Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK44308. Marilyn Mackel, Commissioner.
Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendants and Appellants T.O. and O.O.
Ernesto Paz Rey, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant E.D., Sr.
Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Judith A. Luby, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
Father and paternal grandparents appeal from an order of the juvenile court granting mother’s petition for modification, supported by Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), which returned the children to her care and removed them from the paternal grandparents’ custody. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On January 4, 2005, a DCFS caseworker detained mother and father’s three children after investigating reports of serious domestic violence between the parents. The caseworker found extensive damage throughout the home. An adult neighbor reported having to intervene during a recent violent incident between the children’s parents. The children all reported being fearful of their father.
Both mother and father are deaf. Father has a record of violence and drug abuse.
Father was charged with domestic violence and ultimately incarcerated. The court declared the children dependents of the court and placed them with their paternal grandparents. Mother initially enrolled as an outpatient at the Awakening Drug Rehabilitation Program for the Deaf in Los Angeles where she received both substance abuse and domestic violence counseling. She did not complete the Los Angeles programs and later enrolled herself in similar programs for the deaf in San Diego. In both programs mother consistently tested negative for substance abuse. A DCFS caseworker noted that there was friction between mother and the paternal grandmother who had in the past cared for the children and provided for their needs when mother did not.
Mother’s eldest child, A.D., who has a different father than the other children, initially was included in these dependency proceedings, but was placed in her father’s sole custody with jurisdiction terminated by a family law order.
On February 21, 2007, the court held a contested Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.22 18-month review hearing. Mother did not appear. County counsel recommended terminating reunification services and setting a permanency hearing date. Mother’s counsel asked the court to continue reunification services and emphasized the classes and counseling mother had completed in San Diego and the initiative she had shown to secure such services there. Counsel for the children merely informed the court that the eldest daughter wished to be reunited with mother, the middle daughter was ambivalent, and the youngest child wished to stay with the paternal grandparents, but all wished to stay together.
Further statutory references are to this Code.
According to mother’s counsel, mother had called to request a continuance, explaining that she lacked transportation funds to get to Los Angeles from San Diego, where she was still enrolled in programs.
The court found that DCFS had provided reasonable services to mother and her children, that mother was in compliance with her case plan, but that the children could not then be safely returned to her custody, and that no substantial probability existed that they could be returned within six months. The court found that father was not in compliance with the case plan. The court terminated reunification services, set a permanency hearing pursuant to section 366.26 for June 20, 2007, and ordered DCFS to consider both adoption and guardianship.
Mother sought writ review of the court’s orders. We affirmed in an unpublished opinion. ([R.F.] v. Superior Court (May 31, 2007, B197166) [nonpub. opn.].)
On May 23, 2007, mother filed a section 388 petition, requesting that the children be returned to her care and that she be granted family maintenance and family preservation services. Her petition stated that she had continued to comply with the court’s orders, had maintained visitation with the children, and had secured housing. The court set a hearing on her petition for June 20, 2007, to coincide with the section 366.26 hearing scheduled for the same date.
In a report prepared for the section 366.26 hearing the adoption worker stated that the children were doing well with the paternal grandparents who wished to adopt them. According to the adoption worker, the children reported that they enjoyed visiting mother but wanted to live with the paternal grandparents.
DCFS reported that since mother returned to Los Angeles County her visits with the children had been consistent and appropriate. The caseworker stated that the children had “an affectionate bonding relationship with mother,” and on occasion saw the children hugging and kissing mother, requesting that the visits not end, or asking whether mother could live with them at the paternal grandparents’ house. The caseworker confirmed that mother had secured appropriate housing and noted that mother had taken advantage of every opportunity to visit with the children, with whom she had a bonded relationship, and that visits with the children had gone well. The caseworker reported the daughters stated that they wanted to return home to mother, whereas the son stated that he wanted to live with the paternal grandparents and visit mother.
The caseworker opined that mother’s parenting skills had improved considerably, that she had begun taking responsibility for her actions instead of blaming others, and had shown initiative in doing what was necessary to regain custody of her children. DCFS recommended that mother’s section 388 petition be granted and that the children be returned to her care.
