Opinion
B333536
05-02-2024
R.P., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest.
Law Office of Amy Einstein, Melissa A. Chaitin and Kelsey Moon for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. Children's Law Center of California and Sarah Liebowitz for Minor.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING. Petition for extraordinary writ. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452.) Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19LJJP00870B Donald A. Buddle, Jr., Judge. Petition denied.
Law Office of Amy Einstein, Melissa A. Chaitin and Kelsey Moon for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest.
Children's Law Center of California and Sarah Liebowitz for Minor.
HOFFSTADT, J.
R.P. (mother) has filed this petition for a writ of mandate challenging the juvenile court's setting of a permanency planning hearing regarding her 14-year-old daughter, Ariana E. Concluding there was no error, we deny the petition.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. The Family and Its Pertinent Dependency History
Mother and Rudy P. (father) have three children-Rudy (now age 16), Ariana (now age 14), and Nickolas (now age 10).
In 2016, the juvenile court exerted dependency jurisdiction over all three children based on (1) father's substance abuse and domestic violence; and (2) mother's failure to protect the children, which was due in part to mother's mental health issues (chiefly, schizophrenia). The juvenile court ultimately terminated jurisdiction in January 2018. By this time, father and mother had separated. The court issued an exit order granting father sole legal and physical custody over the children due to mother's ongoing mental health issues.
Mother spent the next several years either homeless or living in a psychiatric rehabilitation facility.
II. The Juvenile Court's Initial Exertion of Jurisdiction in This Case
In late 2019, father engaged in domestic violence with his current girlfriend in front of the children; he also abused alcohol and marijuana.
In January 2020, the juvenile court exerted jurisdiction over all three children after sustaining allegations that father's domestic violence and substance abuse placed the children at substantial risk of serious physical harm. The court did not find mother to be an offending parent. The court removed the children from the parents' custody, and placed them with the paternal grandmother. Paternal uncle assisted paternal grandmother in caring for the children.
III. Initial Period of Reunification Services
The juvenile court ordered reunification services for both parents. Mother continued to struggle with mental health issues and resided in a psychiatric rehabilitation facility. At the 12-month status review hearing held in March 2021, the court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a permanency planning hearing. Mother filed a notice of intent to challenge that decision, but never perfected that petition.
IV. Post-Termination of Reunification Services Period
Due in part to COVID-related delays, the juvenile court did not hold a permanency planning hearing for years after its termination of reunification services. The court nevertheless held periodic permanency plan review hearing to monitor the status of the case. The court initially settled on a plan of legal guardianship with the paternal grandmother. In late 2022, father died in an automobile accident. Citing a need to grieve, paternal grandmother asked that the children be placed in the custody of paternal uncle; the juvenile court granted that request, and settled upon a plan of adoption by the paternal uncle.
A. Additional reunification services for Rudy
In September 2022, mother filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 seeking custody and reunification services of all three children. In the time between the termination of reunification services and the filing of her petition, mother's mental condition improved with medication, she moved out of the psychiatric facility, she moved into an apartment and got a job, she began to comply with her case plan, and she had regular monitored visits with the children. Mother's visits with the children went well, although Ariana was sometimes not interested in visiting and did not attend. In December 2022, the court partially granted mother's petition, ordering additional reunification services as to Rudy, but denied those services as to Ariana and Nickolas after finding such services would not be in their best interests.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
B. Additional reunification services for Ariana and Nickolas
In March 2023, mother filed a second petition under section 388 seeking custody and reunification services as to Ariana and Nickolas. By this time, Nickolas was expressing an interest in reunifying with mother. Ariana was not. To the contrary, Ariana insisted that she wished to remain with paternal uncle; Ariana explained that mother did not respect her, that she favored her two siblings, and that she resented mother because mother's inattentiveness required Ariana to run the household and care for her siblings.
In April 2023, the juvenile court partially granted mother's petition, ordering further reunification services for both Ariana and Nickolas. Specifically, the court ordered individual counseling for Ariana and, if Ariana's therapist so authorized, conjoint therapy between Ariana and mother. Because the court granted reunification services as to all three children, the court took the permanency planning hearing off calendar.
C. Mother reunifies with Rudy and Nickolas
After the juvenile court in April 2023 granted mother custody of Rudy and Nickolas, the court subsequently terminated jurisdiction over them while leaving them in mother's custody and care.
D. Court terminates reunification as to Ariana
Although mother and Ariana visited during the renewed reunification period, Ariana's individual therapist found that Ariana was not ready for conjoint therapy due to Ariana's continued resentment toward mother, her continued belief that mother favored her siblings, and her continued belief that mother did not respect her. Ariana remained steadfast in her preference to be adopted by paternal uncle. Ariana thrived in paternal uncle's care.
