Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK39647. Marilyn H. Mackel, Commissioner.
Sharon S. Rollo, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Amir Pichvai for Plaintiff and Respondent Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.
John Cahill for Respondents Alan F. and Steff P.
KITCHING, J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant Debbie B (Mother) is the mother of Darci B., who was in sixth grade at the time of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing. Following the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court ordered that Darci be placed in a legal guardianship. The court also ordered that Darci was to receive two monitored visits with Mother per month for one hour each visit. The juvenile court further ordered that Darci could initiate monitored telephone calls with Mother as long as Mother provided a current working phone number to Darci’s legal guardians.
Unless otherwise indicated, all unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
This appeal presents no issues related to Darci’s brother, D.B., who is nevertheless mentioned in the factual background. In addition, Darci’s father is not a party to this appeal.
Mother appeals the juvenile court order. Mother asserts that the order limiting visitation to monitored visitation twice a month and monitored telephone calls was an abuse of discretion. Mother asserts that the juvenile court should have provided four unmonitored visits each month and unmonitored telephone calls. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In this case, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) placed Darci and her brother, D.B., into foster care in October 1999. On January 4, 2006, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for Mother and scheduled a section 366.26 permanent planning hearing for Darci. Mother timely filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition challenging the scheduling of the section 366.26 hearing. In a prior unpublished appellate opinion, In re Darci B. (Apr. 25, 2006, B188452 (Darci I), this court denied Mother’s petition for extraordinary writ. There, this court set forth a lengthy statement of facts covering the seven-year time period from 1999 to January 2006.
In this case, the juvenile court order limiting visitation to twice a month arises from the same factual background presented in Darci I. The parties have provided us with the same record presented to this court as in Darci I, supplemented by later proceedings in the juvenile court. Examining the issues presented by this appeal, we have independently reviewed the record and find it consistent with the factual background presented in Darci I. In this opinion, we summarize and/or incorporate portions of the factual and procedural background enunciated in Darci I. We then provide additional factual background after January 2006 for the time period following the order scheduling the section 366.26 hearing.
1. Detention
On October 27, 1999, the DCFS detained three-year- old D.B. (born in 1995) and six-year-old Darci B. (born in 1993) and placed the children in foster care. Their parents, Debbie B. (Mother) and D.B., Sr. (Father), were incarcerated after Mother was arrested for child endangerment and Father was arrested for felony burglary for shoplifting in a Costco. Mother and the children were in a pickup with a camper shell, where they were living. The vehicle contained three loaded guns within the children’s reach, a loaded magazine, several loose rounds of ammunition, and stolen merchandise. An “overpowering” stench emanated from the vehicle. Neither child was toilet-trained and six-year-old Darci wore a diaper and had defecated in her pants. Darci could not form sentences and spoke in broken English. The police report stated that the children acted like “animals” and one tried to bite a police officer. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 2].)
2. The Juvenile Court Sustains the Dependency Petition
The juvenile court sustained the section 300 petition as amended and found the children to be persons described by section 300, subdivision (b), declared Darci and D.B. dependent children of the court, ordered custody taken from the parents and placed with the DCFS, ordered a psychological examination of the parents and children, ordered the DCFS to provide family reunification services, and ordered the case plan and visitation to be as described in the court-ordered disposition case plan. (Darci I, supra, [pp. 4-5].)
The first sustained count was that Father was arrested (and later convicted) for shoplifting while returning to the vehicle in which the parents placed Darci and D.B., which contained loaded guns within the children’s reach. The parents’ behavior placed the children at risk of physical and emotional harm. The second sustained count was that Darci had encopresis and D.B. had Kawasaki’s syndrome, and their parents required assistance in dealing with these unique medical conditions, placing the children at risk of harm. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 4].)
