Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK58915, Debra Losnick, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Donna B. Kaiser, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., Los Angeles County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Kim Nemoy, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
TURNER, P. J.
I. INTRODUCTION
Anita G. (the mother) appeals from a juvenile court order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 modification petitions. The juvenile court, without abusing its discretion, could have found there were no changed circumstances and the children’s best interests would not be served by reinstating reunification services for mother. Accordingly, we affirm the order.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.
II. BACKGROUND
Anita G. is the mother of five children. In order from oldest to youngest they are: T.G., a girl; C.S., C.J., and J.J., all boys; and Ch.J., a girl. The children are currently 12, 11, 4, 3, and 2 years old. The three younger children and the two older siblings have different fathers. Both fathers were incarcerated in the course of these proceedings.
The three oldest children were initially detained on April 23, 2005. The section 300 petition filed on April 27, 2005, alleged: the oldest children had been left in the care of a 19-year-old relative for three days; the 19-year-old had left the children home alone; the parents had not provided the minors with food or utilities; and J.J., the youngest boy, was “at large” with his parents. Nenita Bulandus, a social worker with the Department of Children and Family Services (the department), reported police officers detained the children who had been left alone. There was no food in the home, which was filthy. T.G. said they had not had gas or water, and very little food, for about a month. T.G., then 9 years old, had been taking care of her one-year-old sibling, J.J., the youngest boy. There was a history of repeated interventions by the department from January 1995 through March 2005. The mother had a history of narcotics arrests. The father was on probation for a narcotics offense.
The department filed a first amended section 300 petition on June 1, 2005. The amended petition alleged the parents had physically abused the children and failed to protect them. A department social worker, Aisha K. Kinniebrew, had found the father and J.J. at the paternal grandmother’s home. On May 2, 2005, Ms. Kinniebrew took J.J. into protective custody. The children reported they had been left alone several times in the past. Three of the four children appeared to be developmentally delayed. The mother appeared at a June 1, 2005 hearing and denied the allegations. In a July 6, 2005 report, department social worker Linda Griffin stated the mother lived a transient lifestyle. Ms. Griffin had been unable to locate the mother.
The mother had a criminal history. In 2001, she had been arrested or detained for assault with a deadly weapon and inflicting injury on a child and had pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor assault charge. The mother had also been arrested: on June 10, 2004, for assault with a deadly weapon; on February 17, 2005, for possession for sale of pure cocaine base; and on April 29, 2005, for child cruelty.
On June 7, 2005, the mother enrolled in a drug and alcohol treatment program at Arms of Grace in Los Angeles. The program included group and individual counseling, parenting and anger management classes, recovery and relapse prevention instruction, and random drug testing. The mother completed the Arms of Grace program in September 2005.
T.G., the oldest girl, was placed on a 72-hour mental health hold at College Hospital of Cerritos following an October 6, 2005 incident during which she exhibited uncontrolled anger and physical aggression. Department social worker La Tasha Burns reported: “Child became angry after being told that she could not buy anything from the ice cream truck. Child began yelling and ran out of the [foster] home. Child began hitting and kicking the caregiver[’]s daughter. The caregiver called the police and the police [were] able to return the child to the caregiver[’]s home. The child tried to jump out of the window, began banging her head, hitting and kicking the police officers and destroying the caregiver[‘]s home.” T.G. was diagnosed as suffering from depressive disorder. A psychologist, Madeline Valencerina, reported the child had suicidal ideation, but no active plans. In an October 6, 2005 report, Dr. Valencerina related the following: “[T]he patient states that she always feels angry, she is mad that her foster mother accused her of stealing a credit card which she found on the ground at Walgreen’s. . . . She claims that she does not have too many friends. She does not like school and that she does wish to die as nobody cares for her. She denies any symptoms of psychosis. She denies any history of physical or sexual abuse.”
A hearing was held on October 6, 2005. The mother did not appear. The father said she had been hospitalized, but there was no specific information as to her whereabouts. The juvenile court sustained the first amended section 300 petition as further amended. The sustained allegations were that: mother had physically abused the children; the mother had hit J.J. with a belt on or about April 2005, and on numerous prior occasions; she had excessively slapped the children in their faces and hit them on their bodies with a closed fist; in April 2005, the mother had thrown T.G. to the floor; the mother then stomped on T.G.’s stomach for 5 to 10 minutes; T.G. sustained swelling and bruising; one of the fathers had inappropriately physically disciplined the children with a belt; and the parents had established an endangering home environment by leaving the children without making an appropriate plan for their care. The juvenile court ordered counseling for T.G. with a licensed therapist.
By November 2005, the three boys had been placed together with their maternal great-great aunt, Y.B. The mother was living with a friend, T.J. They were living in T.J.’s mother’s home. The mother was eight months pregnant. T.J.’s mother was V.B. V.B. said there was no room in the home for the mother’s older children. The mother said she had worked for Del Taco as a cashier from June to September 2005, but was currently on maternity leave. In a November 4, 2005 interim review report, Ms. Griffin, a department social worker, reported: “The physical abuse has caused the children [T.G., C.S., and C.J.] unreasonable pain and suffering. The child [T.G.] began acting out aggressively at school and has had multiple placements. The child is currently taking psychotropic medication to control her depression. The child will be placed in the home with her siblings with intensive services in place. . . . . [¶] Although[] Mother has made significant progress in that she has completed an out-patient drug treatment program[.] Mother does not have suitable housing and currently shares a three-bedroom apartment with friends. Mother has several stressors and currently her housing situation is not stable. Further, Mother is expecting a newborn child in December 2005. This means that Mother and five children (four with special needs) would share one bedroom. Mother could benefit from services to learn how to deal with children with special needs.”
The mother gave premature birth to a fifth child, Ch.J., a girl, on November 15, 2005. On December 27, 2005, the mother took Ch.J. to Kedren Acute Psychiatric Hospital. At the hospital, the mother attempted to visit T.G. However, the hospital staff terminated the mother’s visitation due to her behavior. The hospital reported: “[Mother’s] behavior is impeding any attempt of progress [sic] that the treatment team is making with the child. [Mother] has been loud, intrusive, and disruptive to the milieu. She uses excessive profanity and is threatening and disrespectful to staff. We have had to isolate her from the other visitors in an attempt to de-escalate the situation. She has been repeatedly warned about her blatant disrespect of hospital rules. She has been observed by staff telling [T.G.] negative things which are counterproductive to the therapeutic process. We have received complaints from other parents who are concerned about the above-noted behaviors. [¶] Given the ongoing patterns of stated behavior despite repeated warnings, we are terminating her visitation at [the hospital].” Two department social workers, Ms. Burns and Ms. Williams, found the mother near the hospital after the attempted visit with T.G. Ms. Burns examined the newborn, Ch.J. The baby was overdressed and felt “extremely hot” but was otherwise in good condition. The mother agreed to cooperate with the department and to provide Ch.J.’s medical information by December 28, 2005—the next day. The mother failed, however, to do so. On January 3, 2006, Y.B., the maternal great-great aunt, told Ms. Burns that the mother had called. The mother asked Y.B. to come get Ch.J. The mother said she was beaten by the father.