The adoption worker reported that a home study on the paternal grandparents’ home had not yet been completed but would likely be ready within the month. The worker reported that the children wanted to speak privately with the court because they did not want to say that they preferred to live with the paternal grandparents in front of mother.
At the June 20, 2007, combined section 388 and section 366.26 hearing the court ordered conjoint counseling for mother and the children, granted mother unmonitored visits with discretion for DCFS to liberalize to overnight visits once conjoint counseling began, and continued the hearing.
On July 25, 2007, the paternal grandparents filed a request for de facto parent status and the court set a hearing on the request. On August 22, 2007, the adoption worker reported that the paternal grandparents’ home study was completed, the children were happy, all their needs were being met by the paternal grandparents, and that adoption remained in the best interest of the children.
In a status review report dated August 22, 2007, the caseworker noted that mother’s visits with the children were still limited to unmonitored day visits. Mother’s eldest child, who was residing with mother during the summer, participated in all visits with her half-siblings. The court ordered conjoint counseling to begin by September 7, 2007, and because county counsel was unavailable, continued the hearing on the section 388 petition, section 366.26, the paternal grandparents’ request for de facto status to October 29, 2007, and appointed counsel for the paternal grandparents.
In an interim review report dated October 20, 2007, DCFS reported that conjoint counseling sessions had still not begun. The caseworker reported mother’s eldest daughter told the caseworker that she had enjoyed her summer with mother and wanted to spend more time with her half-siblings. The DCFS caseworker stated that there was a strong bond between mother and the children but, after a team decision making meeting, concluded that mother may not have fully addressed the issues that brought her children into the system and for this reason opined that reunification posed a “high risk.” DFCS now recommended that the court deny mother’s section 388 petition and identify adoption by the paternal grandparents as the permanent plan for the children.
At the hearing on October 29, 2007, the court granted the paternal grandparents de facto parent status, denied mother’s petition for change of placement, and continued the section 366.26 hearing to permit DCFS to provide proper notice to father who remained incarcerated.
A DCFS interim review report dated December 10, 2007, stated that mother and the paternal grandparents continued to have difficulties arranging conjoint therapy sessions and holiday visits. Mother had been consistent with scheduled visits with the children except during the period she was occupied with her own mother’s illness and death. The paternal grandmother told the caseworker about her numerous concerns regarding mother’s ability to properly care for the children during unmonitored visits. The paternal grandmother also expressed her desire that visits not occur on weekends when the children had other activities.
A social worker monitored some of the visits with mother and observed that the children were affectionate with mother and stated that they were happy during their visits. The worker recommended that mother and the paternal grandmother work on their relationship for the children’s sake.
On December 10, 2007, the court continued the contested section 366.26 hearing to February 13, 2008, for father’s appearance in custody, and for the department to assess mother’s home for possibly expanded visits.
In January 2008, mother arranged for conjoint therapy sessions with the children at her home through Five Acres therapists who provided deaf services. Mother and the paternal grandmother still had conflicts over arranging visits and therapy sessions with the children. Sometimes the paternal grandmother would call to say a child was sick and could not visit or would schedule doctors’ appointments on days scheduled for visits with mother. The social worker spoke to the paternal grandmother and clarified the court’s orders. The worker opined that the paternal grandmother was difficult and uncooperative. After this meeting, the paternal grandmother complained to DCFS that the social worker had been rude.
The adoption worker reported that the children appeared to have a strong bond with the paternal grandparents and that they appeared to be comfortable, loved, and well cared for by them. The adoption worker stated that the paternal grandparents “appear to be most appropriate for adopting the... children for they continue to provide all of the[] children’s needs....”
