Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK70471. Terry Truong, Juvenile Court Referee.
Linda Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Frank J. DaVanzo, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
WOODS, J.
INTRODUCTION
This is an appeal by M.S., the mother (hereafter mother) of the minor child S.F. (hereafter the child). Mother raises a single issue on appeal, namely, that the juvenile court erred when it found the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) exception to adoption (beneficial parental relationship) did not apply and terminated her parental rights. L.F., father of the child (hereafter father), is not a party to this appeal. For the reasons hereafter given, we find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SYNOPSIS
Referral to Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) on October 10, 2007.
On October 10, 2007, DCFS received a referral indicating the child had been returned to her parents’ custody. In a previous dependency proceeding, the child was found to have been born with a positive toxicology for cocaine and marijuana. The child was born in 2004. Her parents had agreed the child should be placed with a maternal aunt but eventually her grandparents came into custody of the child because of purported domestic violence and unresolved substance abuse issues of the parents.
The caller stated that father had just gotten out of prison from Nevada for conviction of prostituting a 14-year-old girl. The caller was afraid that he would prostitute the child and further related that father was prostituting the mother. The caller further opined that father took custody of the child for the purposes of receiving financial assistance. The caller related that mother and father had engaged in a heated argument that ended in father kicking the mother out of the home, which the child observed and the child was afraid of father.
Interview by children’s social worker (CSW) Christian Unaka.
The interview is summarized as follows: father admitted to smoking “weed” on a continuous basis but denied using any other drugs; the child had been living with the paternal grandmother; father got out of jail and returned to Los Angeles about one month ago and the grandmother wanted to keep custody of the child so she could receive dental benefits; mother agreed that the paternal grandmother was desirous of using the child to obtain medical benefits; mother claimed she was helping father pay for his counseling, parenting, and other classes he was required to attend; mother claimed to have joined Narcotics Anonymous in Nevada, but had been sober since 2005; mother agreed the child had been born with positive toxicology for marijuana and cocaine in 2004; mother had been jailed for trafficking drugs and had been a prostitute; mother was not now on parole or probation and denied there was domestic violence in her relationship with father; mother wanted the child placed with a maternal great aunt, one N. B.
The child told the CSW that she had previously lived with her grandmother but that she liked living with daddy and mommy now and that they took good care of her; that her grandmother took good care of her but she no longer wanted to visit her because she threw the child out of bed; the child was afraid of her grandmother but was not afraid of mother and father; she denied seeing her mother and father fight; the child was wearing clean clothes, was well fed and had no marks or bruises.
The paternal grandmother truly believed that father would prostitute the child and she had created a monster in father.
October 24, 2007, hearing.
The court appointed counsel for the parents at the hearing on October 24, 2007. The parents were present. The court further found that father was the presumed father of the child. Arguments were made by counsel. The child was released to mother. The court proffered the suggestion that the matter might be resolved by utilizing a plan pursuant to section 301 or section 360, subdivision (b) dealing with informal supervision. In essence, section 301 provides a means whereby the social worker may informally supervise a child with the parents’ consent, while section 360, subdivision (b) allows the juvenile court to order services be provided to a child and his or her parent under the supervision of the social worker. The court also made an order removing the child from the custody of father and ordered that the parents submit to drug testing on a weekly basis.
December 6, 2007, jurisdiction/disposition report.
The report first noted that the child remained in the home. The remainder of the report is summarized as follows:
Interview with mother.
Mother denied any allegations about domestic violence; denied that father hit her; mother had lied to police when she reported that father had hit her; and mother attributed all of her problems to the paternal grandmother who wanted to keep the child who paternal grandmother had cared for since May of 2007.
Mother admitted to a past history of cocaine addiction, and smoking “primos, ” a mixture of marijuana and cocaine. Mother admitted she last used marijuana when the child was detained by DCFS
Mother also admitted to spanking the child with a paddle, but reported that she had hit the child over her clothes and had not left any marks.
Interview with father.
Father related that he and mother were merely arguing and that they did not hit each other.
Father stated that mother was a good mother. He stated she no longer used drugs. He confirmed that her preferred drug was a mixture of marijuana and cocaine.
