Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK 05584. Marilyn H. Mackel, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Associate County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ROTHSCHILD, J.
J.A. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders denying her petition to reinstate family reunification services with respect to her seven-year-old daughter, I.W. and terminating her parental rights. We affirm.
The notice of appeal refers to the court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights but Mother’s briefs raise no issue as to that order other than her contention that the court should have reinstated reunification services.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
In January 2007, when I.W. was five years old, Mother was convicted of commercial burglary and, under a plea agreement, entered a residential drug rehabilitation program. Mother voluntarily arranged for I.W. to live with I.W.’s paternal aunt and uncle. After the aunt and uncle expressed concern to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) that, upon Mother’s release, Mother might try to regain custody of I.W., in June 2007, the DCFS filed a petition to have I.W. declared a dependent child of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j). The petition alleged that Mother had a history of substance abuse that periodically rendered her incapable of providing I.W. with regular care and supervision and that two of Mother’s other children were receiving permanent placement services due to her substance abuse.
All statutory references are to the Welfare & Institutions Code.
At the jurisdictional hearing in September 2007, the court sustained the petition under section 300, subdivision (b) and continued I.W.’s placement with her paternal aunt and uncle. The court ordered family reunification services for Mother which were to include individual, parenting, domestic violence and drug counseling and random drug testing. The court awarded Mother monitored visitation and ordered sibling visitation for I.W. twice a month.
The court set a six-month review hearing for March 2008. In December 2007, Mother was arrested for grand theft and sentenced to 16 months in prison. She had stopped visiting I.W. two months earlier. At the six-month review hearing the court terminated Mother’s reunification services and scheduled the matter for a permanency planning hearing.
Mother was released from prison in September or October 2008. In September 2008, she filed a section 388 petition seeking reinstatement of family reunification services.
In January 2009, the court conducted a combined hearing on Mother’s 388 petition and I.W.’s permanent placement.
At the hearing, Mother acknowledged that she began using drugs at age 19 and she was now 44. She testified that she had been sober since her arrest in December 2007 (13 months), had learned to “take my life one day at a time,” and had developed “a solid foundation to help me to realize my past mistakes and not to make them again.” While in prison she participated in an anger management class and attended A.A., N.A. and C.A. classes five days a week. She admitted that she made no attempts to contact I.W. while in prison but, at her request, I.W.’s social worker sent her photographs and updates on I.W.’s activities. Mother stated that since her release from prison she had been participating in an in-patient drug rehabilitation program where all her drug tests had been negative and she was seeking employment.
The court admitted into evidence a DCFS report that confirmed Mother’s participation in the drug rehabilitation program and stated that according to the program’s case manager Mother was making a good adjustment to the program, willing to accept positive feedback in group and individual sessions and attending all assigned groups including anger management, parenting, relapse prevention, boundaries, and chemical dependency. The report also stated Mother visited I.W. twice in October 2008 and that the visits “went well.” (The record contains no evidence that Mother visited I.W. in November, December or January.) According to the report, I.W. is happy living with her aunt and uncle and is loved and well cared for by them. The aunt and uncle ensure that all of I.W.’s medical and dental needs are met and have cooperated in arranging visits with I.W.’s siblings and with Mother.
J.B., Mother’s older sister, testified that Mother raised I.W. from birth to age 5 and that their relationship was “very strong.” She stated that she had observed visits between I.W. and Mother since her release from prison and that their relationship was “still strong.” I.W. cried when she saw Mother at the beginning of their visits and cried again when the visits ended. J.B. believed additional reunification services would be in I.W.’s best interest because a permanent separation from Mother would have a “negative impact” on I.W. due to the strong bond that remained between them and because Mother had changed “tremendously” since her most recent incarceration.
Based on the evidence and argument of counsel, the court found that Mother had not established a significant change in circumstances with respect to her drug addiction and therefore denied the section 388 petition without reaching the question whether reinstating reunification services would be in I.W.’s best interests. The court then terminated Mother’s parental rights. Mother filed a timely appeal.
DISCUSSION
In order to show a change of circumstances under section 388, the moving party must show a significant change in relation to the problem that led to the dependency. (In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 685.) The determination whether such a showing has been made is committed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.)
In this case we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in finding that Mother’s evidence of four months of sobriety since her release from prison, compared to 25 years of nearly constant drug use, demonstrated a significant change of circumstances with respect to her addiction.
When mother was interviewed at the time of I.W.’s detention she conceded that she had been using crack cocaine for the past 25 years and that her longest period of sobriety was the four years prior to I.W.’s birth during her incarceration. Although Mother may not have used drugs for the 13 months prior to the hearing on her section 388 petition, during nine of those 13 months she was in prison.
The termination of reunification services shifted the focus of the dependency proceedings to I.W.’s need for permanency and stability. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) Given Mother’s long history of drug use and her failure to reunify with two of her other children compared to her short period of sobriety, the court did not act unreasonably in refusing to shift the focus back to reunification.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
We concur: MALLANO, P. J., FERNS, J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.