “mom” and
    “mommy,” and complained about trivial matters, prompting the social worker to suggest
    mother should not focus on “small [] detail[s] that are not pertinent to the [overall]
    8
    progress of her reunification . . . .” During a meeting in early May 2013, mother admitted
    she recently drank a glass of wine. Although mother claimed she consistently attended
    12-step meetings (allegedly 30 meetings in April 2013), she was unable to explain the
    steps beyond the first one, and was currently only working on step two despite a year of
    attendance. Mother admitted she did not have a sponsor. The social worker concluded
    mother was “unable to actively demonstrate any of the reasonably expected amount of
    knowledge for her reported level of participation.”
    The reports from visitation monitors were not encouraging. According to
    the monitors, mother’s efforts at effective parenting often proved inadequate. For
    example, on a late April visit mother was unable to control Jeremiah’s aggressive
    behavior toward other children, and the staff had to intervene on several occasions.
    Mother failed to respond to staff directives or suggestions, and rather than focus on her
    children mother often used her cell phone or engaged other parents in conversation.
    Mother expressed a desire to improve the visits with her children, and volunteered to
    attend another parenting program. Although mother previously had completed two
    parenting programs, the social worker agreed it would be beneficial. Mother also asked
    for a parent mentor to assist her with her visitation. The social worker gave her credit for
    the suggestion, but was concerned about bringing a mentor “on board at this the
    essentially 11th hour in an effort to provide the mother [with] parenting tips and advice
    on how to engage with her children . . . .”
    The social worker concluded that “despite all of mother’s efforts to
    complete her plan services, the mother has failed to demonstrate a reasonable level of
    understanding of the materials learned from her services.” The social worker cited
    mother’s inability to impart an understanding of AA’s 12 steps, and her use of marijuana
    and alcohol despite attending 12-step meetings throughout the case. Although “both uses
    were reported by mother . . . , and she stated that both were one time only,” the social
    worker believed “mother does not demonstrate an understanding of the seriousness of her
    9
    use of alcohol, as the potential first step into a downward slide into alcohol abuse.
    Instead, the mother’s actions and description of the events seems to suggest the mother
    has minimized her alcohol use.” The social worker also cited mother’s history of poor
    choices in her relationships, and how she dealt with drugs and alcohol.
    In an addendum dated July 8, the social worker reported mother’s visits
    with Jeremiah remained at four hours per week. Jeremiah tended “to be more resistant
    when it is time to leave for the visit and is aggressive when he returns to the caretaker’s
    home.” The foster mother sent mother a text message to schedule a visit after Jeremiah
    was ill, but mother did not respond. In late May, Noel stated he wanted to soon reunify
    with mother, and maintain a relationship with her if he could not be reunited. He was
    happy and comfortable in his uncle’s home.
    In mid-June, mother told the social worker she felt empty without the
    children, explaining they kept her motivated and she requested more visiting hours in the
    future. The social worker advised mother he would not approve increased visiting hours
    because the recommendation was to terminate services. She continued to attend 12-step
    meetings and weekly appointments with her therapist. Kauffman, mother’s therapist,
    reported mother was “more focused and is participating more in counseling and is
    motivated to being a positive influence for her children. No concerns were noted.”
    Mother attended church regularly and had increased her support system. In mid-July, a
    social worker advised mother about “the miscommunication with regard to her visits,”
    and that she continued to have four hours weekly. Mother cried and expressed frustration
    “as she discussed the periods of time she did not get to see her children and how she feels
    she was failed by SSA and her attorneys.”
    At the 18-month review in July 2013, the juvenile court received into
    evidence SSA’s reports. The social worker, mother, and two of mother’s therapists
    testified. The court terminated mother’s reunification services and set a section 366.26
    hearing for November 20, 2013. Mother did not petition for writ relief.
    10
    In the initial report for the section 366.26 hearing, the social worker
    recommended terminating mother’s parental rights to both children. SSA deemed the
    boys adoptable. The children appeared comfortable and attached to the foster parents,
    and their caretakers expressed a desire and willingness to adopt should reunification fail.
    Mother continued to visit with both boys, but the social worker described
    mother’s visits as “poor in quality” and “near detrimental.” Mother stopped visiting for
    approximately six weeks after back surgery, but did not provide information from her
    doctor indicating she was unable to participate in visits. When mother did visit, she
    sometimes left early because she had overlapping visits with her other nondependent
    children. Noel suggested terminating mother’s visits early because they were of poor
    quality.
    Jeremiah’s foster parents reported that since mother started to consistently
    visit Jeremiah, his behavior at school and home had worsened. His aggressive behavior
    at school involved hitting, biting and throwing things, and usually occurred on Mondays
    following a visit with mother.