Father blamed his own mother for the most recent child abuse referral, attributing the referral to her desire to obtain Medi-Cal benefits. Father denied ever physically punishing the child.
Father claimed that he used medical marijuana because he had been shot in the head, and suffered from seizures and blackouts. When asked for the card that prescribed marijuana, father stated that he did not have it but gave the CSW the business card of the prescribing physician.
Interview with paternal grandmother.
The paternal grandmother stated there had been many incidents of domestic violence between the parents, but admitted she had never seen them fight.
Paternal grandmother stated that she only knew from statements made by father that mother had a long history of cocaine abuse. She was only worried about mother’s ability to care for the child.
CSW’s summary of police report.
The CSW summarized the Inglewood Police report, which contained mother’s statements that the parents had hit each other, and mother’s claim that father had hit her in the head. The police report was attached. The police reported that mother told the police officers that father had hit her twice with his fist in her right temple. After she struck back, he again hit her at least twice, again in the temple.
CSW’s impression and recommendations.
The CSW did not believe that the child was safe in mother’s home because she had been exposed to the parents’ domestic violence, and believed father was living in the home with mother.
Aside from recommending mother not have custody of the child, the CSW recommended that mother participate in and complete a program to include parenting education, individual counseling to address case issues, including domestic violence, weekly random drug and alcohol tests and a drug counseling program.
DCFS’s first amended petition filed December 6, 2007 and hearing thereon.
On December 6, 2007, the DCFS filed a first amended petition that alleged father’s acts of domestic violence. The court asked if mother’s address had changed, which was affirmed by mother’s counsel. Father maintained that he had no address, and that he was living with a friend.
The court stated it had changed its mind regarding the risk to the child if she stayed in mother’s custody. Mother had committed a crime by filing a false report regarding father’s domestic violence against her, and, on the night the child was detained, mother had used marijuana. The court found that the child’s continued placement in mother’s home was contrary to her welfare and that a substantial danger existed to her physical and emotional health. There were no reasonable means by which the child could be protected without removing her from mother’s custody, and the court ordered the CSW to investigate any appropriate relatives for the child’s placement.
The court further ordered mother to have monitored visits with the child, whereupon the mother uttered a profanity toward the bench and exited the courtroom.
CSW’s Interim Review report dated January 25, 2008.
A January 25, 2008, Interim Review report stated that the child had been placed in the home of T.G., a relative. T.G. was identified as a maternal great aunt by mother’s counsel. Mother and father were shown as living together. Mother’s criminal convictions had been for prostitution. Father had been convicted of driving with a suspended license, and disturbing the peace. Father had felony convictions for second degree robbery with use of a firearm, assault with a firearm, and possession of narcotics.
Neither father nor mother had appeared for random drug tests.
The child was receiving therapy and had been to three sessions and according to T.G. saw the child’s parents three times per week.
Amended language to CSW’s interim report.
On February 25, 2008, the parents submitted to amended language documenting that mother and father had a history of substance abuse which periodically rendered them incapable of providing regular care for the child and that on November 11, 2007, father struck mother on her right temple at least four times with his right fist and pushed her onto a bed, while mother struck father in the mouth with her right fist, and that this violence endangered the child and placed her at risk of harm.
Findings of the court on the CSW’s Interim Review report.
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that a substantial danger existed to the child’s physical health, safety, protection and physical or emotional well-being if she were returned to the parents’ physical custody.
The court ordered mother to participate in individual counseling to address case issues, including domestic violence, parenting, and drug counseling with random drug testing
Court’s order depriving mother and father of contact with T.G.
On July 25, 2008, the juvenile court ordered that father and mother were to have no contact with the child’s caretaker, T.G. They were to stay away from her home and refrain from calling her except for DCFS-monitored calls with the child.
Six-month status review report.
The six-month status review report stated that the child remained with T.G. and the parents still lived at the same address.
Mother had completed a parenting class at Price Health Services, Inc. but stopped attending individual or drug counseling upon completion of the parenting class. Mother had enrolled in a new drug treatment program at the Jan Clayton Center and left after one month. From October 30, 2007, through August 8, 2008, mother had tested positive for cocaine four times, tested negatively three times and not appeared for any drug tests between March 14, 2008 and August 8th.