3. First Reunification Period: January 5, 2000, to April 4, 2001
During the first reunification period, the agency whose personnel monitored the parents’ visits reported that Father had complete control over the children and Mother. Mother went along with whatever Father said. In addition, in July 2000, Darci and D.B. had to be re-placed after Father followed the foster mother home. Concerned about her family’s safety, she reported Father’s conduct. This occurred after Father threatened foster agency staff during visits. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 5].)
By July 2000, the parents visited the children consistently, but their demeanor was hostile and confrontational. Father was controlling with the children and Mother. Father raised his voice in demeaning tones to Mother, who then would walk away or put her head down. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 5].)
During this time period, the children did well in foster placement and were in individual therapy. The children were toilet trained and did well in special education classes. Darci’s speech improved. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 6].)
By April 2001, the children had made progress at Bienvenidos Children’s Center. Darci continued to show sexual behaviors and to be oppositional, but had more positive interaction with adults and peers. She was being enrolled in public school. Both children were enrolled in the Mental Health program at Bienvenidos. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 7].)
At this time, Mother and Father consistently visited the children. Darci was generally excited to see her parents, while D.B. engaged his parents only after lengthy prodding by them. Both children demonstrated some oppositional or defiant behavior during visits. Mother tended to be a passive observer. She was not involved in setting limits for the children. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 7].)
On April 4, 2001, the juvenile court found that the parents had complied with the case plan, but found that returning the children to the parents’ physical custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to their physical or emotional well-being. The juvenile court ordered termination of family reunification services, found that the children were not adoptable, ordered the DCFS to initiate or continue long-term foster care, and set the matter for an October 3, 2001, review of permanent plan hearing. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 7].)
4. Long-Term Foster Care from April 4, 2001, to June 10, 2004
By October 2001 Mother continued to maintain contact with the children. The DCFS noted at this time that the parents’ actions showed that they were only going through the motions to satisfy court-ordered requirements. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 9].)
After 10 sessions with family members, a family therapist described the sessions as “difficult and chaotic,” as Mother played with the children and Father expressed his dissatisfaction and impatience with the system. The sessions functioned as monitored family visits and the therapist made no progress to change family dynamics. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 9].)
The parents’ visitation at Bienvenidos Children’s Center was liberalized to unmonitored contact on Bienvenidos grounds in July 2001. After five unmonitored visits, Bienvenidos informed the CSW that they were no longer willing to host Father’s visits, mainly due to a domestic dispute between Father and Mother on August 16, 2001 in the Bienvenidos parking lot and Father’s continuing failure to avoid restricted areas. When Father was not present, a greater closeness emerged between Mother and Darci and D.B., and such periods were calm and harmonious, in contrast to the hyperactivity, confusion, and tension occurring when Father was present. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 9].)
In December 2001, the DCFS placed Darci at Five Acres Group Home in Altadena. The DCFS placed D.B. at Westside Children’s Group Home in Westchester. By March 2002, the parents made no response to the DCFS attempts to facilitate monitored visits. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 9].) In July 2002, the DCFS reported that Mother was still subservient to Father. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 10].)
By October 2002, the parents had weekly visits with the children in the previous two months, and telephoned them regularly during the week. Earlier problems with the parents decreased and monitoring staff reported the visits went well. Although the case plan was for long-term foster care, there was a strong possibility that the children might be returned to the parents’ home. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 10].)
After the November 2002 hearing, D.B. and Darci were both placed at Five Acres. The juvenile court ordered the DCFS to implement a plan for Five Acres and ordered conjoint counseling, with unmonitored visits to begin after four sessions of conjoint counseling. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 10].)
By March 2003, Mother continued to visit the children and participate in conjoint counseling. Darci had become more moody since Father’s incarceration and staff believed she was disappointed in Father. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 10].) In March 2003, the juvenile court ordered off-grounds, two-hour visits for Mother with the children. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 10].)