The department filed a section 300 petition as to Ch.J. on January 5, 2006. The petition alleged domestic violence between the parents and neglect and abuse of the infant’s siblings. A department report stated: Ch.J. was “at large” with mother; the mother had no contact with Ms. Burns, one of the social workers; and the mother’s whereabouts were unknown. On January 5, 2006, the juvenile court issued a protective custody warrant for Ch.J. and an arrest warrant for mother. (§ 340.)
In a January 10, 2006 interim review report, Ms. Griffin, a department social worker, stated: since December 30, 2005, T.G., the older child, had been at a Kedren Community Mental Health facility (Kedren); T.G.’s siblings, C.S., C.J., and J.J. were in foster care with their maternal great-great aunt, Y.B. T.G. was due to be released on January 10, 2006. A therapist at Kedren told Ms. Griffin that T.G. needed a residential treatment facility. The dependency matter was on calendar for disposition. The mother and Ch.J. had been living with the maternal grandfather somewhere in Los Angeles. The mother had arranged to move back in with V.B. V.B. was the mother of mother’s friend T.J. The mother had been visiting the boys—C.S., C.J., and J.J.—every Saturday for four hours. She spoke to them every day. The mother said Kedren personnel had said visits with T.G. could resume. Ms. Griffin’s January 10, 2006 interim review report concluded as follows: “Mother has limited means, as her housing situation is not stable. She has limited income. She may have mental health issues. Further, Mother lacks [p]arenting skills. Mother has poor domestic relationships, as fathers are either in jail or unavailable. [¶] Father [C.S.] is currently incarcerated. His expect[ed] release date is unknown at this time. [¶] Father [C.J., Sr.] is currently transient and can not provide for his children at this time. [¶] Mother’s present situation is unstable due to housing limitations.”
The mother appeared in court on January 10, 2006. The mother denied the petition as to Ch.J. The protective custody and arrest warrants were recalled. The juvenile court ordered the department to immediately evaluate whether Ch.J. could be placed with mother, the maternal great-great aunt, or T.J. As noted, T.J. was the mother’s friend.
Ms. Burns filed the following report with the juvenile court on January 17, 2006: “On January 10, 2006, [Ms.] Burns along with 3 other [social workers] observed the baby [Ch.J.] to be unclean and to have a rash on her buttocks that has not been treated. [Ch.J.] also has a rash on her face. [¶] [Ms.] Burns evaluated the place of residence for [mother]. [Mother] has a bassinet, blankets, formula and clothes for [Ch.J.] [Ms.] Burns observed the room that [mother] and [infant] resides in to be very cold and the only heat source comes from the bathroom. [Ms.] Burns smelled alcohol coming from [mother]. [Ms.] Burns asked [mother] if she had been drinking and [mother] stated no. [Ms.] Burns asked [mother] about the rash on [Ch.J.’s] buttock and her face. [Mother] stated that she did not know [Ch.J.] had a rash on her buttock but she was applying cortisone cream to [Ch.J.’s] face. [¶] [The department] is recommending that [Ch.J.] remain in protective custody.”
A hearing was held in the juvenile court on January 17, 2006. The matter was set for an adjudication hearing as to Ch.J. and a contested disposition hearing as to her older siblings, on February 6, 2006. Ch.J. was ordered released to mother’s friend and cohabitant, T.J., over the department’s objection. The department filed a February 6, 2006 jurisdiction and disposition report concerning Ch.J. The mother was residing in the same home where the infant, Ch.J., was placed. The mother had been speaking with T.G. by telephone, as the child was placed in Riverside County. The mother spoke with the three boys several times a week. The mother had visited the boys only once since January 17. The mother did not have sufficient funds to visit the three boys.
The department also filed a February 6, 2006 interim review report as to the four older children. T.G. had been in eight placements, not including four hospitalizations. T.G. was admitted to College Hospital of Cerritos on October 6, 2005. T.G. was readmitted to the same facility on November 14, 2005. On November 28, 2005, T.G. was placed with Dangerfield Group Home. Two days later, on November 30, 2005, T.G. was admitted to Kedren. T.G. was readmitted to that facility on January 3, 2006. On January 12, 2006, T.G. was placed with Perfect Image Group Home in Riverside. Four days later, on January 16, 2006, T.G. destroyed her room, kicked out a window, and ran away. She was returned to the group home by police officers. Another incident occurred on January 28, 2006. T.G. threw chairs at staff members, tried to kick out windows, and twice had to be restrained. After the second restraint was applied, the group home’s owner called the police. When an officer took T.G. to his police vehicle, she ran away and was almost hit by a car. The officer grabbed her and placed her in the back of the police car. The following ensued: “[T.G.] began banging her head, trying to kick the windows out, foaming out the mouth and jumping up and down. The officer then had to hog-tie [her]. [She] was transported to Riverside County Regional Medical Center—Emergency Treatment Services (ETS). [T.G.] was then transferred to Charter Aurora Oak Hospital . . . .” (Bold and underscoring omitted.) T.G. was being treated with psychotropic medications.
The three boys were still living with their maternal great-great aunt. The department reported C.S.: was nine years old and was functioning at a kindergarten level; exhibited “autistic-like behavior”; had been diagnosed with “absent seizures”; and was being treated for bedwetting and encopresis— “involuntary defecation of [a] psychic origin” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/encopresis [as of January 10, 2008].) C.J. was enrolled in preschool and was receiving regional center services. J.J. was undergoing physical and occupational therapy through a California State University preschool program. The mother had been calling the children two to three times a week, but had not visited because she lacked transportation funds.
The juvenile court adjudicated the section 300 petition as to Ch.J. on February 6, 2006. The sustained allegations were: the parents had engaged in a violent altercation in Ch.J.’s presence in which the father physically assaulted the mother; the parents had established an endangering and detrimental home environment for the siblings by leaving them in the care of a 19-year-old aunt, who then left them alone without supervision and without food and utilities; the parents had physically abused the siblings; and the siblings were current dependents of the juvenile court.