Mother and father had not maintained regular visits with the child. T.G. stated that she had monitored the parents’ visits since the child had been placed with her. T.G. complained on February 8, 2008, that the parents showed up for their visit without giving her notice. T.G. asked that they call in advance, but they did not listen to her. Then, T.G. stated, they did not appear for a visit in the months of April and May 2008.
In early July 2008, the parents began to harass T.G. with telephone calls. T.G. had called the child’s attorney to obtain an order to keep them from harassing her. Despite the parents’ claim that they wanted to visit with the child as much as possible, the parents had not contacted the CSW to arrange for a visit.
The CSW had received voice mail messages from father in which he stated that T.G. was hanging up on mother. Father threatened to sue the CSW over this. Mother also left a message reporting that T.G. had been hanging up the telephone on her for the past week. Father left another message claiming that T.G. was not taking good care of the child. When the CSW called father in order to arrange a visit with the child, father became angry and stated that he needed to talk to someone above the level of CSW Chu, and her supervisor.
Team decision making meeting on July 3, 2008.
On July 3, 2008, a team decision making meeting was held at the DCFS office to discuss a concurrent adoptive plan for the child. Both parents wanted the child to be returned to the paternal grandmother’s care, whereas they had originally not wanted her placed with this relative.
T.G. explained that the parents had expected her to turn the child over to them whenever they wanted to visit with her, and even sent a third person to pick up the child for their visit.
The CSW believed it was likely that T.G. would become the child’s adoptive parent. The CSW recommended that the juvenile court terminate the parents’ reunification services.
Contested hearing set by the court on termination of reunification services.
On August 25, 2008, the parents’ attorneys informed the court that the parents were presently enrolling in treatment programs. They also wanted the court to set the recommendation to terminate the parents’ reunification services for a contested hearing. The court advised the parents, “if you want me to consider giving you more time, you better get yourselves enrolled in a program now. Now, all right? You have a month to show me that you’re going to be serious about this. All right?”
Interim Review report of the CSW dated September 25, 2008.
The September 25, 2008, Interim Review report stated that when the CSW met with mother and father on August 29, 2008 in order to set up visits with the child, father used racial epithets towards the CSW calling her a “f-----g Asian” and her supervisor, Ms. Torres, a “f-----g Mexican.” When father did not desist his threatening and intimidating remarks, the CSW left the meeting. Another social worker, CSW McClain, then arranged for aunt L.F. to have a four-hour, unmonitored visit with the child on August 31, 2008, and for the parents to have a four-hour visit on September 1, 2008.
Because the parents left intimidating telephone message with T.G. on August 29, 2008, T.G. told the CSW that she wanted the child removed from her home immediately. She stated she was afraid of the parents. The CSW persuaded T.G. to agree to keep the child for a few more days.
On September 3, 2008, T.G. made a telephone call to the DCFS stating that she could not keep the child in her home any longer due to stress from relatives who made threatening calls in order to visit the child on their terms, not according to DCFS rules for visitation. T.G. feared the relatives would follow through with their threats. The CSW was able to convince T.G. to agree to keep the child until the CSW could identify an appropriate placement for her.
Thus far, the parents had not verified enrollment in any drug treatment program.
A last-minute information for the court report stated father claimed he did not submit to drug tests because he had a prescription for medical marijuana, and that his employment kept him from participating in programs. Mother had enrolled in a drug treatment program on September 8, 2008, but discharged herself after only going through the program’s intake process. Aunt L.F. had been approved as a placement for the child.
Court’s termination of parents reunification services and setting of a section 366.26 hearing.
On September 25, 2008, the juvenile court terminated the parents’ reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. The court admonished the parents not to interfere with the child’s placement with Aunt L.F.
Section 366.26 report dated January 23, 2009.
The January 23, 2009, section 366.26 report stated the child was living with Aunt L.F., father’s sister. Father’s whereabouts were now unknown. Aunt L.F. reported that the parents continued to have monitored visits with the child every weekend for four hours, and the visits were appropriate.