By September 2003, Father had been released from jail. He had returned to the home with Mother. Father had not visited with the children since his release, but during her visits Mother allowed the children unmonitored phone calls with Father. Staff at Five Acres reported that the children’s behavior became unmanageable after the calls, and requested monitored visits for Mother, who continued to allow calls to Father to occur despite being told not to do so. Mother attended family therapy with the children. Mother said she believed she was enrolled to attend a parent support group at Five Acres, but had not yet started to attend. (Darci I, supra, at [pp. 10-11].) In September 2003, the juvenile court ordered the DCFS to supervise the case and visitation, with no discretion to liberalize visitation. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 11].)
By March 2004, the parents did not have consistent positive involvement with the children and had not demonstrated their willingness to cooperate with treatment services. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 12].)
5. Second Reunification Period: June 10, 2004, to January 4, 2006
In June 2004, the juvenile court granted Mother’s section 388 petition in part, and over DCFS objection, ordered family reunification services for Mother and ordered the family to attend family group decision making. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 12].)
By September 2004, the parents consistently visited the children, who enjoyed their unmonitored visits with the parents. The parents were consistently involved in therapy intervention services with both children’s therapists. The DCFS convened a family group decision-making meeting on July 13, 2004, which produced a plan and time line for the children’s return to the parents. The parents had worked closely with therapists and maintained regular contact with the DCFS to accomplish goals set in the meeting. The DCFS offered financial assistance, but the parents were to locate appropriate housing. By this time, Darci achieved age-appropriate developmental milestones. (Darci I, supra, at [pp. 12-13].)
In addition, the parents had not yet found a larger apartment. Overnight visits were not yet appropriate, because the one-bedroom apartment lacked appropriate sleeping arrangements, given the unclear boundaries between Darci and D.B. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 13].)
In September 2004, the juvenile court found the parents in compliance with the case plan, ordered the DCFS to continue to provide family reunification services, and gave the DCFS discretion to liberalize visitation. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 13].)
In November 2004, Father was arrested for robbery. Mother said he told her he brandished a weapon during the crime. Mother also disclosed that Father had verbally and emotionally abused the children during unmonitored visits, showing her inability to intervene on the children’s behalf, stop the abuse while it was happening, or report the abuse. She reported to the DCFS that she had been very fearful of Father and unwilling to report the incidents for fear he would harm her. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 13].) In December 2004, Mother enrolled in Victim’s Domestic Violence counseling at the Glendale Counseling Center. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 13].)
By March 2005, Father had been sentenced to state prison, but his sentence was unknown. Mother visited the children at Five Acres and the family therapist stated that Mother continued to be a positive influence in the lives of the children, who looked forward to her visits. Illness and Mother’s transportation problems limited Mother’s recent visits. Mother stated that she remained consistent with her group intervention at Glendale Counseling Center. Mother had not yet acquired adequate housing for the children’s return. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 14].)
In August 2005, Darci moved in with her foster parents, who would eventually become her legal guardians. She enjoyed living with them and going on frequent outings. She was enjoying her school. Darci told the social worker that she liked the foster home and had a good time there.
By September 2005, Mother appeared unable or unwilling to relocate from the apartment she had shared with Father, who she had allowed to abuse the children. Mother’s previous nine months of treatment had limited success. She appeared to have mental health issues that limited her understanding of what the children needed and what she could do for herself. She had been dependent on Father and had not shown she could function without him. She relied on Father’s church to pay her rent, even though she revealed she was not a church member, did not believe as Father’s church members do, and had not communicated her different beliefs to Father or to his church. Income from Mother’s part-time job would not pay her expenses or those of the children. The idea of moving to a less expensive area created severe anxiety that caused Mother to become unable to function, to be troubled by unrealistic fears of crime rates and potential dangers, and to be immobilized by fears and panics. Although claiming to be finished with Father, Mother kept in contact with him in prison and kept his voice on her answer machine. Mother’s maintenance of the household caused the DCFS to consider it likely that upon release from prison, Father would resume his place and role in the family. (Darci I, supra, at [pp. 14-15].)