The department filed an interim review report on March 9, 2006. On February 16, 2006, T.G. had been placed at Five Acres Group Home. There had been five incident reports concerning her behavior since her placement. Her treatment with psychotropic medications continued. The mother had not visited T.G. The three boys continued to reside with their maternal great-great aunt, Y.B. The mother had visited the three boys once since February 6. She said she did not have transportation funds. The infant, Ch.J., who was in good health, was living with the mother’s friend, T.J. The mother was advised on several occasions that she had to submit to random drug testing. But the mother failed to appear for testing on July 29, August 3, September 28, October 13, and December 13 and 29, 2005, as well as January 20 and February 22, 2006. The mother said she was unaware she had to undergo drug testing. A department social worker, Ms. Griffin, noted: “Mother could benefit from services to learn how to deal with children with special needs. In addition, Mother is not currently drug testing.” A contested disposition hearing was set for April 5, 2006.
Beginning with its November 4, 2005, interim review report, the department had repeatedly noted that mother had, on September 15, 2005, successfully completed a 90-day drug treatment program. The department described this as “significant progress,” stating, “Mother has made significant progress in that she has completed an outpatient drug treatment program.” In the department’s April 5, 2006, interim review report, Ms. Griffin, for the first time, stated the program was not department approved: “Regarding Mother’s previous treatment program: [¶] Mother chose and attended Arms of Grace Counseling Center/Drug & Alcohol . . . . CSW Burns did not refer mother to Arms of Grace. [¶] The undersigned verified with mother’s counselor, Shavonne Hill[,] that Mother enrolled into a 90-day program. She attended group sessions 2 or 3 times per week, [i]ndividual counseling once per month. [Mother’s] group sessions consisted of Parenting classes, Anger Management, Recovery meetings and Relapse Prevention. (Please reference attached certificate of completion). [¶] [Mother] was also required to attend two AA and NA meetings per week to assist in the recovery process and submit to random drug testing on her own. [¶] The undersigned called Arms of Grace Counseling Center. However, Mother’s counselor Ms. Shavonne Hill was unavailable. The undersigned spoke with counselor Jackie Hill and requested a copy of Mother’s certificate of completion and all of Mother’s drug test results. Mother submitted to three random drug test[s] through Arms of Grace on [June 23, July 13, and August 2, 2005] that all show: Negative. (Please reference attached). The undersigned also requested a copy of Arms of Grace license since this was a drug treatment center that Mother chose on her own. (Please reference attached State of California Certification (Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs). Ms. Jackie Hill further stated Ms. Shavonne Hill (counselor) is a registered counselor. She has a certificate in Counseling. She does not have an MFT, an M.A. or Ph.D. This is not a [department] approved program and CSW Burns did not refer Mother to this program.” (Orig. bold and underscore.) The April 5, 2006 report further states: “Mother has made significant progress in that she has completed an outpatient drug treatment program. However, it is questionable as to the validity of the program in that Mother’s counselor does not have a MFT, [an] M.A or Ph.D. This is not a [department] approved program. [Children’s social worker] Burns did not refer mother to this program. Mother chose the program and went on her own.” (Orig. bold and underscoring.)
In March 2006, the three-month-old infant, Ch.J., was removed from T.J.’s custody and placed through a foster family agency. The mother was living in the home of V.B. V.B. related that the mother was sneaking out a window of the residence with Ch.J. The mother did not have a right to unmonitored visitation outside V.B.’s home. V.B. explained, “[T]he mother would leave and sometimes be gone all day with the baby and no one knew where she was.” V.B. and T.J., the baby’s caretaker, talked to the mother about the problem. But the mother continued to leave home with Ch.J. without T.J.’s permission. T.J. felt she had no control of the situation. For the infant’s safety, T.J. asked that the child be placed elsewhere. V.B. asked the mother to leave. On March 29, 2006, V.B. told Ms. Griffin as follows: “[V.B.] . . . stated that when the baby was removed from the home, she also asked Mother to move from her home. [V.B.] stated that Mother called her two days ago and explained that she is still looking for a place to live. [V.B.] had no idea where mother currently resides. [V.B.] stated that Mother accuses everyone else regarding her situation however, Mother has her own issues that she needs to deal with. [V.B.] stated that she and her daughter did all that they could to accommodate mother and her baby and that Mother did not seem to appreciate all that they have done.”
As of April 2006, the oldest child, T.G., remained at Five Acres Group Home, where she had been placed on February 16, 2006. The mother had not visited T.G. there. As to the three boys: C.S. was receiving regional center services; C.J. was receiving speech therapy and regional center services; and J.J. was receiving physical and occupational therapy. The mother spoke to the boys by phone two or three times a week. The department evaluated the mother: “Mother has been non-compliant in that she took her child [Ch.J.] after being informed by the [children’s social worker] and the undersigned that she did not have unmonitored visits with the child [Ch.J.] outside of the home, resulting in the child being placed back in foster care. [¶] Mother has limited means, as she has limited income and her housing situation is not stable. Mother’s landlord/friend of family continues to prolong mother’s housing situation, in that after a month he now states that it will be about another week before mother can move in [to an apartment]. The undersigned has no assurance that Mother will definitely move into the apartment in about a week, as Mother has no income. Mother has told the undersigned for the last four months that she would be moving into an apartment and has not moved in as yet. [¶] Mother’s friend, [T.J.] and her mother [V.B.] are disappointed in that they tried to assist Mother with her new baby. However, Mother took the child [Ch.J.] out of the home without permission whenever she wanted to. [V.B.] explained that Mother could not move back into her home. [¶] Further, Mother lacks Parenting skills even though she completed a Parenting class in September 2005, however the child [Ch.J.] was detained from Mother’s care on [January 5, 2006]. Mother could benefit from services to learn how to deal with children with special needs. In addition, Mother is not currently drug testing.”
The mother failed to appear at the April 5, 2006 contested disposition hearing. Apparently, she had become homeless. The juvenile court declared the children dependents under section 300, subdivisions (a) and (j), and ordered family reunification services. Mother was ordered to complete six random, consecutive, weekly drug screens. The juvenile court ordered, “If there are any missed or dirty tests, the mother will do a full program, including ongoing tests and until the court orders otherwise.” Mother was also ordered to complete a parent education class, and to receive individual counseling to address parenting skills, anger management and domestic violence.