The contested section 366.26 hearing began on February 13, 2008. The caseworker testified that she had observed visits between mother and the children at mother’s apartment several times. She described mother’s apartment as clean and not cluttered. The worker testified that the children seemed happy, comfortable and open during the visits. The children danced around, listened to music, played with their siblings, and periodically hugged mother. In the worker’s opinion the children had a close bond with mother. The worker stated she noticed that the children behaved quite differently when they appeared at court hearings. During visits, the children were “clingy” with mother but in court they appeared distant and cold. The worker stated that DCFS continued to recommend adoption because adoption became DCFS’s goal after the earlier finding of “high risk,” but conceded that she noticed nothing during the visits she observed to suggest that the children were not safe. The worker also agreed that mother was very cooperative, had completed her case plan, and had taken the initiative to organize the conjoint counseling herself. The worker stated that if the children were adopted, mother’s visits would be cut back because mother and the paternal grandparents did not get along. The caseworker opined that fewer visits with mother “would not be good for the children. They have such a good bond right now.”
Mother testified that she loved her children and that it hurt her to see them under such pressure, feeling torn between their love for her and their grandparents. She testified that since they had lived apart so long she had had to reteach the children sign language, and communication had been difficult. Mother acknowledged that she and the paternal grandmother did not have a good relationship. She stated that the paternal grandmother was very controlling and talked down to her which made it difficult to communicate with the paternal grandmother directly.
The court held an off-the-record discussion with all counsel. When the hearing resumed in open court, the court found that mother had met the exception to termination of parental rights. The court found that there was a bond between the children and mother such that it would be detrimental to the children for the court to terminate parental rights. It continued the section 366.26 hearing, directed DCFS to facilitate overnight weekend visits with mother, arrange conjoint counseling sessions with mother and the children with a sign language interpreter, and provide family preservation services for mother.
The court admonished the paternal grandparents to cooperate with the court’s orders and recognize that it was in the best interests of the children to support mother. The court continued the hearing to April 17, 2008.
The report prepared for the April 17, 2008, hearing stated that overnight weekend visits began on February 16, 2008, and that they were generally appropriate and positive. Several of the visits were observed by a DCFS social worker. Sometimes the son did not want to eat and sometimes he fought with his sister. Once he got upset and threw a cup at mother who, according to the worker, remained calm and reacted appropriately.
The children told the caseworker that mother could not give them things the paternal grandparents could. They also claimed they did not feel safe with mother and were concerned that she might bring men into the house, although they acknowledged that mother had had no visitors during any of their visits with her. The worker reported that she was “puzzled” by the children saying that they do not want to live with mother when she had observed them to be happy and comfortable in mother’s home. The worker opined that the children were in the middle of a custody battle and felt pressure to please the paternal grandmother.
The therapist conducting the conjoint therapy sessions observed that when sessions occurred in mother’s home the children were open, affectionate, comfortable and close with mother, but when the sessions were held in DCFS offices the children were distant, guarded and unhappy. The therapist recommended that the children be returned to mother’s care with continued family therapy.
For the April 17, 2008, hearing father was a “sick out” and did not attend. The court told the paternal grandparents that mother had “clearly... met the exception to avoid the adoption of the children” and that it was not in the children’s best interest for them to alienate the children from mother. The court admonished the paternal grandparents to cooperate, to put aside the past and their own interests, and to consider instead the children’s best interest and to support mother. The court appointed an expert pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 to conduct a psychological assessment of the parents, the paternal grandparents, and the children.
On May 5, 2008, DCFS received a referral alleging neglect by mother during an overnight visit. According to the referral, the children were not eating enough, the children had to ask a neighbor for toilet paper when mother ran out, a daughter got flea bites while at mother’s apartment, and the son reported that mother had hit him and caused a bruise. The paternal grandparents reported the bruising incident to police who filed a report. The son told police that mother had “grabbed his arm real fast.” Until the matter was resolved the court directed that mother’s visits be monitored and granted DCFS authority to revert to unmonitored visits when appropriate.
Two different social workers monitored all-day visits on May 3 and May 4, 2008. Overall the children enjoyed themselves and had a good time, and one of the workers described their interaction as a sincere child-parent bond.
At the hearing on May 19, 2008, the children’s counsel confirmed that the children had stated that they enjoyed visiting mother and wanted to live with the paternal grandparents but opined that custody was not an appropriate issue for the children to decide. The children’s counsel acknowledged that mother’s situation was not as ideal as the paternal grandparents’ but that there was nothing wrong with it, the children were comfortable with her and mother had adequate food in the home. The children’s counsel commented that the children were sleeping on the floor because mother was poor.
