Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J512525A, Cynthia A. Bashant, Judge.
McINTYRE, Acting P. J.
Amelia H. appeals an order limiting her contact with her daughter, E.D., to telephone calls that are initiated by E.D. and allowing the social worker to decide when she and E.D. may begin face-to-face visits. We affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 27, 1998, when E.D. was seven years old, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned on her behalf under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). (All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) The petition alleged Amelia had chronic schizophrenia and was unable to care for E.D. On December 10 the court sustained the petition, ordered E.D. placed in relative care, required Amelia to comply with her case plan and ordered supervised visits.
Amelia continued to be mentally unstable. During the next eight and one-half years, E.D. was placed in relative care, in foster care and in group homes. Each placement failed.
At one time, visits were suspended after Amelia tried to abscond with E.D's sister. At another time, E.D. began having thoughts of suicide after visits with Amelia. In April 2000 the court terminated Amelia's reunification services. The court ordered there be no contact between E.D. and Amelia. In February 2001 the court ordered supervised visits would resume. Then E.D. had to be removed from her placement at a relative's home because of her destructive and assaultive behavior and self-mutilation. She was placed in a group home. In 2002 and 2003 she lived in two different foster homes and then was placed with an aunt.
In early 2005 E.D. ran away from her aunt's home and her whereabouts were unknown for a time. She next lived with another aunt, then was detained at Casa De Amparo, ran away and was later detained at Polinsky Children's Center. In July she was detained in juvenile hall after she attacked another child. In August she was detained at New Alternatives. Amelia was visiting regularly during E.D.'s time at New Alternatives, and the social worker noted she and E.D. had a strong bond.
E.D. was next placed in a group home, but ran away, turned herself in, then ran away again and was not located for more than three months. She was then detained with a different relative. Amelia called police to this relative's home, complaining E.D. was not receiving adequate care and prostitution was going on in the home. Police found no problems there. E.D. said she wanted to stay with the relative and had mixed feelings about having contact with Amelia. E.D.'s therapist recommended E.D. continue having individual treatment before considering joint treatment with Amelia. E.D. stated at the hearing:
"I would like to say something. . . . I don't need her calling the police and sending them to a place I am happy at just because she is mad because she can't get her kids back.
"I see how she is and I grew up through that. Yes, I wanted to live with her when I was younger but I see how she is. I don't want to deal with her anymore. . . . I don't want to deal with her ever and I am serious, too, because she is making it hard for me to live. . . ."
The court directed Amelia to call E.D.'s home only through the social worker.
At the post permanency planning review hearing in June 2007, Amelia testified she had begun therapy and was taking prescribed medication. She said she talked to E.D. by telephone only when E.D. called her, and she would like them to have conjoint therapy.
The social worker said E.D.'s therapist did not recommend that E.D. and Amelia have conjoint therapy. E.D. had mixed feelings about Amelia and, at the time, was asking not to visit her.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court confirmed placement with the relative, denied Amelia's request for conjoint therapy and ordered they would have no face-to-face contact. It ordered that E.D. could call Amelia, but Amelia was not to call E.D. It gave the social worker discretion to schedule visits once E.D. had stabilized.
DISCUSSION
Amelia contends the court erred by delegating to the social worker the decision of whether visitation may occur. She claims the error was especially egregious because the social worker testified she believed E.D. should control whether she has contact with Amelia. She argues E.D. has a long history of unstable placements and difficulty adjusting to them, but she and E.D. have a strong bond and have maintained a consistent relationship.
Assuming without deciding that Amelia has not forfeited this issue, we hold the court's order regarding visitation does not show an abuse of discretion.
In making visitation orders, the juvenile court must consider the child's best interests. (In re Jennifer G. (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 752, 757.) It must consider the totality of the child's circumstances when making decisions regarding the child. (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 201.) The court's orders regarding visitation may be reversed only upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. (In re Emmanuel R. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 452, 465.) " '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.' [Citation.]" (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319, quoting Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 272.)
Section 361, subdivision (a)(1)(A) provides that during the reunification process visitation shall be as frequent as possible consistent with the well-being of the child. However, after the reunification period has ended, the parent's interest in visitation is no longer paramount. The child's interest in a stable, permanent home is the principal consideration. (In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 191.)
Amelia has not shown the court abused its discretion by making the visitation order. E.D. has suffered through periods of instability through the years she has been a dependent. She has a history of posttraumatic stress disorder, ran away from placements and has spent some time in juvenile hall. The court suspended visits at times when they appeared not to be in E.D.'s best interests.
Amelia has been a source of disruption to E.D.'s life. She had tried to kidnap E.D.'s sibling. In 2000 E.D. had thoughts of suicide immediately after visiting Amelia and she was sometimes fearful of her. At the time of the hearing, E.D. had lived with her relative for about seven months, and her therapist advised that having conjoint therapy with Amelia was not in E.D.'s interest at the time. The social worker opined that visits should resume when E.D. requested them. The social worker stated she wanted E.D. to continue in therapy and be able to maintain the placement, work through her issues and not run away "when things get tough."
The court reasonably concluded E.D. needed to concentrate on her own stability and it was important that it not be disrupted by Amelia's chronic mental illness. The court stated, "I want [E.D.] to make sure she addresses her own issues in therapy and that she is stable in this home." The court noted E.D. appeared happier than she had during the past five and one-half years the court had followed the case, and stated, "I don't want her to have contact with her mother and then have the placement blow up."
Amelia has not shown an abuse of discretion by the court ordering that there would be no visitation, but that E.D. could telephone Amelia if she wished to talk with her, and the social worker would have discretion to begin visitation again after E.D. had stabilized.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: AARON, J., IRION, J.