6. Proceedings Leading to the Order Terminating Reunification Services and Setting the Matter for a Section 366.26 Hearing
By October 2005, Mother was complying with court-ordered monitored weekly visits and monitored phone calls. Mother presented no further information that would cause the DCFS to alter its recommendation to terminate reunification services. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 15].)
On October 18, 2005, the juvenile court heard Mother’s testimony. She had participated in domestic violence counseling since December 2004, and in conjoint counseling with the children. Domestic violence counseling had focused on how to be more assertive and how to get rid of a person who treated her badly. Mother stated that she had become much stronger, and did not want to be with Father, who was still in prison for robbery. Mother testified that she had not had contact with him while he was in prison, had torn up letters she received from him, and that a month earlier she sent Father a letter stating that when he was released from prison she wanted no further contact with him. Mother stated that if Father contacted her when he was released from prison, she would call the police and get a restraining order. Mother also stated she was going through a divorce from Father, but admitted that she had only obtained paperwork a week earlier, did not yet have an attorney, and had not yet told Father she intended to file for divorce. (Darci I, supra, at [pp. 15-16].)
Mother also testified that she desired the children to have overnight visits with her, and that she presented no risk of harm to them and could protect them and herself from Father. Mother admitted that perhaps she did not leave Father soon enough, but testified that she now knew what she wanted and where she was going in life, and that her life would not be complete if she did not have her children with her. She testified that her attitude had changed, that she was stronger and could live without a man, and did not need anybody in her life other than her children. She admitted that she did not begin domestic violence counseling until after Father was arrested. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 16].)
Mother admitted that before Father was incarcerated, she and Father had an unmonitored visit with the children on the Five Acre grounds during which Father yelled at the children on at least two occasions. Mother did not tell the CSW that Father was verbally abusive to the children. Mother admitted she was afraid of Father at that time, but when he got angry Mother told him he was wrong. Mother admitted there had been domestic violence in the past. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 16].)
Darci, in sixth grade, also testified. Darci had been in her foster home for eight weeks. She tried to call D.B. every day and saw him once a week. Darci was happy knowing that Mother wanted her to live with her, and would feel happy to live with Mother, but Mother’s house was too small for three people. Darci testified she was scared of Father, who yelled at her. The last time Father yelled at her she became angry because he made her and D.B. cry for no reason. Darci felt she could protect everyone from Father. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 16].)
On October 19, 2005, the juvenile court ordered the DCFS to report on Mother’s correspondence with Father in prison and to obtain copies of all correspondence and evidence of communication between Father and Mother during the previous six months from Father’s place of incarceration. On November 3, 2005, the juvenile court had received Mother’s correspondence with Father and overruled Mother’s objection to the admission of those letters into evidence. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 16].)
On November 3, 2005, the DCFS reported regarding Mother’s therapist, Edith Hartoonian, who wrote a progress letter documenting Mother’s consistency, punctuality, and “positive energy within the therapeutic process.” Hartoonian stated that Mother’s current focus was increasing awareness, examining unhealthy patterns, gaining skills to empower herself, learning to set limits, enhancing communication skills, and changing her victim stance. Mother was struggling with disconnecting her ties with Father, as evidenced by her inability or unwillingness to move out of the apartment she had shared with him. Mother maintained the apartment as though Father were still living there; his voice was still on the answer machine, she received assistance from Father’s church to pay her rent, and she had not removed his ramp from apartment steps for 10 months after he was incarcerated. Seventeen months after Mother stated, in June 2004, that she would have a new apartment by November 2004, Mother had not yet found another apartment. Mother still had Father’s wheelchair, although she stated she wanted to donate it because she no longer needed it. Mother had regular communication with Father during his incarceration, showing her inability or unwillingness to break off ties with Father, who had been abusive toward her and toward the children. There were reportedly more than 20 letters with Father during his year of incarceration. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 17].)