The social worker from the deaf unit informed the court that mother’s eldest daughter had spent the entire summer with mother without incident and had enjoyed being with her three half-siblings.
The court found mother had complied with the case plan, ordered family preservation services, and permitted day-long visits for mother loosely monitored by DCFS social workers from the deaf unit.
On June 11, 2008, the expert submitted his Evidence Code section 730 evaluation. He concluded that the children were aware of the conflict regarding custody and that “[b]eing caught in the emotional cross-fire of this conflict carries a tremendous risk of negative emotional consequences for these children.” The expert noted that the paternal grandparents had likely alienated the children from mother. Although the expert did not find all the children’s comments credible, he opined that the children had genuine fears about being removed from their paternal grandparents’ home where they felt safe and secure. The expert recommended against reunification with mother.
The report for the June 19, 2008, hearing stated that the children had confronted the therapist about her recommendation that they be reunited with mother. Social workers had monitored numerous all day visits between mother and the children and reported that they had gone very well, with mother often demonstrating strone parenting skills. County counsel requested a continuance for a few weeks so social workers could observe and assess additional visits. The court continued the section 366.26 hearing to June 10, 2008, and admonished the paternal grandparents to stop coaching the children and discussing the case with them.
On July 10, 2008, DCFS reported that three different social workers had monitored over 90 hours of visits between mother and the children and had “witnessed mother’s dedication and patience toward her children.” Although mother stated that she was sometimes hurt by her children’s less than respectful attitude toward her, the workers reported that she “continue[d] to be sensible” and “maintained her positive attitude and smile throughout the visit. She has also been consistent with her discipline and attempts to give her children time outs when needed.” Mother’s eldest daughter stated that although she had intended to attend summer school, she decided she preferred to spend the summer with mother and the children again.
On July 22, 2008, mother filed a section 388 petition requesting that the children be returned to her custody with family maintenance services. The court set a hearing date on the petition for August 22, 2008.
In the report prepared for the August 22, 2008, hearing the social worker from the deaf unit reported that several more visits had been observed and that it was now DCFS’s recommendation that the children be returned home to mother with family maintenance and family preservation services and continued conjoint therapy sessions. The worker noted that the children had lived with the paternal grandparents for over three years, had a strong bond with them, and preferred to remain residing with them as they had become accustomed to a middle class lifestyle, a two-parent family, and living with hearing persons. The worker, however, believed that the children should be returned to mother’s care “because she has completed the tasks required for the return of her children and is willing to provide for her children’s care and provision. Furthermore, mother... has demonstrated... that she is committed to her children and that she has gained insight into the reasons she and her children [came] to the attention of DCFS twice. It should be noted that... both times the children came into the system were based on the domestic violence between mother and [the] children’s father....”
At the combined section 388 petition and section 366.26 hearing, DCFS urged the court to grant mother’s section 388 petition. DCFS observed that, in light of the history of the case, permitting the children to remain in the paternal grandparents’ care was not in the children’s best interest. Counsel for DCFS noted that despite the high emotions, charges, allegations, and referrals that the children and the paternal grandparents had lodged against mother, mother had maintained her composure and had uncomplainingly accepted monitors for visits, even though the allegations against her were not substantiated.
The children’s counsel did not oppose mother’s petition but acknowledged that the children were distressed to learn that DCFS had recommended that they be returned to mother’s care and had expressed concern that they might never see their father or grandparents again. The children’s counsel stated that she had arranged for an investigator to surreptitiously observe numerous visits between mother and the children. The investigator reported observing no risky, dangerous, or any other behavior of concern.
Mother’s counsel also had had an investigator secretly monitor visits and the investigator reported that mother’s relationship with her children was “extremely positive,” that the children were loving, and that their actual behavior was inconsistent with their harsh words. Mother’s counsel acknowledged how important the children were to the paternal grandparents but stated that it was in the children’s best interest for them to be returned to mother’s care and urged the court to grant mother’s section 388 petition for a change of placement.