    On the date set for the section 366.26 hearing, December 10, 2013, mother
    filed a modification petition as to both boys. The petition alleged mother had completed
    a program called “‘Helping Women Succeed’” in October 2013. The program consisted
    of 10 workshops, and covered topics designed to enable mother to become independent
    and capable of caring for the children. She continued to attend self-help meetings,
    worked with a sponsor, and was currently working on the “fifth step.” Mother sought
    either return of the children with family maintenance services, or additional reunification
    services.
    The court denied the modification petition without an evidentiary hearing,
    finding mother did not make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances, or that
    modification of the prior orders was in the children’s best interests. At the section 366.26
    hearing, the court admitted SSA’s reports and Noel and mother testified. The court
    11
    terminated mother’s parental rights to Jeremiah, finding him likely to be adopted, and
    that he would not suffer detriment from the termination of mother’s parental rights.
    II
    DISCUSSION
    The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Denying Mother’s Section 388
    Modification Petition Without a Hearing
    Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her
    modification petition without a hearing. Section 388 provides in relevant part, “(a)(1)
    Any parent . . . may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition
    the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the
    juvenile court . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court
    previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court. . . . [ ¶] . . . (d) If it appears
    that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted by the proposed change of order
    . . . , the court shall order that a hearing be held . . . .”
    A modification petition “must be liberally construed in favor of its
    sufficiency.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(a).) But “[t]he parent seeking modification
    must ‘make a prima facie showing to trigger the right to proceed by way of a full
    hearing.’” (In re Anthony W. (2001) 
    87 Cal.App.4th 246
    , 250.) The “prima facie
    requirement is not met unless the facts alleged . . . would sustain a favorable decision on
    the petition.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 
    77 Cal.App.4th 799
    , 806; In re Alexis W. (1999)
    
    71 Cal.App.4th 28
    , 36 [party seeking modification “has the burden of showing not only
    that circumstances have changed, but that [proposed change] would be in the child’s best
    interests”].) We review the juvenile court’s summary denial of a modification petition
    for an abuse of discretion. (In re Angel B. (2002) 
    97 Cal.App.4th 454
    , 460.) An abuse of
    discretion occurs when the trial court makes an “‘“arbitrary, capricious, or patently
    absurd determination.”’” (In re Arthur C. (1985) 
    176 Cal.App.3d 442
    , 446.) We have no
    basis to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court when competing inferences can
    12
    reasonably be deduced from the facts. (In re Brittany K. (2005) 
    127 Cal.App.4th 1497
    ,
    1505.)
    Mother asserts that by the date of the 18-month review in July 2013 she had
    completed the activities required by the family reunification case plan. According to her
    declaration, she had submitted clean drug tests, visited her sons, obtained a residence for
    herself and her children, and participated in the required therapy. But the juvenile court
    rejected her modification petition, finding it would be detrimental because she “did not
    understand enough from her case plan activities to get her dependent sons back.”
    According to mother, the juvenile court cited the domestic violence and substance abuse
    that originally led to the boys’ removal, and mother’s history of using methamphetamine,
    marijuana, and alcohol. The court was concerned mother still smoked marijuana in
    September 2012 and drank a glass of wine more recently in April or May 2013. The
    court concluded these incidents showed mother had not implemented the lessons
    conveyed to her through counseling and other case plan activities. The court also
    expressed concern she could not consistently recite the 12-steps discussed in support-
    group meetings.
    Mother argues that given her case plan activities, “she did not need to do
    much more before her children could be safely returned to her.” She claims that in the
    five months after the court terminated reunification services, “she had gained the insight
    she previously lacked,” which she demonstrated by continuing to attend a self-help
    meetings, and completing a 10-month empowerment workshop. These “activities show[]
    she may have gained the insight she lacked in July 25, 2013 when the court found
    returning her dependent sons would be detrimental, terminated family reunification
    services and set a section 366.26 hearing.” She asserts, however, “[t]o sufficiently prove
    she has insight she must testify about the insight she gained since the detriment finding
    and termination of services. Moreover, she must have the opportunity to cross-examine
    any assigned social worker who determined she previously lacked the insight to have her
    13
    sons safely returned to her. The only vehicle for such testimony is an evidentiary
    hearing.” (Original italics.)
    We disagree. While we do not doubt that mother sincerely desired to
    reunify with her sons, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother’s
    petition without an evidentiary hearing. Ample evidence supported the juvenile court’s
    decision. Mother’s problems, which date back at least to 2005, led to an unsafe, chaotic
    home life for her children. The children’s fathers had drug and criminal histories, and the
    parents engaged in domestic violence. Mother’s recent marijuana and alcohol incidents
    fit within a pattern of self-absorption at the expense of her children. Mother failed to
    recognize the serious nature of the problems that resulted in dependency proceedings and
    initially failed to take steps to ameliorate them. Indeed, mother stated periodically during
    the earlier phase of the proceedings she did not want the children. She had received a
    multitude of services including parenting, drug relapse counseling, and mental health
    services, but continued to self-medicate, and did not take her prescribed medications. As
    a social worker wrote in 2009, mother was always “in crisis . . . .” When the children
    were in her care, the family often led a transient existence. Mother appeared unable to
    understand and apply information she should have learned from her various case plan
    services.