On May 8, 2006, the department filed an ex parte application to limit the mother’s rights and appoint a surrogate to make educational decisions for T.G., the oldest girl. The department reported T.G. needed an individualized education program, but the mother had failed to sign the necessary form. The juvenile court issued the order over the mother’s objection.
The department filed a June 1, 2006 status review report. The mother had not enrolled in court ordered parent education or individual counseling. She had not maintained contact with the department. The mother had not visited T.G. or Ch.J., the two girls. The mother had visited her other three children only once, on April 15, 2006. On April 3, 2006, Ms. Burns referred mother to a drug testing program. Ms. Burns instructed mother to call the toll free number daily. The mother missed a drug test on April 25, 2006. The mother’s May 11, 2006 test was positive for Cannabinoids, a variant of marijuana. Attempts to contact the mother had been unsuccessful. The department had initiated adoption assessments for all five children. Ms. Burns concluded: “[The department] believes that returning [the children] to the custody of their mother . . . or father . . . would be detrimental to the children. As the parents have not shown [the department] and the court proof that they have alleviated the problems that brought them to the attention of the court. [¶] During this period of supervision, mother . . . has not provided a true place of residence. [Mother] continues to state that she has rented an apartment but has not moved in. [Mother] continues to state that she will visit her children but she has not. [Mother] fails to see the importance of making herself available to be contacted to make educational decisions that will help her children receive the proper educational assistance. This creates a concern of whether or not the children would receive the proper care if they are returned to the care of their mother. [Mother] has not shown that she is capable of providing care or a safe home for [the children].”
A section 366.21, subdivision (e) six-month review hearing was held on June 1, 2006. The matter was set for a contested hearing on June 14, 2006. The juvenile court ordered the department to evaluate the mother’s new home, in a duplex, where she had room for the children. The mother disputed the results of her May 11 drug test, which was positive for Cannabinoids; she said she was taking prescribed medication, Topamax, for seizures. The juvenile court ordered a retest to determine whether the Topamax caused the positive result. T.G.’s counsel, Brian Thompson, advised the court that while residing at Five Acres Group Home, the child had not seen the mother or any of the four siblings. Mr. Thompson requested bus tokens so the mother could visit T.G. Mr. Thompson also requested the department be ordered to facilitate sibling visitation. The juvenile court asked the department “to work on that” and provide a supplemental report. In addition, the juvenile court directed the mother to bring a letter from the doctor who prescribed the seizure medication. The physician’s letter was to describe what drugs were prescribed and when.
In her June 14, 2006 interim review report, it was revealed Ms. Burns called the mother’s drug testing center to inquire about Topamax and was told, “Topamax is a drug for seizures and cannot cause a positive result for Cannabinoids.” Ms. Burns further related the mother had not enrolled in any of the court ordered programs. Ms. Burns had made an unannounced visit to the mother’s home and reported: “Upon arrival, [mother] stated that she was painting the kitchen. [Ms.] Burns asked [mother] if anyone else lived in the apartment. [Mother] stated yes, a friend of the family. [Ms.] Burns then asked [mother] to show her the rest of the apartment. [Mother] showed the kitchen, bedroom and bathroom. [Mother] and the family friend reside in a one-bedroom apartment with the family friend sleeping in a bed located in the living room. [The department] does not have a live scan on the family friend. [Mother] stated that the rent is $450.00 a month and she has no income. Upon seeing the kitchen[, Ms.] Burns observed the kitchen to not be clean with a pot on the stove with molded food in it. The apartment also does not have enough space for [five] children to live or sleep and [mother] does not have a plan as to where the children will sleep. [Mother] stated she has applied for disability due to her having seizures. During the visit, [Ms.] Burns explained again to [mother] the orders of the court from the [April 5, 2006] hearing.” The mother had twice tested positive for Cannabinoids.
A contested six-month review hearing was held on June 14, 2006. The mother testified she had visited the boys three or four times a week and had called daily. The boys lived with a maternal great-great aunt. The mother had not visited Ch.J. “because of problems” with the social worker. The mother had not visited T.G., the oldest girl. The mother explained, “[S]he was very far and I didn’t have any transportation, but once I got transportation, I made my way there to be able to see my daughter.” The mother said Ms. Burns had not provided any transportation help: “[Ms. Burns was] supposed to be giving me a bus pass and transportation to get back and forth to my daughter [T.G.], but she plays a lot of games. So my auntie gave me transportation, a car, and since I had the car, I been going to see my daughter.” The mother was not currently enrolled in parenting or other programs. But she testified she had previously completed a program and was drug testing. The mother stated: “[Previously,] I was testing at the place that I was going to for my parenting classes and anger management. I was told that it was all right with the social worker that I was doing everything there, but then all of a sudden she turned it around.” The mother denied ever drinking alcohol or using any illegal drugs. She testified, “I never used drugs, ever.” The mother had been living at her current residence for about four months. The mother was sharing the apartment with a family friend, Edith Harris. Ms. Harris was willing to submit to a livescan or be fingerprinted. According to the mother, there was room in the home for the children: “[The apartment’s] like one of them old one-bedrooms with the dining room, the kitchen, the living room, and it’s like a long hallway. But it’s . . . enough room.” The mother testified there was an unsafe situation in the home when Ch.J., the infant, was released to mother’s friend, T.J. This is why the mother took Ch.J. and went elsewhere. The mother explained there was fighting in the neighborhood and gang members had come to T.J.’s residence. T.J. also gave the mother permission to take the baby out of the house. The mother testified T.J. never had time to be with Ch.J. The mother was the adult who cared for Ch.J. Finally, the mother testified V.B. threatened to take Ch.J. away. The juvenile court terminated reunification services and ordered permanent placement services be provided.
On October 5, 2006, the mother enrolled in a facility entitled, His Sheltering Arms, Inc. On October 10, 2006, the mother’s residential counselor, Carrie Sanders, advised the juvenile court: “[Mother] attends the following weekly sessions: Effective Parenting Skills, Child/Family Development, Alcohol/Drug Education, Relapse Prevention, Attitude Adjustment, Health/Fitness, HIV/AIDS Education Awareness, Big Book/12-Step Study, AA/CA/NA Meeting/Panels, etc. (just to name a few). [¶] [Mother] has not been in treatment long enough to give a detailed evaluation of her progress in treatment, but [mother] has displayed the desire to want change in her life. [Mother] states she is to take Domestic Violence classes and if this is fact we will need this in writing as for most anger and domestic violence issues are addressed on site through counseling along with group and behavioral therapy.”