Aunt L.F. was initially interested in being appointed the child’s legal guardian, but now, as of January 14, 2009, she was interested in adoption. Aunt L.F. previously thought she had to obtain legal guardianship prior to pursuing adoption.
Aunt L.F. was 41 years of age and is father’s sister. Aunt L.F. was a high school graduate and worked full time in retail as a manager. Aunt L.F. had no criminal record and no history of child abuse. Aunt L.F. wanted to provide permanency for the child: “I don’t want her to keep getting shuffled from person to person.” Aunt L.F. had been in contact with the child since her birth. The child had not had any nightmares or bed wetting since being placed in her home.
The CSW noted that the child appeared to be healthy and happy during her in-home visits. The child was very playful. The CSW recommended that the section 366.26 hearing be continued for 120 days to further address the child’s adoption.
On January 23, 2009, mother appeared at the hearing, and the court ordered mother to return to court for the continued section 366.26 hearing on May 22, 2009.
Status review report dated April 28, 2009.
An April 28, 2009 status review report stated that father remained whereabouts unknown while the child remained with Aunt L.F. The child had been living with Aunt L.F. since September 25, 2008, and said she loved her home. Aunt L.F. referred to the child as “her baby.” Aunt L.F. reported that the parents continued to have weekly visits with the child nearly every weekend. The child did not want to talk to the CSW about her feelings regarding her parents and redirected her discussion to what she liked to do with Aunt L.F. such as going to the park.
The CSW had observed the child to be happy as she was always laughing and playing. The caretaker was attentive to her needs and her home was clean and well-organized.
On April 28, 2009, father’s counsel informed the court father was incarcerated and therefore not present. The child’s counsel told the court that the child loved her Aunt L.F. very much, that everything was going well, and that “they’re looking forward to a permanent plan.”
July 30, 2009, section 366.26 report.
The July 30, 2009, section 366.26 report stated that father was now in state prison, and that the CSW had made two appointments with mother in order to personally serve her with notice of the section 366.26 hearing. Mother failed to appear at both appointments and the CSW had left messages for mother on a daily basis. The CSW initiated a due diligence search for mother.
On July 19, 2009, the CSW received a telephone call from mother. Mother told her that she was aware of the hearing and was annoyed at DCFS’s attempts to contact her. Mother stated that she would attend the July 30, 2009, hearing.
Aunt L.F. stated that mother continued to have contact with the child on a weekly basis, but she refused to disclose contact information she had for mother because mother did not wish to have any contact with DCFS. As to the frequency of visitation, the section 366.26 report stated that mother occasionally contacted the child, while father had not had any contact with the child since his incarceration on January 18, 2009.
A last minute information for the court report stated that Aunt L.F.’s home study had been approved on July 29, 2009.
Father had been discharged from prison on August 12, 2009, but he was apparently now in county jail.
Status review report dated October 27, 2009.
An October 27, 2009 status review report stated that the child was now enrolled in Kindergarten and Aunt L.F. stated that she was making good progress at school. The child said she was disciplined by being sent to her room for time outs, she felt safe in Aunt L.F.’s home and that she loved her aunt. The child stated that “I want to stay here forever.”
Aunt L.F. stated that mother’s visits had been sporadic, visiting every other month. Mother was very affectionate with the child during her visits and the child appeared to be ambivalent, not knowing exactly how to react to her mother’s attention.
Further continuance to accommodate father’s presence in court.
On October 27, 2009, the court continued the matter once again for father’s presence in court. The court ordered mother to return to court.
Mother’s section 388 petition filed on January 8, 2010.
On January 8, 2010, mother filed a section 388 petition that asked the juvenile court to vacate the pending 366.26 hearing, reinstate mother’s reunification serves, and grant mother unmonitored visits with the child. The basis for the request was that mother had completed an alcohol and drug treatment program. The completion certificate from the Mary Lind Recovery Centers stated that mother had completed a 90-day primary phase of its treatment program. The Weingart Center Association stated that mother was in transitional housing provided to adults in recovery from alcohol and drug abuse. The housing program gave participants intensive case management assistance in maintaining sobriety through a rigid structure, including recovery group session, individual counseling, and community Alcoholics and Cocaine Anonymous meetings. Mother had enrolled in this program, which on average lasted for 12 months, on January 5, 2010. Mother had also completed another parenting program and an anger management program in December 2009.