At a November 14, 2023 hearing, the juvenile court again terminated reunification services for mother vis-a-vis Ariana. The court reasoned that it was not in Ariana's best interests to reunify with mother given how well Ariana was thriving with paternal uncle as well as given that Ariana had lived outside mother's care for four years, that Ariana had remained consistent in her desire not to return to mother's care, and that the relationship between mother and Ariana was in disrepair. The court set a permanency planning hearing.
V. Petition
Mother filed a timely petition challenging the setting of the permanency planning hearing.
DISCUSSION
Mother challenges the juvenile court's order setting-more accurately, re-setting-the permanency planning hearing under section 366.26 on the ground that the court erred in not terminating dependency jurisdiction over Ariana and placing her back in mother's custody.
Where, as here, a juvenile court has already terminated reunification services and a parent is seeking relief under section 388, "the juvenile court's overriding concern is the child's best interests." (In re Malick T. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1109, 1122; In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) "The parent's interests in the care, custody and companionship of the child are no longer paramount"; instead, "the focus shifts to the needs of the [child] for permanency and stability." (In re Malick T., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 1123 .) This focus on the best interests of the child, with an eye toward the goal of permanency and stability, applies after reunification services are terminated-whether or not the permanency planning hearing has taken place. (See id. at pp. 1124-1125; In re Jacob P. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 819, 828830; § 366.3, subd. (f) [so dictating, in post-permanency planning context, because court is to look to the "best interests of the child" and "presume[] that continued care" by the child's then-custodian is in child's best interests absent proof to the contrary].) We evaluate whether a juvenile court's determination of what is in the best interests of a child for an abuse of discretion; as to any subsidiary factual issues, we ask whether they are supported by substantial evidence. (E.g., In re M.H. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1296, 1307; People v. Trout-Lacy (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 369, 373.)
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining that placing her with mother was not in Ariana's best interests. At the time the juvenile court made its ruling, Ariana had been out of mother's custody formally for more than four years and practically for more than six years. During that time, Ariana had been partially or wholly in paternal uncle's custody. Ariana was thriving in his custody, and benefitted from the stability and permanency it afforded her. Ariana had no interest in reunifying with mother. The relationship between Ariana and mother was seriously damaged, as Ariana felt resentment and anger toward mother. One social worker noted that Ariana was "parentified," having had to step into the role of parent while mother addressed her mental health issues. Ariana's own counselor indicated that Ariana's relationship with mother was in such a poor condition that conjoint therapy with mother was not appropriate. Given these considerations, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Ariana's best interests were served by moving forward with the plan to have paternal uncle adopt Ariana rather than to have Ariana placed back in her mother's custody.
Mother resists this conclusion with what boils down to three arguments.
The fact that Ariana's appellate counsel favors placement with paternal uncle while her trial counsel favored placement with mother is irrelevant to our analysis.
First and most prominently, mother argues that Ariana would be safe in mother's custody and that this fact should control. Mother is wrong. Whether a child will be placed back in a parent's custody turns on whether such placement would "create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child," but that is the inquiry applicable prior to the termination of reunification services-when the goal of reunification is paramount. (§§ 366.22, subd. (a)(1), 366.21, subd. (e)(1); L.C. v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1021, 1033.) But as noted above, where reunification services have already been terminated, the inquiry focuses on the best interests of the child with the goal of assuring stability and permanency. In this context, the child's safety is one factor among many, but is not dispositive. (§ 366.3, subd. (e).)
Second, mother asserts that the juvenile court's best interests assessment is based "solely" on its deference to Ariana's wishes, which should be discounted because Ariana is merely "mad" at mother for not "having been the perfect parent" and for making Ariana do chores around the house. Mother is wrong. Although the court took Ariana's wishes into consideration, those wishes were not the sole basis for the court's opinion. The court also balanced Ariana's success in paternal uncle's home as well as Ariana's counselor's professional assessment that Ariana's relationship with mother was in serious disrepair. The court did not take Ariana at her word. And mother's attempt to belittle Ariana's opinion is not well taken.
Third and lastly, mother argues that the inquiry into a child's best interests entails a "complex analysis" that focuses on "preserving an existing family unit" and "mother's right as a parent to raise her own child." Mother points out her "incredible progress" and the return of Ariana's other two siblings to her custody. At bottom, mother is asking us to reweigh what is in Ariana's best interests and to do so using the standards applicable only prior to the initial termination of reunification services. It is not our role to re-do the juvenile court's analysis.
DISPOSITION
For the foregoing reasons, the petition for extraordinary relief is denied. This opinion shall become final immediately upon filing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).) The stay of proceedings issued by this court on March 4, 2024 is lifted.
We concur: LUI, P. J., CHAVEZ, J.