San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. Donald K. (In re JA.K.)

Full title: In re JA.K. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO…

Court: COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 9, 2018

D072896 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 9, 2018)

Opinion

D072896

08-09-2018

In re JA.K. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DONALD K. et al., Defendants and Appellants; GLORIA J., Objector and Appellant.

Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Gloria J. Suzanne M. Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Donald K. Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Carla C. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel and Eliza Molk, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BENKE, J.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. CJ1255A-C) APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed. Diana W. Prince, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Gloria J. Suzanne M. Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Donald K. Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Carla C. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel and Eliza Molk, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Gloria J. (sometimes, G.J. or paternal grandmother) appeals the juvenile court's order denying her relative placement request under Welfare and Institutions Code¹ section 361.3 to obtain custody of Ja.K. (born 2010), Je.K. (born 2011),² and L.C. (born 2014) (sometimes collectively, children or boys). Carla C. (mother) separately appeals the court's order denying her section 388 petition³ seeking placement of the children with maternal grandmother Theresa C. (sometimes, T.C. or maternal grandmother)⁴ or in the alternative, with paternal grandmother. Donald K. (father) also separately appeals the court's denial of his section 388 petition seeking placement of the children with G.J., or in the alternative, with T.C.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.

2 Although father is listed on Je.K's birth certificate, mother initially disclosed Je.K.'s biological father was Michael M. Notice to this individual was dispensed with based on a declaration of due diligence filed by Agency. The record shows mother latter identified two other men as the potential father of L.C., which led to a short delay in the placement hearing.

3 Mother's notice of appeal also included an appeal from the court's order terminating her parental rights as to the children. We note mother's briefs to this court focused only on the issue of relative placement. As such, mother's appeal to the order terminating her parental rights is deemed abandoned. (See In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)

4 T.C. has separately appealed from the denial of her section 388 petition seeking placement of the children with her and maternal aunt T.D.C. in Ohio. (See case No. D072797.) On this court's own motion, the instant appeal and T.C.'s related appeal are considered together.

Respondent San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) supported continued placement with nonrelative extended family members (NREFM) Yolanda J. and her husband Bryan H. (sometimes collectively, caregiver(s)), whom the children had known all of their lives. After a lengthy contested evidentiary hearing that spanned the course of about four months, despite an initial time estimate of 14 hours, the court agreed with Agency and found under section 361.3 that the best interests of the children were for them to remain placed with Yolanda and Bryan. Affirmed.

OVERVIEW

A. Background

The section 300 petitions alleged that on or about August 17, 2015, the children were exposed to "violent confrontations in the family home" between mother and father (sometimes, parents). The petitions further alleged that this incident involved the "use of physical force in that the mother grabbed the father by the chest, punched him, ripped his shirt, and scratched his chest." Father in response "threatened to kill . . . mother and shoved her during the altercation while the children were present in the family home." The section 300 petitions also alleged that parents had "an extensive history of engaging in violent altercations"; that "mother continues to behave in a violent[,] erratic manner"; and that the "ongoing violence places the child[ren] at substantial risk of serious physical harm" as set forth in section 300, subdivision (b)(1).

Police responded to this domestic violence incident, arrested mother, and notified Agency. At about 6:30 or 7:00 a.m. the following day, Agency social worker Viviana Medina went to the family home and interviewed Ja.K., as he then was the only verbal minor present when the incident occurred. Outside father's presence, Ja.K. disclosed that mother and father had been fighting and hitting each other during the August 17 incident; that "every time" father came to the home, he and mother fought; that Ja.K. felt scared and sad when his parents fought; and that on one occasion, father tried to "cut" mother while she tried to hit father "in the face."

Medina also interviewed mother, who confirmed she had scratched father during the fight. Father likewise confirmed the domestic violence incident, informing Medina that mother was the aggressor; that the domestic violence between them began in about 2012, when mother became depressed; and that during the August 17 incident, the children were all present, but L.C. was sleeping.

In connection with Agency's application and declaration in support of a protective custody warrant, Agency noted that mother and father had a history of domestic violence dating back to 2010; that in a March 2010 domestic violence incident, it was father who was the perpetrator; that in a June 2012 incident, father threatened to slash mother's car tires and then used an object to break her car's windshield; that as a result of the June 2012 incident, Agency investigated and offered parents voluntary services, which mother completed; and that, as a result of the August 17 incident, mother filed for a restraining order but failed to attend the follow-up hearing.

The application in support of the custody warrant also noted about a week after the August 17 incident, mother at about 10:30 p.m. went to Yolanda's house where the children were located, banged on the front door, yelled obscenities such as "[c]ome out here bitch so we can settle this," and left the scene before police arrived. A protective custody warrant issued for the children on August 25, 2015.

Agency's August 26, 2015 detention report recommended parents be offered supervised visitation only; Agency be given discretion to detain children with a family member or NREFM; and parents be offered reunification services. The children then were residing with Yolanda and Bryan; the children's older sibling, D.C., was then residing in Ohio with T.C. and maternal aunt T.D.C.; and the children's other siblings, twins Mn.E. and Mh.E., were residing with their own father and his mother, C.E., in San Diego. The August 26 report reiterated many of the same allegations that were the subject of the protective custody warrant, but also included an interview with Yolanda.

