Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Super. Ct. No. 61184, Charlotte A. Wittig, Commissioner.
S. Lynne Klein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kathleen Bales-Lange, County Counsel, John A. Rozum and Channone Smith-Sheller, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Kane, J.
Appellant J.R. (mother) contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by terminating her visitation with her two children, C. and L. We will affirm the juvenile court’s order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2006, C. and L. were taken from mother’s custody because of her drug use and failure to provide for the children, among other things. The children were placed in foster care in October 2006. In January 2008, the juvenile court terminated mother’s reunification services because she failed to comply with her case plan. The court reduced her visitation to twice monthly.
In March 2008, in preparation for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing, the social worker recommended a permanent plan of legal guardianship with the foster parent. In the report, the social worker described mother’s recent visits and their effects on the children, then recommended terminating visitation because the visits upset the children. The social worker also noted that mother had refused to drug test and had tested positive at the hospital. The social worker stated: “It has been very difficult for the children to state that they do not want to see their mother, but obviously the visits are not in their best interest. [C.] also shouldered the blame for getting [mother] upset. It is recommended that the visits with [mother] be terminated due to her negative effect on the children.”
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
At the section 366.26 hearing on April 24, 2008, the Tulare County Health and Human Services Agency’s attorney argued that it was time to move forward with the guardianship to give the children some stability. Mother’s attorney asked that the court not follow the recommendation to terminate visitation; she requested “that visitation continue due to the nature of the request for guardianship.” The children’s attorney stated: “Well, as to visits with the mother -- actually, the children don’t really want to visit the mother at this point. She’s also frequently canceled visits. I feel that it would be detrimental, and so I would ask that there be no visitation until and unless a therapist okayed it, and I don’t know if that were to happen in the future.” The court stated the following finding: “As to the mother, the Court is finding that visits are detrimental to the children’s best interests and there will be no visits.”
The minute order of the hearing stated that the court adopted the findings and orders recommended by the social worker, which stated: “The court finds that visits with [mother] would be detrimental to the best interest of the child(ren) and [mother] is to have no [visitation, telephone contact, or other communication] with the child(ren).”
The court’s written orders stated that the permanent plan was guardianship and that visitation between mother and the children was “detrimental to the [children’s] physical or emotional well-being and is terminated.”
DISCUSSION
“In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held ... [t]he court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child.” (§ 366.21, subd. (h).) “[U]ntil the time the section 366.26 hearing is set, the parent’s interest in reunification is given precedence over the child’s need for stability and permanency.” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 310.) However, “[o]nce reunification services are ordered terminated, the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability.” (Id. at p. 309.) Thus, visitation may be suspended if a court finds that the visits are detrimental to the children. (In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 679; In re David D. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 941, 954.)
In reviewing a juvenile court’s visitation order, we apply the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351.) “‘[“]The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.”’ [Citations.]” (In re Stephanie M., supra, at pp. 318-319.)
Here, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that continued visitation between mother and the children was detrimental to the children and terminated the visits. The social worker observed that mother had frequently canceled the one-hour, bimonthly visits, claiming she “‘was extremely busy’” or had a meeting with the media. Mother tended to bring other family members to the visits, even though she had been told that the time was meant for her and the children. Mother also brought her significant other and her in-laws to the visits. Mother’s behavior varied between visits. She might participate with the children or appear intoxicated or “‘out of it.’” Often the children did their homework during the visits. Once, the case aide believed mother was intoxicated. She barely interacted with the children, so the aide asked mother if she wanted to terminate the visit. Mother broke down sobbing and left the room without saying goodbye to the children. The children were very concerned about mother and her emotional state. C. blamed himself for getting her upset. During another visit, the children played checkers with each other during the entire visit while mother spoke. The foster parent questioned why the children were taken out of school to play checkers. The children also sometimes questioned why they had to visit with mother. There was little interaction between mother and the children. Mother had tested positive for methamphetamine.
Based on these facts, and taking into account the circumstances and weighing all the evidence, we cannot say the juvenile court exceeded the bounds of reason when it determined that mother’s visits were detrimental to the children. We therefore conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it terminated mother’s visitation.
Furthermore, we do not believe the juvenile court applied the wrong standard to its determination. To terminate mother’s visitation, the court was required to find “that visitation would be detrimental to the child[ren].” (§ 366.21, subd. (h).) Here, the court found the visits would be “detrimental to the children’s best interests” and “detrimental to the [children’s] physical or emotional well-being .” Mother urges us to construe these statements as evidence that the court applied a “best interest” standard, which it clearly did not. The court found detriment to the children.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Wiseman, Acting P.J. Dawson, J.