Counsel for the paternal grandparents argued that because the paternal grandparents had provided a loving and stable home for so long, and because the children had stated that they wanted to remain with them and hated mother, that it was in the best interest of the children for them to remain residing with the paternal grandparents.
Father’s counsel stated that father objected to accusations that the paternal grandmother had alienated the children, coached them on what to tell the social workers and therapists, and interfered with mother’s ability to reunite with the children. Father objected to returning the children to mother’s care, concerned that she would put them at risk if she resumed her earlier behavior.
The court commented that early on the paternal grandmother occupied an essential role in caring for the children as a result of mother’s immaturity, irresponsibility and instability, but that in the meantime mother had grown up, had rehabilitated herself, and had developed into a competent, mature and responsible adult. The court stated that it was always best for children to be with their parents regardless of economic circumstances, and that “[i]t is always best where the mother or the parents poses no risk to the children. Indeed there is a constitutional right to parent your children and the court cannot keep children from a parent who is posing no risk to those children.” The court acknowledged the strong bond that the children had with the paternal grandparents and also noted the strong bond that they had with mother.
The court adopted DCFS’s recommendation and granted mother’s section 388 petition, ordered that the children be placed with mother and directed DCFS to provide mother a “high level” of family preservation services. The court terminated the suitable placement order and took the section 366.26 hearing off calendar.
Based on its finding that father had not complied with the case plan, the court limited his visits to monitored visits in DCFS’s offices, and at mother’s request, issued orders directing him to stay 500 yards away from mother’s home, the children, the children’s schools, and from the paternal grandparents’ home when the children were present.
Father and the paternal grandparents appeal from the court’s order granting mother’s section 388 petition.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
Section 388 provides that “[a]ny parent or other person having an interest in a child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court... 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... to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made....” (§ 388, subd. (a).) “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....” (§ 388, subd. (d).)
“At a hearing on a motion for change of placement, the burden of proof is on the moving party to show by a preponderance of the evidence that there is new evidence or that there are changed circumstances that make a change of placement in the best interests of the child. (§ 388; In re Audrey D. (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 34, 45; Cal. Rules of Court, rule [5.570(e)].)” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) A ruling on such a motion is “committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court, and the trial court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 318.)
Section 388 Petition
Father and the paternal grandparents contend the court abused its discretion in granting mother’s petition for modification because it failed to consider the children’s best interests. They contend the court ignored the rebuttable presumption that after reunification services have been terminated that continued placement in foster care is in the best interest of the children. They contend because this case is well beyond the 18-month review period, that the court’s focus should have been on the children’s needs for permanency and stability—goals achievable only by continued placement with the paternal grandparents. They also contend the court erred in ignoring the children’s significant bond with the paternal grandparents and the children’s stated wishes to remain in their home. They claim that court error in failing to consider and adequately weigh these factors requires reversal of the order. We disagree.
Determining a child’s best interests under section 388 involves a number of factors, including “(1) the seriousness of the problem which led to the dependency, and the reason for any continuation of that problem; (2) the strength of relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent and caretakers; and (3) the degree to which the problem may be easily removed or ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has been.” (In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 532.)
The primary reason for these dependency proceedings was the domestic violence between mother and father. Secondary reasons included mother’s failure periodically to take responsibility for caring for the children, her lack of stability and maturity, and her abuse of alcohol and marijuana. These are each serious problems. Mother, however, carried her burden to show that each of these problems had been overcome by the time the court granted her section 388 petition for a change of placement.
The domestic violence stopped when father became incarcerated. To avoid domestic violence in the future mother requested, and the court ordered, that on his release from prison father was to stay away from mother, the children, the children’s schools, and the paternal grandparents’ home if the children were present. As DCFS and the court recognized, during the period after the section 366.22 hearing, mother developed into a responsible parent and demonstrated maturity, patience, and grace in dealing with the children and paternal grandparents despite the difficulties she encountered. Mother had also addressed whatever substance abuse problems she had. All random tests to which she submitted in both the Los Angeles and San Diego programs were negative. In 2008 she told the Evidence Code section 730 evaluator that she had not used any drugs or consumed any alcohol for years.