Mother’s declaration stated that she was in substantial compliance with her court-ordered programs, and that in addition to her completed programs, she was attending a 52-week domestic violence counseling program where she had attended 33 out of the required 52 sessions. Mother stated that she was drug testing twice per week, and that all her tests had been negative. Mother claimed she had been visiting the child on a weekly basis when possible. Mother stated that she assumed parental responsibilities when visiting the child such as supervising her reading, practicing numbers and ABC’s. Mother cared for the child by bathing her and helping her clean her room. Mother helped take care of the child’s laundry. Mother claimed that she and the child interacted very positively during visits and that the child became sad when the visits ended.
A January 11, 2010 last minute information for the court report stated that according to Aunt L.F., mother had not visited the child since August 2009.
Another continuance to allow father to be transported to court from Folsom State Prison
On January 11, 2010, the court continued the matter because father had been located in Folsom State Prison and he needed to be transported to court. The juvenile court granted mother a hearing on her section 388 petition.
DCFS’s response to mother’s petition was that Aunt L.F. was committed to the child’s well being, the child had flourished in her care, and the child refused to talk about her mother or father with the CSW. Mother’s recent compliance with the case plan proved that mother had only begun to address her own problems. Mother was homeless and she would be in her housing program for another year. Adoption was the plan that would provide the child with permanency. The CSW could not ensure the child’s safety if mother were given unmonitored visits with the child.
Hearing on February 24, 2010 on mother’s section 388 petition.
On February 24, 2010, the court conducted the hearing on mother’s section 388 petition. Mother testified about the programs she was attending and that she had completed. Mother talked about the 12 steps of substance abuse recovery. Mother testified the last time she had used drugs was September 16, 2009, the day before she entered her drug recovery program.
Mother testified she tested once per week while in her drug program and that the drug tests were usually on Mondays. Mother’s current program tested her once per week on a random basis throughout the entire week. Mother testified she went to various Narcotics Anonymous meetings throughout the week.
Mother talked to her Narcotics Anonymous sponsor on a daily basis. Mother claimed that since she started in her program, she had not had any temptations to use drugs.
Mother had learned that the key to handling domestic violence was not to react, but to remove herself from the situation.
Mother had learned how to discipline her child by using time outs and that mother was responsible for her child and had to set the rules. During her visits with the child, she would talk to her, discussing how she was doing in school, how she was behaving and that she should mind her aunt and grandmother. Mother testified she had seen the child two or three times per month over the last six months except for the past month. During her visits, mother would play with the child. The child would read, or mother would read to her. Mother would help her with her homework and they talked.
The child was happy to see her, ran to her, and mother would hold her for the first five minutes of the visit and the child would be sad at the conclusion of the visit.
On cross-examination, mother admitted that she had a 20-year history of drug use. She had stopped using drugs in 2005, when she relocated to Las Vegas and she had remained clean of drugs until she returned to Los Angeles in 2007. Mother claimed it had been the removal of the child from her care that caused her to relapse to drug use.
Mother admitted that she was not ready to have the child placed with her. Mother had to finish her outpatient program and get a job. Mother admitted that she and father had a violent relationship.
Mother admitted that she had been clean for only the past five months while it was 27 months since the child had been removed from her custody.
The juvenile court heard argument from counsel regarding mother’s section 388 petition. The court denied mother’s petition because of the length of time before mother began her recovery. Also, the court found that there was not evidence of a true change of circumstances but only changing circumstances. The court concluded that while mother “has made changes in her life, and she is, as [minor’s counsel and county counsel] indicated, ... to be commended for that, I believe that it’s a little too late. And [the child] has been with her current caregiver for some time. She is finally in a stable home. She’s finally making improvements. She’s finally bonding with the current caregiver.” The court concluded that it was not in the child’s best interest to create havoc or confusion by granting further reunification services to mother.