    The fact mother attended another empowerment program did not
    demonstrate she had gained the insight that years of similar programs and services had
    not instilled. The “Helping Women Succeed” program appeared geared toward
    employment issues, rather than the issues (substance abuse, domestic violence, and
    neglect) that brought Jeremiah before the court. Headings for workshops included “How
    to build up personal strengths;” “How to prepare a good resume;” “How to heighten my
    self-esteem;” “How to maintain job security;” “How to handle job interviews;” “How to
    understand personal boundaries and self-respect;” “How to deal with conflict
    management and helpful resolutions;” and “How to build confidence and climb up
    14
    corporate ladder,” “How to turn your positive aspects to feel good and confident.”
    Finding and maintaining employment was a case plan component, but it was not the
    primary barrier to reunification.
    Mother argues her petition established a prima facie case for a hearing and
    an opportunity to testify that she had the requisite insight into her problems. Mother’s
    petition, however, failed to show she had the ability to act on any insight she may have
    acquired in following her case plan and given mother’s long history of drug and alcohol
    abuse and associated problems, the barrier to reunification was high. At the time the
    juvenile court terminated services, mother had yet to progress beyond monitored
    visitation, and the quality of her visits were poor. She neglected her children’s needs
    during visits as she pursued her own interests, talking to other parents or using her cell
    phone. While supposedly attending 12-step meetings almost daily, mother was “unable
    to actively demonstrate any of the reasonably expected amount of knowledge for her
    reported level of participation.” At the time she filed the modification petition, she had
    not progressed through the 12 steps toward sobriety. Mother effectively disappeared for
    six weeks during the post-reunification period, and only resumed visits at the social
    worker’s suggestion.
    Nothing mother presented in her section 388 modification petition
    demonstrated she had overcome the fundamental issues that prevented her from safely
    parenting Jeremiah. She did not provide, for example, declarations from her counselors,
    therapists, or anyone in her new “support system” asserting they believed she could
    safely parent her children. Nor did her AA sponsor offer any evidence concerning her
    progress. Her counselors previously suggested she might be able to safely parent with
    ongoing counseling, but she opted not to continue her sessions because other needs
    prevailed. Mother never accepted responsibility for the original incident leading to
    dependency. Indeed, she consistently denied any wrongdoing that caused the children’s
    15
    removal from her care, and nothing in her modification petition suggests mother
    fundamentally accepted responsibility for her plight.
    Mother’s petition showed some signs of progress, displaying a belated
    commitment to reunification. But her petition did not demonstrate a change in
    circumstances that would lead the court to conclude a modification of its previous orders
    would promote Jeremiah’s best interests. By the time mother filed her petition, Jeremiah
    had been in a safe, stable, and loving placement for 16 months with foster parents who
    wanted to adopt him. Removed at the age of 15 months, there was no indication he
    viewed his mother in a parental role, and referred to his foster parents as “mom” and
    “mommy.” The court reasonably could conclude Jeremiah’s best interests would not be
    promoted by living with mother.
    Mother’s reliance on in In re Daijah T. (2000) 
    83 Cal.App.4th 666
    (Daijah T.) is misplaced. There, the mother, who had reunited with three of her five
    children, declared in her modification petition her children were bonded with each other
    (id. at p. 669), and her petition “alleged some evidence that the best interests of the [two]
    minors would be promoted by their reunification with their siblings [who lived with the
    mother].” (Id. at p. 675.) Daijah T., however, does not hold the court must grant a
    modification petition if the parent demonstrates a positive change. As noted above, to
    establish a prima facie showing, the parent must present “facts which will sustain a
    favorable decision if the evidence submitted in support of the allegations by the petitioner
    is credited.” (In re Edward H. (1996) 
    43 Cal.App.4th 584
    , 593.) Mother’s modification
    petition, at best, showed only changing circumstances within the context of her history of
    drug and alcohol abuse and self-absorption to the detriment of her children. Under these
    circumstances, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying mother’s
    request for a hearing on her modification petition.
    16
    III
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment terminating parental rights is affirmed.
    ARONSON, ACTING P. J.
    WE CONCUR:
    FYBEL, J.
    IKOLA, J.
    17
    

Document Info

Docket Number: G049561

Filed Date: 9/10/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021