The department filed an October 11, 2006 section 366.26 report. T.G. remained at Five Acres Group Home. The three boys were living with their maternal great-great aunt. The infant, Ch.J., was placed with a foster mother, B.B. The department planned for Ch.J. to join the three brothers in the maternal great-great aunt’s home. Ch.J. had been diagnosed with a heart murmur. Ch.J. was to be referred to the regional center. This referral followed a report by B.B. that Ch.J. was not attempting to roll over or to hold a bottle. C.S. was still exhibiting “autistic like behaviors” which included an: “inability to use oral language for appropriate communication”; a history of “extreme withdrawal or relating to people inappropriately”; and the continued impairment in social interaction from infancy through early childhood. Department social worker Mary C. Lester reported, “[C.S.] ha[s] been assessed to attend speech therapy.” T.G. was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder and was taking psychotropic medication. The mother had been visiting the boys. But a fight occurred between mother and the great-great aunt, Y.B. on August 26, 2006. The mother had not called or visited since the August 26, 2006 incident. The mother had, however, been visiting her youngest child, Ch.J., every week. The foster mother reported the visits were going well. Y.B. wanted to adopt the children, with the exception of T.G. A home study was being conducted by an adoption social worker, Ileana Levin. A maternal aunt, S.B., was willing to become T.G.’s legal guardian. The matter was set for a permanent plan hearing (§ 366.26) on October 11, 2006.
On October 11, 2006, Ms. Levin notified the juvenile court that the adoption home study had not been completed. Y.B. had expressed concern about adopting C.S. due to his autism diagnosis. Ms. Levin assured Y.B. that C.S.’s funding and Medi-Cal insurance would continue and that other post-adoptive services were available. The juvenile court trailed the permanent plan hearing to December 13, 2006.
The mother received services at the Augustus F. Hawkins Mental Health Center on November 29, 2006. Anthony Alvarado, a supervising psychiatric social worker, commented: “[The mother] had come to our clinic previously for mental health services. I referred [her] for ongoing outpatient counseling services at Watts Counseling Center . . . . We assisted [her] in completing a phone intake and be placed on a waiting list for services at Watts Counseling Center.”
The mother filed section 388 modification petitions as to her five children on December 13, 2006. She based her modification request on her October 5, 2006 enrollment in the His Sheltering Arms treatment program. The mother requested that reunification services be reinstated. The mother asserted, “I would like to have reunification services open again with my children because I am a better parent today.” The mother alleged the following change of circumstances: “I [am] participating in a community-based program for recovering alcoholic/drug-addicted women [with] children that consist[s] of random drug testing[,] parenting skills and much more[.]” The mother argued the requested modification was in the children’s best interest because: “I . . . believe that it will be in the best interest of all my children to return back home with me because I know I will be a better parent to my children because I had to work on myself first so I did[.] Now I [am] working toward complet[ing] the rest of the program and being successful in my parenting skill.” In a letter dated December 11, 2006, the mother’s counselor, Ms. Sanders, stated: “To date, [the mother’s] [drug test] results are all negative. [¶] [The mother] has individual counseling sessions at least once per week. She has begun to address personal challenges she’s faced which [led] to her addiction. [¶] [The mother] is learning to understand the dynamics of addiction, coping skills, and setting goals that will enable her to become a productive citizen and complete the family reunification process.” While attending the His Sheltering Arms residential treatment program and in tests conducted by Redwood Toxicology Laboratory in Santa Rosa, the mother had tested negative for alcohol and drugs on October 3, 16, and 29 and November 5, 13, 20, and 27, 2006. The mother’s section 388 petition was set for hearing on February 7, 2007.
The department filed a status review report on December 13, 2006. Ms. Lester reported that T.G. remained placed at Five Acres Group Home. The three boys were still living with Y.B., their great-great aunt. Ch.J. remained with a foster mother, B.B. C.J. was experiencing speech and language delays. He was benefiting from regional center services. J.J. was receiving regional center help for behavior problems, including biting other children, and for “global developmental” delays. The mother was in compliance with a regular visitation schedule.
On January 10, 2007, the mother sought an assessment at South Central Health and Rehabilitation Program, Oasis House. In a letter addressed “To Whom it May Concern,” a staff person wrote: “Your client . . . came into our office seeking an assessment. We here at Oasis House offer outpatient groups that may benefit her. She is more than welcome to participate in our program. We also have the opportunity to have one [to] one counseling sessions with a case manager.” Mother attended a few group outpatient counseling meetings at Oasis House, but then she stopped attending. The mother told Alonda Doss, her Oasis House case manager, that the His Sheltering Arms facility had been “on lock down.” In a letter dated March 23, 2007, Ms. Doss said she remained ready to assist mother in finding low-income housing.
All issues were subsequently continued to February 7, 2007, On February 7, 2007, the juvenile court granted the department discretion to place the infant, Ch.J., with the mother in her residential treatment program. The remaining issues were continued to March 22, 2007. On March 22, 2007, however, the deputy county counsel was ill and could not appear. The juvenile court set a March 29, 2007 hearing to address whether T.G. could be released to an aunt, S.B.
Between December 13, 2006, and March 13, 2007, Ch.J.’s foster mother took the child to mother’s treatment facility for visitation every Sunday. Ch.J. also had one overnight visit with mother. A foster care social worker, Jimita R. Baugh, reported: “Following this [overnight] visit, the foster mother complained that [Ch.J.’s] mother had asked her for money—that she reportedly intended to spend on food for [Ch.J.] The foster mother also reported suspicions that [Ch.J.] spent most of that weekend in a stroller that the natural mother had asked the foster mother to leave with her.” Ch.J. had a heart murmur. Ch.J. underwent an echocardiogram on May 23, 2006, and again on October 27, 2006. The foster mother had taken Ch. J. to the child’s physician, Kit Lee, M.D., each month to monitor the heart murmur.
In a letter dated February 6, 2007, the mother’s substance abuse treatment counselor at His Sheltering Arms, Inc., Ms. Sanders, advised the juvenile court: “[The mother] appears to be experiencing some challenges, regarding emotional outbursts and feelings of being treated unfairly. [The mother] attends outside counseling at Oasis House in addition to her in-house counseling. As her primary counselor, I have attempted to help her deal with her accountability and responsibility with following program policies. She states she will make a conscious effort to address her behavior and become more flexible for change, as well as dealing with personal issues which led to her addiction. [¶] To date, [the mother] is learning to understand the dynamics of addiction, coping skills, and setting goals th[at] will enable her to become a productive citizen. [¶] [The mother] has weekly visits with her children. Also, [the mother] has random UA testing; all results have been negative.”