Mother’s counsel then argued that the relationship exception, section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), applied to mother’s relationship to the child: “the child does seem very bonded to her. Mother had been very consistent that, when she visits, [the child] runs to her and runs to the mother... and that [the child] does appear to be sad when the visits end.” Counsel argued that mother had behaved in a parental role, helping her with homework, played with her and talked to her.
The court found that mother did not have a relationship that would benefit the child because mother’s visits had not been consistent over the many months of the case: “While I do recognize that [mother] has definitely participated more in visitation since she has been in the programs, again, I do not see the consistency in the month and month before September 2009.”
The court could not find that the child looked toward mother as the person who tended to her needs, or as a person who was there for her. The court could not find that the child would benefit from continuing her relationship with mother.
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the child was adoptable and terminated mother’s parental rights.
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Standard of review.
In assessing the merits of the issue presented in this case, the substantial evidence rule applies and is not contested by either party. (See In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.) The court must find with clear and convincing evidence that the child is adoptable and that none of the exceptions listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) apply. On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court presumes in favor of the order of the trial court, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in support of the order. (In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 113; In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) We now proceed to the merits of the appeal.
The 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) exception.
The main purpose of a section 366.26 hearing is to select and implement a permanent plan for the dependent child. If the child is likely to be adopted, adoption is the preferred permanent plan. (In re Tabatha G. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1164; In re Edward R. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 116, 122; In re Heather B. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 535, 546.)
If the parent is of the view that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the minor under one of the specified exceptions under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) then the parent must show that he or she had maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from the continuing relationship. It is emphasized that the burden is on the parent to prove that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child. (See In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350; In re Andrea R. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1108; In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 826-827; In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1343-1345.)
The court of appeal held in Autumn H. that “In the context of the dependency scheme prescribed by the Legislature, we interpret the ‘benefit from continuing the [parent/child] relationship’ exception to mean the relationship promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents. In other words, the court balances the strength and quality of the natural parent/child relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and sense of belonging a new family would confer.... Interaction between natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child.... The exception applies only where the court finds... a significant, positive, emotional attachment from child to parent. The exception must be examined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the many variables which affect a parent/child bond. The age of the child, the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, the ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child’s particular needs are some of the variables which logically affect a parent/child bond.” (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 575- 576.)
Substantial evidence supports the court’s ruling that section 366.26, subdivision(c)(1)(B)(i) did not apply to Mother’s relationship with the child.
The record is replete with substantial evidence that the beneficial parent relationship exception had no application to the facts of this case. We summarize some, but not all of the evidence, contained in the record to support this court’s conclusion that the juvenile court order should be affirmed. The minor was born with a positive toxicology for marijuana and cocaine in 2004; minor had been placed with relatives and mother only had custody of the minor at the outset of the case because mother and father had recently removed the child from the custody of the paternal grandmother; parents had regularly cajoled and intimidated T.G. to the extent that T.G. was afraid of the parents and threatened to have the minor removed from her home; Aunt L.F. recounted that the minor had previously been shuffled from person to person; the minor felt safe in the home of Aunt L.F; the minor loved the aunt; the minor wanted to stay with the aunt forever; mother and father showed no indication they were able to control their episodes of domestic violence and continued drug abuse; the minor had observed the violence; mother evidently filed a false police report which indicated she had been the victim of father’s physical abuse and subsequently denied the facts contained in her complaint to the police; mother had a history of prostitution and drug abuse; father had a criminal record of conviction of violent crimes; father had served a prison sentence in Nevada and upon return to California was again incarcerated in Folsom State prison and the Los Angeles County jail; mother was homeless during a substantial portion of the time she attempted to care for the minor; and mother was disrespectful to the court and CSWs which included using profane language and being uncooperative with the CSWs and in fact demonstrating obstructive conduct that interfered with the well being of the minor; and any recent show of affection by mother toward the minor was of recent vintage and merely demonstrated a developing pattern of evolving or changing circumstances as opposed to any true recent changed circumstances. The above summarized evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom support an affirmance in this instance.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: PERLUSS, P. J., ZELON, J.