In therapy, Mother was working on issues of victimization, dependence, and low self-esteem, the same issues Mother addressed four and one-half years earlier. The social worker concluded that Mother had made only limited progress, and the therapist gave no indication that there would be any significant results any time soon. The social worker also concluded that Mother had not shown that she comprehended the children’s needs, and Mother had repeatedly stated that the children only needed to come home and all their problems would be fine. The social worker also stated that Mother created a problem for Darci, by unknowingly or deliberately forcing Darci to choose Mother over her foster parents; after visits with Mother, Darci was defiant and unwilling to return to a stable home for a short time. (Darci I, supra, at [pp. 17-18].)
In addition, the DCFS reported that Darci’s “extreme parentification” caused her to feel responsible for D.B. and Mother, which caused concern to Darci’s therapist and foster parents. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 18].)
Mother wrote 30 letters to Father from December 4, 2004, to October 1, 2005. With one exception, the letters documented Mother’s commitment to Father and did not show that Mother was moving on with her life. The exception was an October 1, 2005, letter that asked whether Father should go his own way upon release because of Mother’s heartache since he decided to fulfill his plan to get custody of the children. (Darci I, supra, at [pp. 18-19].)
On January 4, 2006, the juvenile court found that Mother had not complied with the case plan, that the children could not be returned to the parents’ physical custody, and there was no substantial probability that they would be returned within six months. The juvenile court ordered family reunification services terminated for Mother, and set the matter for a section 366.26 permanent plan hearing on May 2, 2006. (Darci I, supra, at [p. 19].)
At the January 4, 2006, hearing, the DCFS reported that Darci had acclimated well to her foster home. She showed trust for and reliance upon the foster parents, particularly with her homework. By this point in time, the foster parents also wanted Darci’s brother, D.B., placed with them. The DCFS recommended monitored visitation between Darci and Mother “in a setting that is conducive to intervention when necessary.”
7. The Section 366.26 Hearing
By May 2006, Darci continued to reside in the foster home where she was placed in August 2005. Darci’s school performance had improved and she was participating in the Big Sisters Program. Darci’s behavior had also improved.
Darci continued to have weekly monitored visits with Mother. She had regular contact with D.B. in a therapeutic setting and at the foster parents’ home. The DCFS identified adoption by the current foster parents as the permanent plan for Darci because they had shown a desire to adopt Darci and D.B. At that time, Darci felt that she wanted an open adoption to allow her visits with Mother.
In July 2006, Mother obtained, and filed with the juvenile court, a temporary restraining order against Father. By this time, Darci continued to have weekly monitored visits with Mother. After the visits, however, Darci, showed some difficulty with following directions and was disrespectful. The DCFS noted that Mother did not always engage Darci during the visits. The DCFS recommended that Mother’s visits be reduced to twice a month.
By September 2006, Darci wanted to live with the foster parents. Darci continued to have weekly visitation with Mother, although mother missed all four visits in July. At this time, the juvenile court denied Mother’s request for unmonitored visitation.
By December 2006, Darci was ambivalent about adoption. The DCFS no longer recommended adoption as the permanent plan. Darci was doing well in the foster home. She was contributing to the daily life of the foster home. She referred to the foster parents as mom and dad. In addition, her grades had improved.
By this time, the DCFS informed the juvenile court that Mother’s visits with Darci needed to be monitored closely. Mother discussed father’s situation with Darci, which caused Darci to become conflicted. Once Darci learned of Mother’s feelings about father, she adopted them as her own. The DCFS also reported that once Mother voiced objections to adoption, Darci began to waiver in her desire to be adopted, in reaction to not wanting to hurt mother. The DCFS concluded that Mother was not maintaining healthy boundaries.
The section 366.26 hearing was continued a number of times to allow Father to be transported to court. By the time of the December 28, 2006 hearing, Father’s attorney waived his appearance.
Darci testified in chambers that she had lived with the foster parents for 16 months. She was aware that they wanted to become her legal guardians and she agreed that they could become her legal guardians. She also agreed to allow the foster parents to set up visits with Mother and D.B., which they could increase or decrease.
The juvenile court continued the hearing to February 2007. It also ordered that Mother’s visits were to remain monitored.