On March 14, 2007, the mother was discharged from her residential drug treatment program for noncompliance. Ms. Sanders notified the department that mother had been “terminated from enrollment” because: “[C]lient would not follow rules and policies. Repe[a]ted failure to comply with individual treatment plan. Participan[t] also [did not] w[a]nt to f[o]llow direction.” In a letter dated March 21, 2007, however, Ms. Sanders advised the juvenile court as follows: “[The mother] demonstrated some concern and improvement in her parenting skills and has been in compliance to all court orders, including her child visits. She attended outside counseling at Oasis House for anger management therapy in addition to her in-house counseling. As her primary counselor, I suggest that she continue working on her attitude and anger issues and adapt a more positive disposition, especially when she is denied her way. [The mother] would benefit from an extension of service activities along with employment preparation and family counseling (with her children) I recommend reunification with her family once she obtains proper housing. [¶] [The mother] had random UA testing; all results were negative.”
As of March 29, 2007, the mother was living with a maternal uncle. On April 25, 2007, T.G.’s therapist, Ms. Ambrester, recommended that the youngster remain in the group home: “[T.G.] has recently increased her engagement in temper tantrums (as evidenced by self-injurious behaviors/head banging, use of profanity, assaultive behaviors against peers and destruction of property). [¶] She has also increased her physically aggressive behaviors (i.e. hitting, kicking, biting, spitting, and throwing things) toward others and has not been able to replace these behaviors with healthy coping/anger management skills. [¶] Based on [T.G.’s] behavior, the treatment team continues to feel that Five Acres is the most appropriate setting for [T.G.] at this time, however we will continually asses[s] her progress with the goal of transitioning to a lower level of care.”
The department filed a May 2, 2007 permanent plan hearing report. Ms. Lester reported on T.G.’s progress: “[T.G.] has a sundry of behavior issues. During this review period, treatment staff reports that [T.G.] has frequent tantrums. She requires continuous time-outs to assist her with modifying her maladaptive behaviors. Sometimes [T.G.] has to be isolated from unit members to ensure her/their safety. Treatment staff also reports that the child sometimes leaves the facility without permission. Treatment staff reports that they fear that if the child is released to a less restrictive environment she will not be successful.” T.G. was receiving individual therapy daily.
Y.B.—the maternal great-great aunt and prospective adoptive parent for the four younger children—reported, “[C.S] has frequent tantrums thereby requiring continuous time outs.” C.S. was receiving individual counseling. Ms. Lester had been unable to contact his therapist. C.S.’s brother, C.J., was experiencing speech and language delays. C.J. was receiving speech therapy and regional center services. A department report indicated: “Claudia Uitz . . . works with [C.J.] on gross motor skills, fine motor skills, cognitive skills, language communication receptive and expressive, social/emotional skills and self-help skills. [C.J.] is experiencing speech and language delays. During a monthly meeting with [C.J., the social worker] observed the child . . . did not use words. Instead he would tug on [the] caregiver or tap [the social worker] if he wanted to have attention or something from [the] caregiver.” J.J. was: a regional center client; experiencing “global development delays”; and receiving occupational and physical therapy. C.S., who had an individualized education program and was attending a non-public school, continued to exhibit “autistic like” behaviors. Y.B.’s adoptive home study was pending.
In the department’s May 2, 2007 permanent plan report, Ms. Lester discussed the mother’s behavior during visitation: “Weekly visit[s] with mother . . . are monitored and arranged with children’s . . . caregivers . . . . Most of the visits have been successful. However, [some visits with the boys have been] missed due to [Y.B.’s] transportation problems . . . . [¶] [Y.B.] would like to be excluded from monitoring visits due to mother’s combative behaviors. During a recent incident mother pulled caregiver[‘]s hair extension out of her head. Mother sometimes threatens to get her ‘gang banging’ friends to further assault [Y.B.] . . . [¶] . . . [¶] [Department social worker] Ms. Williams contacted [Ch.J.’s] caregiver, Ms. B[.][,] who reported that mother visits frequently with the child. Ms. B[.] stated that the visits go [well]. However, there are some concerns related to the mother’s behavior during the visits. Mother sometimes attempts to leave the visiting area with the child. . . . Mother, frequently, will not allow the child out of her stroller because she does not want to chase the child because the child is quite active. Ms. B[.] reported that mother would definitely benefit from a parenting class.”
The department responded to mother’s section 388 petitions in a May 2, 2007 interim review report. Department social worker Son’a Williams reported: “[Mother] has expressed a strong desire to have Family Reunification Services reinstated for the children . . . . [Mother] consistently visits the children, [Ch.J. and T.G.] However, she has had minimal contact with the children, [C.S., C.J., and J.J.] due to her aggressive and combative behavior towards relative caregiver, [Y.B.] [¶] On [April 5, 2006], mother was ordered to complete [counseling, parenting classes, random drug testing, and] [i]ndividual counseling to address anger management and domestic violence. [¶] On [June 1, 2006], previous [children’s social worker] [Ms.] Burns requested that Family Reunification services be terminated due to mother’s noncompliance. As of [June 1, 2006], mother has not enrolled in court ordered individual counseling, parenting, anger management, or domestic violence. On [June 6, 2006,] mother was referred to Pacific Toxicology . . . . Ms. Burns reported to this court that mother missed drug tests on [July 29, 2005, August 3, 2005, September 28, 2005, October 13, 2005, December 13, 2005, December 29, 2005, January 5 and 20, 2006, February 22, 2006, March 10 and 27, 2006, and April 25, 2006]. Previous [children’s social worker] [Ms.] Burns reported that mother missed a total of twelve drug tests and has submitted to one[] drug test[] on [May 11, 2006,] and the results were positive for Cannabinoids. [¶] On [June 14, 2006,] Family Reunification Services were terminated due to mother[‘s] . . . noncompliance with Court orders. [¶] On [September 15, 2006,] mother provided Court with a certificate of completion of a three-month parenting class. Mother stated that she was reluctant to give said document to previous social worker because of on-going conflict with [children’s social worker] [¶] [The department] believes that although mother completed a three-month parenting program, mother continues to struggle with effectively parenting the children. Mother has not demonstrated that she is able to implement those skills taught in Parenting and Anger Management program. Mother is not able to appropriately express her anger or dissatisfaction with caregiver, [Y.B.], in the presence of the children. According to [Y.B.] on occasions mother has physically struck her by pulling out her hair extensions in the presence of the children, [C.J., J.J., and C.S.] [Y.B.] further stated that mother also threatened to have some of her friends, who are known gang members, harm her. [Y.B.] stated that she is concerned that mother’s anger towards her will continue to escalate. [¶] On [March 28, 2007], a family meeting was held to discuss mother’s progress in the completion of Court-ordered [s]ervices. Among the participants in the family meeting were treatment staff from His Sheltering Arms In-Patient Drug Treatment Program. Mother reported that she admitted herself into a drug treatment program on a voluntary basis. On [April 5, 2006], mother was ordered to enroll in an in-patient drug treatment program if she tested positive for drugs. On [May 11, 2006,] mother tested positive for drugs. [¶] On [March 14, 2007], mother was discharged from program due to her non-compliance. According to drug treatment staff[,] mother would frequently have altercations with staff and other residents in the program. Mother was asked to leave the program due to her combative behaviors. During the family meeting[,] mother appeared to be unclear as to why she had been discharged from the program. Mother instead accused treatment staff of being angry because she chose to address concerns administratively. Mother’s primary focus was on having the child, [Ch.J.], placed with her. [¶] [Mother] was due to complete His Sheltering Arms Drug Treatment program one month prior to be[ing] asked to leave the program. [Sic.] To date, mother has not enrolled in another drug treatment program. Mother [argued] that if she has already ‘completed’ a program why should she have to go to another program. [Children’s social worker] [Ms.]Williams advised mother to consult with her counsel. Mother unwilling to enter another drug treatment program. As of [March 29, 2007], mother has not had contact with [Ms.] Williams. [¶] Mother does not appear to have permanent housing. [The department] mailed a letter to mother’s last known address. On [April 23, 2007], the letter was returned to [the department]. [¶] On [March 28, 2007], [m]other was encouraged to provide [the department] and Court with factual information as it relates to court ordered services. As of the writing of this report, mother has not been able to provide [the department] with said documents.”