This is substantial evidence showing that the initial problems which brought mother and her children into the dependency system had been ameliorated and that, as the court found, mother had been “rehabilitated.” (In re Kimberly F., supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 532.) This evidence similarly supported the court’s finding that mother had carried her burden of showing changed circumstances for purposes of section 388.
With respect to the paternal grandparents’ relationships with the children, the court recognized that there was a very strong and genuine bond between the children and the grandparents. They had had a very significant, ongoing, role in the children’s lives. They had cared for them on several occasions when the parents could not, and during these proceedings the children had lived with them for over three years. The paternal grandparents loved and nurtured the children and provided for their needs and the children, in turn, felt closely connected to the paternal grandparents.
True, as father and the paternal grandparents point out, when, as here, custody by a caretaker continues for a significant time, the children’s need for continuity and stability assumes an increasingly important role. (See In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317 [“‘When custody continues over a significant period, the child’s need for continuity and stability assumes an increasingly important role. That need will often dictate the conclusion that maintenance of the current arrangement would be in the best interests of that child’”].)
Nevertheless, the length of time that children live with a caretaker is not dispositive where other evidence before the court shows, as in this case, that the caretakers have not always acted in the best interests of the children. The court noted that, despite several admonishments, the paternal grandparents had attempted to thwart mother’s reunion with the children by alienating them against her, had manipulated the children to complain to their counsel and the social workers about perceived problems with mother or her residence, and that these behaviors had created undue anxiety for and pressure on the children. Because the children’s relationship with their paternal grandparents was not always positive or healthy for the children, neither the length of time, nor the children’s stated wishes to continue living with the paternal grandparents, are controlling. (In re Jacob P. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 819, 832 [“although a child’s wishes may be evidence of what is in his best interest, they cannot be dispositive”]; In re Michael D. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1087 [same].)
The court also found, as noted, that there was a strong bond between mother and the children. Despite the children’s sometimes hurtful words and behavior, every professional who observed their interactions reported that the children loved being with mother, were happy with her, affectionate toward her, and by their actions, displayed a strong bond with her. Based on these professionals’ observations, the court found that mother’s bond with the children was so strong, and her relationship with the children and visitation so consistent, that she had satisfied the statutory exception to termination of parental rights by establishing that it would be detrimental to the children to do so. (See § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); see also, In re Jacob P., supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 829 [“‘The two standards [best interest and detriment] are basically two sides of the same coin. What is in the best interests of the child is essentially the same as that which is not detrimental to the child’”].)
The court was reasonable in finding that the factors pointing toward maintaining the status quo—the lengthy time the children lived with the paternal grandparents and the children’s stated wishes—were outweighed by the risk of detriment to the children by remaining in the paternal grandparents’ care and outweighed by the benefit the children would receive from returning to their parent’s custody.
We find no abuse of the court’s discretion in granting mother’s section 388 petition.
Best Interest of the Child Standard
Father and the paternal grandparents contend the court applied the wrong standard in ruling on mother’s section 388 petition by finding mother had been rehabilitated, posed no risk to the children, and by stating that parents had a constitutional right to parent their children. They note that findings of a lack of risk or lack of detriment are appropriate under section 366.21 or section 366.22 for the 12-month or 18-month review hearings, but argue that when, as here, the court has terminated reunification services and a permanent plan of adoption has been identified, any change of order must be based on the best interest of the child instead. Accordingly, they claim that the court erred in applying the wrong standard and in granting the motion. We disagree.
The record reflects that the court did consider the children’s best interests in deciding to grant mother’s section 388 petition for a change of placement. (In re Jacob P., supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at pp. 131-132 [when making a custody determination after the 18-month review period the court’s focus and primary consideration must always be the best interests of the child, unrestrained by preferences or presumptions].) Although it articulated a standard during the hearing which did not track the statutory “best interests of the child” language, elsewhere, and throughout the record of the hearing, the court consistently referenced the “best interests of the children” standard when explaining the underlying rationale for its ruling.
DISPOSITION
The order of the juvenile court is affirmed.
We concur: MALLANO, P. J., JOHNSON, J.