At the February 6, 2007 hearing, the DCFS informed the court that its recommendation was legal guardianship for Darci. The DCFS explained that Darci was not interested in adoption. She had a close relationship with her brother, which could be impacted by her adoption. The foster parents were in agreement with the plan of legal guardianship. The DCFS also noted that mother had maintained the visitation with Darci and D.B.
Mother was present for the hearing with her new fiancé, Chris, for the February 6, hearing. Mother testified that she had known Chris for two months and that they had recently moved in together in Riverside County. Mother had not informed the DCFS about Chris. D.B.’s clinician reported that Chris had accompanied Mother during visits with the children and that he had met the children before and after the visits in the lobby of the group home. The clinician reported a shift in the tone of the visits. The clinician stated that Darci had increased behavioral issues following the visits.
The juvenile court selected legal guardianship as Darci’s permanent plan. Mother’s and Darci’s counsel argued for weekly visits. The court ordered twice a month monitored visits for Darci and Mother at Darci’s former group home. The court also authorized monitored telephone calls. The court encouraged the legal guardians to facilitate Darci’s relationship with mother, but cautioned them to use their judgment if the visits presented a detriment to Darci. The legal guardians agreed with the twice a month visitation plan. The court also ordered that there was to be no contact with Chris by the children.
The following day, the juvenile court issued letters of legal guardianship. Mother timely filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Mother asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion by ordering twice a month monitored visitation, as opposed to weekly unmonitored visitation. Mother also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering monitored telephone calls as opposed to unmonitored calls. Specifically, Mother asserts that the juvenile court order constituted an abuse of discretion because it is contrary to the express wishes of Darci to have weekly unmonitored visitation and unmonitored telephone calls. Mother also asserts that the legal guardians intended to limit or prevent visitation with Mother. Reviewing for abuse of discretion (In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 48.), we affirm the juvenile court order.
A juvenile court has discretion to control visitation between dependent children and their parents. (In re Donovan J. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1474, 1476.) Notably, rule 5.735(d)(2) of the California Rules of Court provides that upon appointment of a legal guardian following a section 366.26 hearing, “[t]he court may issue orders regarding visitation of the child by a parent or other relative.” (Italics added.)
In crafting visitation orders, the juvenile court must balance the rights of parents with the best interests of the dependent child. The juvenile court may determine whether there will be any visitation. The court may also impose specific conditions in light of the facts of a particular case. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.)
In addition, rule 5.725 of the California Rules of Court sets forth procedures for the conduct of section 366.26 hearings. Rule 5.725(6) sets forth procedures the court must follow if the court determines that legal guardianship is a dependent child’s permanent plan. Rule 5.725(6)(E) provides: “The court must make an order for visitation with each parent or guardian unless the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the visitation would be detrimental to the child.”
On this record, we cannot say that the juvenile court’s visitation order was an abuse of discretion. While Mother and Darci may have wanted weekly unmonitored visitation as opposed to bi-weekly monitored visitation, the juvenile court was required to consider the best interests of Darci and the effects of Mother’s visits with Darci. Mother has not cited any authority for the proposition that the juvenile court abuses its discretion because it does not order visitation consistent with the wishes of the dependent child. In fact, the record shows that Mother’s visits with Darci were often associated with Darci having behavioral problems. In addition, the record shows that Darci was extremely parentified in her relationship with Mother. Finally, the record supports the juvenile court’s finding at the section 366.26 hearing that Mother displayed inappropriate judgment in her relation with her fiancé, Chris, and that fact that they began living together and did not inform the social worker. Based on this record, the juvenile court did not err by concluding that the visits with Mother must be monitored and reduced to promote the best interests of Darci.
For the first six years of this case, from 1999 to 2005, the record shows that Mother’s interaction with Darci was problematic. The record also shows that Darci thrived and progressed in school and with her social interactions once she was removed from Mother’s and Father’s custody.