Yolanda informed Agency social worker Medina that she went to mother's apartment on August 17 and saw mother talking to police, after a neighbor informed her of the incident; even after the incident, mother and father continued to live together and argue; about a week before the incident, mother asked her to watch the children because she wanted to go out and party and make money; and she interpreted mother's statement as an intent to make money through prostitution.⁵ Yolanda further disclosed that shortly after the August 17 incident, she went to pick up clothes for the children and found a "crack pipe" and other drug-smoking paraphernalia in the dresser drawers where L.C.'s clothes were kept. Yolanda took the objects and turned them over to Medina. This social worker visited the children in Yolanda's home and reported they were "happy, healthy and well taken cared for by [Yolanda]."

5 The August 26 report disclosed that mother had been arrested myriad times for prostitution, beginning in about April 2002.

Yolanda on August 24, 2015, reported to Agency that she wanted visits between mother and children supervised, as mother was informing others that Yolanda was not allowing mother visits, when in fact mother was visiting with the children multiple times each day. Yolanda reported the children had "adjusted wonderfully" in her home and the only issue was mother, who was causing a "mess." That same day, mother visited the children in Yolanda's home. Mother became upset, went outside, and started screaming, yelling and cursing.

G.J. was interviewed in connection with Agency's August 26 report. She reported that mother and father were always fighting. G.J. stated she was willing to take temporary custody of Ja.K., would consider taking-in L.C. depending on the outcome of a paternity test, but did not mention Je.K. G.J. described the relationship between mother and father as "destructive" and "messy."

Maternal aunt T.C.D., who lived in Ohio in the same home as T.C., was also interviewed by Agency. She stated she then was caring for D.C., mother's oldest son, and was willing to continue caring for him "until things are settled." T.C.D. noted mother needed "help," as mother couldn't raise six children on her own, and disclosed mother had been diagnosed with schizophrenia several years before the incident. T.C.D. stated she was capable of taking care of the children in Ohio.

Ja.K. was also interviewed in connection with the August 26 report. He reported that mother beat him with a "switch and a belt," which really hurt and left marks on him. Ja.K. also reported he and his two brothers sometimes stayed home alone.

Mother also was interviewed in Agency's office, which Yolanda attended for "moral support." Social worker Medina informed mother that father had agreed to have Yolanda take the children while mother was incarcerated. Mother admitted suffering from depression, but denied she was unable to meet the "basic needs" of the children. Mother also denied any recent physical discipline, but admitted to spanking the children with an open hand on their legs and bottoms without leaving any marks or bruises. Mother indicated she wanted her son D.C. to come back to California and live with his siblings, including the children and the twins, whom mother also wanted back as she missed her "babies."

The court at the August 26, 2015 detention hearing found out-of-home detention necessary and detained the children with NREFMs Yolanda and Bryan. Its detention order included that Agency evaluate other family members "as identified by parents" (emphasis omitted), and that mother and father have supervised, albeit separate, visits with the children. The court set the jurisdiction/disposition hearing for September 16, 2015.

Agency's September 16 jurisdiction/disposition report recommended that the children remain placed with NREFMs Yolanda and Bryan; that reunification services be ordered for parents; and that a true finding be made on the petitions. The September 16 report included an interview with mother where she admitted not protecting the children and keeping them safe from harm, both "emotionally and physically," as a result of the myriad incidents of domestic violence between parents. Mother recalled being placed into foster care on two occasions. She, however, could not recall why she was not placed with maternal grandmother T.C. in Ohio in lieu of foster care. Mother admitted having a criminal history, being diagnosed with schizophrenia, and using marijuana. Mother was then unemployed.

Mother informed Agency she wanted the children returned to her care. If that was not possible, mother indicated she wanted the children placed with her "Mexican neighbors," whose names mother could not remember, because they were "nice people." Mother also wanted services, including therapy and domestic violence classes.

Agency also attempted to interview father in connection with disposition. Father agreed to an interview, but never arranged to meet with Agency as he had promised.

Ja.K., then five years old and in kindergarten, stated he liked living in his current placement with Yolanda, but stated he also would like to go back living with mother. Both Je.K. and L.C. were then too young to make a statement about disposition. Yolanda expressed concern about the behavior of Je.K., who at times was aggressive, used inappropriate language, and demonstrated "sexualized behavior." As a result, both he and his brothers Ja.K. and L.C. were referred for a full developmental evaluation.

Agency noted mother was then in the early stages of participating in services for what it found to be her "chronic domestic violence history," which, according to Agency, was well-documented by police reports and Agency investigations and which occurred in the children's presence. Father also had a long-history of domestic violence and, because he did not make himself available to Agency to be interviewed and assessed, was not participating in any services.