The department asserted it would be in the children’s best interest to deny the mother’s section 388 petition and to proceed with a permanent plan of adoption or, as to T.G., legal guardianship. Ms. Williams reported that the mother sometimes acted inappropriately with the children. For example, C.S., then 10 years old, told Ms. Williams mother had offered him condoms. When offering the condoms, the mother said to 10-year-old C.S., “‘In a little while you are going to want to get your groove on . . . .’” L.W. was a possible guardian for T.G. The mother told T.G. that L.W. was not to be trusted. Additionally, Ms. Williams discussed the mother’s failure to participate in court-ordered counseling, resistance to drug testing, and possible mental health issues. Ms. Williams noted: “On [March 13, 2007,] previous [children’s social worker] Mary Lester received a call from mother. Mother stated that staff at ‘His Sheltering Arms’ was not treating her well. Mother was asked to vacate the premises. Mother has only six more days to receive a completion of treatment certificate. Despite, [children’s social worker Ms. Lester’s] attempt to have services reinstated . . ., mother was discharged from [the program]. According to treatment staff, mother was uncooperative and frequently did not comply with the rules of conduct. Treatment staff also believed that mother would have benefited from more intensive counseling services. Treatment staff referred mother to Didi Hirsch for treatment services on two occasions. Treatment staff believed that mother has some sort of personality disorder. Mother followed [up] with DMH providers; however, she indicated that she did not know why she had been referred. Mother stated[,] ‘I’m not crazy.’ Mother also refused to take medication for a seizure disorder. [¶] [Ms.] Lester believes that mother has not internalized and/or implemented the skills taught. Mother instead blames others for the types of interaction she has with them. For example, mother stated that she believes that she was discharged because she confronted her counselor . . . about ‘telling her business.’ Mother did not want [Ms.] Lester to know that she is pregnant because she feared that the child would be detained. Mother is also unwilling to understand the relationship between her behavior and how [others] respond to her. This is evidenced in mother’s unwillingness to understand how her behavior (e.g. her assaulting relative caregiver, offering to purchase condoms for the child, [C.S.], etc.). Mother is also unwilling to acknowledge why her children remain in foster care. [¶] Mother has also been inconsistent with visiting and telephone contact with the children. On [April 23, 2007], [children’s social worker Ms. Williams] had telephone contact with relative caregiver [Y.B.]. Ms. B[.] reported that mother . . . has not had contact with the children since she left [the] drug [treatment] program . . . . [¶] [The department] also believes that mother has had ample time (petition date [June 1, 2005]) to enroll and complete Court ordered services. [¶] . . . [¶] As of the writing of this [May 2, 2007] report[,] mother has failed to complete court orders and is not participating in court ordered activities. During this period of review, mother has also been resistant to drug testing. Therefore, [the department] is unable to determine whether or not mother is maintaining a drug free life style. The [department] is also concerned with mother’s mental health. Due to mother’s failure to complete court ordered from June 2005, discharge from program, failure to consistently drug test and ineffective demonstrations of parenting skills[,] [the department] respectfully recommends that mother’s 388 petition be denied.”
On May 15, 2007, Ms. Williams inspected the mother’s one-bedroom apartment. Ms. Williams noted several concerns about the physical accommodations, including the presence of a bunk bed. In addition, Ms. Williams reported that T.G. had two unmonitored visits with L.W., a cousin, and the visits had gone well. Ms. Williams indicated the department intended to continue to explore placing T.G. with L.W. or with a maternal aunt, S.B.
The hearing on the mother’s December 13, 2006 section 388 petitions was held on June 1, 2007. The mother testified as follows. She had been living at an address in Los Angeles for two months. Prior to that time, she had been staying with her uncle. A social worker had been out to see the mother’s home. The mother had been asked to leave the His Sheltering Arms program on March 21, 2007. The mother had been asked to leave the program because she had failed to secure housing. The mother further testified she had continued to attend counseling at Oasis House. Since filing her section 388 petitions, she had drug tested 13 or 14 times and all of the tests had been clean. She had not visited the three boys in the past three months. The mother blamed the problems on the aunt who never brought the three boys to the scheduled visitation location. The mother had seen them only one time since March. The juvenile court had ordered Ch.J. placed with the mother at the His Sheltering Arms program, but that never happened. No social worker ever visited the mother at the His Sheltering Arms program.
The juvenile court denied the section 388 petitions. The juvenile court ruled that the mother had made progress. But the juvenile court also found: there had been a lack of consistent, negative drug tests; a lack of consistent visitation with the boys; the mother was unable to get along with other people; and the mother failed to successfully complete the treatment program at His Sheltering Arms. The juvenile court ruled, “[W]ere the court to find a change of circumstances, I do not feel that I could find that this would be in the children’s best interest . . . .” All further matters were continued to September 12, 2007 This appeal followed.