During this time period, while mother regularly visited Darci, following the visits, Darci demonstrated oppositional and defiant behavior. In addition, Mother was often a passive observer at visits, she was controlled by Father, and did not set limits for the children. Moreover, during this time period, Mother allowed Darci to have unmonitored phone calls with father. Darci’s behavior became unmanageable after these calls. By March of 2004, Mother did not have consistent positive involvement with Darci.
By September 2004, however, Mother had progressed to unmonitored visitation with Darci. The record shows that Darci enjoyed these visits. In response, the juvenile court gave the DCFS the discretion to liberalize visitation. However, by December 2004, mother disclosed that father had verbally and emotionally abused the children during the unmonitored visits. The DCFS concluded that mother showed an inability to intervene on the children’s behalf, stop the abuse or report it to the DCFS.
Notably, in early 2005, father was incarcerated in state prison. Mother visited Darci at the Five Acres foster home. The family therapist stated that mother was a positive influence in the lives of the children, who looked forward to the visits.
By September of 2005, Mother maintained weekly monitored contact with Darci. However, by this time, Mother showed that she was unwilling to terminate her relationship with Father, who, by all accounts was a negative influence on the children. Moreover, by November 2005, Mother had made only limited progress in her treatment plan. Her therapist gave no indication that Mother would make significant progress. The social worker concluded that Mother did not comprehend the children’s needs. The social worker also noted that Mother created problems for Darci by forcing Darci to choose Mother over the foster parents. After visits with Mother, Darci continued to be defiant and unwilling to return to a stable home. The social worker concluded that Darci was extremely parentified, which caused Darci to feel responsible for Mother.
By the spring of 2006, Darci and Mother were having weekly monitored visitation. By that time, Darci was considering an open adoption because she wanted to continue to have contact with mother. By July 2006, however, Darci continued to display difficulty following her visits with Mother. She showed difficulty with following directions and she was disrespectful to the foster parents. The social worker reported that during the visits, Mother did not always engage Darci. In July 2006, the DCFS recommended that it was in Darci’s best interests to reduce the visits to twice a month. In September 2006, the juvenile court denied mother’s request for unmonitored visitation with Darci.
By December 2006, Darci continued to have weekly visits with Mother. Darci, however, was thriving in her foster home and was contributing to daily life in the foster home. Her grades were improving and she called her foster parents mom and dad. The social worker recommended that Darci’s visits needed to be closely monitored. Mother had discussed Father’s situation with Darci, which caused conflict in Darci. When Darci learned of Mother’s feelings towards Father, she adopted those feelings as her own. The social worker concluded that Mother was not maintaining healthy boundaries with Darci.
At the section 366.26 hearing, Darci, then age 13, testified that she wanted the foster parents to become her legal guardians. Importantly, she also testified that she would agree to allow the foster parents to set up visits with Mother and to use their discretion to increase or decrease the number of visits.
At the section 366.26 hearing, Mother attended with a fiancé named Chris. The juvenile court found this new relationship to be troubling. Mother had not disclosed the relationship to the DCFS, and Chris appeared to be a negative influence on the children. Darci showed increased behavioral issues after these visits.
In conclusion, the record shows that Darci was thriving well in her foster home. The record also shows that Mother had a negative influence on Darci during visits. The record supports the juvenile court’s conclusion that unmonitored visits would not be in the best interests of Darci. Moreover, the record supports the juvenile court’s decision to reduce the frequency of the visits.
In addition, there is no evidence in the record that the legal guardians had an intent or plan to further reduce Darci’s visits with Mother. The record suggests that the guardians in fact were supportive of Darci’s relationship with Mother. They initially agreed to an open adoption. For the entire time period that Darci lived with her guardians, they facilitated visitation with Mother. Moreover, at the section 366.26 hearing, they agreed to facilitate the bi-weekly visitation between Mother and Darci.
In conclusion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion with respect to the visitation order.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court order is affirmed. No costs are awarded.
We concur: KLEIN, P.J., CROSKEY, J.