III. DISCUSSION
The mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petitions. Pursuant to section 388, a parent may interpose a motion to change or modify a prior juvenile court order at any time after a child is declared a dependent of the court. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317; In re Josiah S. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 403, 418.) Section 388 states in part: “(a) Any parent or other person having an interest in a child who is a dependent of the juvenile court or the child himself or herself through a properly appointed guardian may, upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same action in which the child was found to be a dependent child of the juvenile court or in which a guardianship was ordered pursuant to Section 360 for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court. The petition shall be verified and, if made by a person other than the child, shall state the petitioner’s relationship to or interest in the child and shall set forth in concise language any change of circumstance or new evidence which are alleged to require the change of order or termination of jurisdiction . . . . [¶] (c) If it appears that the best interests of the child may be promoted by the proposed change of order, . . . or termination of jurisdiction, the court shall order that a hearing be held . . . .” The petition must be liberally construed in favor of its sufficiency. (Id.; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1432(a); see also In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309-310.)
Our Supreme Court stated the applicable standards in a section 388 petition as follows: “The petition for modification must contain a ‘concise statement of any change of circumstance or new evidence that requires changing the previous order.’ [Citation.] The petition must be liberally construed in favor of its sufficiency. [Citations.] . . . ‘[I]f the petition presents any evidence that a hearing would promote the best interest of the child, the court will order the hearing.’ [Citation.]” (In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415; see In re Daijah T. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 666, 671-672.) Whether the order should be modified rests within the sound discretion of the juvenile court and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” (In re Jasmon O., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 415; In re Jacob P. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 819, 826 .) The parent has the burden of showing changed circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence. (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317; In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 309-310; In re John F. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1365, 1375-1376.)
The section 388 modification request must be viewed in the context of the dependency proceedings as a whole. (In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 307; In re Heather P. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 886, 891.) As our Supreme Court explained in the case of In re Marilyn H.: “The requirement of petitioning the court for a hearing pursuant to section 388 to show changed circumstances must be viewed in the context of the dependency proceedings as a whole. (Cynthia D. v. Superior Court [(1973)] 5 Cal.4th [242,] 253.) Dependency proceedings are proceedings of an ongoing nature. While different hearings within the dependency process have different standards and purposes, they are part of an overall process and ongoing case. One section of the dependency law may not be considered in a vacuum. It must be construed with reference to the whole system of law of which it is a part so that all may be harmonized and have effect. (Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1379, 1386-1387.)” (In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 307.) After reunification services have been terminated, the juvenile court’s focus has shifted to the needs of the child for permanency and stability. (In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 447; In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 309.) When the section 388 modification petition is filed after reunification services have been terminated and the section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing has been set, the focus of the proceedings has shifted from the parents’ interests in the care, custody, and companionship of the child to the minor’s best interests. (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317; In re Janee J. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 198, 211.)
We find no clear abuse of discretion. These dependency proceedings began in April 2005. There had been repeated prior interventions by the department dating from 10 years earlier, in January 1995. The children had been physically abused and neglected and there had been domestic violence between the parents. In early 2006, more than eight months after the older children were detained, and after mother completed the Arms of Grace treatment program, the father physically assaulted her. The mother had a criminal record that included an assault conviction and an arrest for child cruelty. She needed intensive therapy for mental health problems and a possible personality disorder. Each of the children presented very serious challenges. The three boys suffered from developmental problems. C.S., the oldest boy, exhibited “autistic-like” behavior. J.J. also exhibited behavior problems and experienced “global” development delays; he required occupational and physical therapy. C.J., the youngest boy, was experiencing speech and language delays. The oldest child, T.G, repeatedly acted out violently and suffered from depression; she was being treated in a residential setting and was taking psychotropic medications. T.G. had been hospitalized four times. In 2006, T.G. was diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder. The youngest girl, Ch.J., had a heart murmur such that regular medical monitoring was needed. Over the two year course of these proceedings, from April 2005 through May 2007, the mother had little or no income, her housing was unstable, her visitation with the children was infrequent and inconsistent, and her drug testing was irregular. Despite several positive drug tests, she denied ever using any illegal drugs The juvenile court had to appoint a surrogate to make educational decisions for T.G. because mother failed to take the necessary steps. In addition, although the mother had participated in drug and alcohol treatment programs, individual counseling, and parenting classes, she had not maintained necessary enrollment in court ordered programs and drug testing.
Moreover, the mother’s behavior remained volatile. In December 2005, she was excluded from the psychiatric hospital where T.G. was being treated. This occurred because the mother: had been loud, intrusive, disruptive, threatening, and disrespectful; had engaged in a blatant disregard of hospital rules; and had interfered with T.G.’s therapeutic progress. The mother had been sneaking out of a bedroom window with Ch.J. in violation of a juvenile court order prohibiting unmonitored visitation outside T.J.’s home. Eventually T.J. asked that Ch.J. be placed elsewhere. The mother had altercations with the maternal great-great aunt, Y.B.—who was caring for the boys—on August 26, 2006, and in May 2007. Y.B.’s hair extensions had been pulled out of her head. The mother threatened to assault Y.B.
In support of her section 388 petitions, the mother presented evidence she had entered a treatment program and her drug tests were clean. But the mother was terminated from the His Sheltering Arms program on March 14, 2007—just short of completing the course of treatment—for refusing to follow rules, policies, and directions. Further, the mother engaged in combative behavior toward staff and other residents. Treatment staff at the His Sheltering Arms facility believed mother had a personality disorder and was in need of intensive counseling services. As late as May 2007, Ch.J.’s foster mother expressed concern about the mother’s behavior with the child. Ch.J.’s foster mother suggested the mother would benefit from parenting classes. The mother’s section 388 petitions asked the juvenile court to weigh against this background her enrollment in the His Sheltering Arms treatment program. Between the date mother filed her petitions and the date the juvenile court ruled on them, the mother was terminated from that program for refusing to follow rules and engaging in combative behavior. The juvenile court could reasonably conclude the mother had not developed the personal skills and stable lifestyle necessary to care for five children, each of whom faced serious challenges of their own. Further, the juvenile court could reasonably find there were no changed circumstances and the children’s best interests would not be served by reinstating reunification services for the mother. There was no abuse of discretion.
IV. DISPOSITION
The June 1, 2007 order denying the Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petitions is affirmed.
We concur: MOSK, J., KRIEGLER, J.