Agency noted it was supervising mother's visits with children two times per week because of her volatile behavior. Nonetheless, the September 16 report noted mother had been consistent and punctual in her visits with the children and she obviously loved them. Despite the court order mother's visits were to be supervised, without informing Agency mother on September 8 went to the school where Ja.K. and Je.K. attended to visit the two boys. Two days earlier, mother went to Yolanda's home at 9:40 p.m. requesting to see the children.

The court at the September 16 hearing made a true finding on the section 300, subdivision (b)(1) petitions by clear and convincing evidence, after finding parents made knowing, intelligent and voluntary waivers of their rights to a trial in the matter. Pursuant to section 361, subdivision (c)(1), the court further found by clear and convincing evidence that "there is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child[ren] if the child[ren] were returned home, and there are no reasonable means by which the child[ren]'s physical health can be protected without removing the child[ren] from the physical custody of" parents.

The court also found that there was a not a relative or noncustodial parent available who was able and willing to care for the children; that Agency had exercised "due diligence" in "conducting an investigation to identify, locate and notify all the child[ren]'s relatives within 30 days of the child[ren]'s removal from the home of [their] parent[s]"⁶; that their placement was necessary and appropriate; that mother was "actively involved" in the case plan development; and that Agency was to provide services to parents consistent with the plan. The court set review hearings in due course.

6 The record shows the court subsequently found Agency had unintentionally failed to evaluate G.J.'s home for placement of the children, as had been requested by parents at detention.

On September 24, the court approved the appointment of a court appointed special advocate (CASA) for the children.

Agency in its February 3, 2016 addendum report noted that mother began unsupervised visits with the children on January 12, 2016. Before such visits began, Agency informed mother she was not to drive the children because her car was unregistered and she did not have a valid driver's license. Mother agreed to this condition. The children, however, reported to Yolanda that during their unsupervised visit with mother on January 26 she drove them in her car. Yolanda in turn notified Agency, as mother also did not have car seats for the children. Agency social worker Robert Saenz interviewed mother on January 27. Mother claimed she had a valid driver's license and vehicle registration. Mother was asked to provide proof of same but as of the date of the addendum report, had not done so.

During the same interview, mother also claimed her sister had been driving and not mother. When Saenz explained that no one should be driving a vehicle that is not registered and that the children, in any event, needed to be properly restrained, mother stated, "everyone is getting all knit picky and I'm tired of this."

The social worker then asked mother if she had been driving the car while L.C. sat unrestrained in her lap. Mother, who Saenz noted was becoming irritated, stated, "everyone is all in my business." Saenz explained that mother needed to comply with Agency's requests in order to keep the children safe and that her visits with children would likely revert back to supervised because, in addition to her driving the children, mother also showed up at the Family Visitation Center (FVC) on January 7 ostensibly under the influence.

Saenz confirmed with Ja.K. and Je.K. that mother had in fact been driving them in her car, including visiting her boyfriend's home and also her sister's home. Ja.K. also told the social worker mother drove "fast," and at one point, had L.C. on her lap as she drove. Saenz also confirmed with staff of FVC that mother had red eyes and appeared tired for her January 7 visit; that mother initially denied being under the influence, but later admitted smoking marijuana earlier that day; and that mother's January 28 drug test was positive for the presence of marijuana. Mother was asked to drug test on February 3, but was a "no show."

Agency's March 8, 2016 status review report prepared in connection with the six-month review hearing recommended termination of father's reunification services. Agency also recommended that mother receive an additional six months of such services, noting, she had made "some progress" during the reporting period, and that the children remain placed in Yolanda and Bryan's home.

Regarding father, Saenz sent him referrals to domestic violence groups and parenting classes, but father never responded. Father visited the children on December 15, 2015, and then failed to show up for three consecutive visits, leading FVC to terminate him from the program. Father's last contact with Agency was on November 24, 2015.

The March 8 status report authored by Saenz noted that all three children were developmentally on target; that Ja.K. and Je.K. would each be participating in school-based therapy; and that L.C. was walking on his own. Agency recommended the children remain placed in the home of Yolanda and Bryan.

The CASA report in connection with the six-month review hearing stated she had visited the children on two occasions during the reporting period. She noted on the first visit the children were "charming, friendly and well-behaved, and clean and nicely dressed in play clothes"; all three boys were excited about their upcoming roles in their church's play; and all three boys were proud of the "framed family photos" hanging on the wall, which included them, their caregivers, and their caregivers' two biological daughters and two adoptive sons, all of whom the children enjoyed. Yolanda and Bryan reported that if reunification was unsuccessful, they would be willing to adopt all three boys, as they very much enjoyed having the children as part of their family.

The CASA reported both Ja.K. and Je.K. were doing much better in school. School administration independently confirmed that, since being placed with Yolanda and Bryan, Ja.K.'s behavior had "improved significantly"; that Yolanda was "very supportive" and was "actively involved" in the children's schooling; and that both Ja.K. and Je.K. arrived "on time, clearly ready to learn."

Agency submitted an April 13, 2016 addendum report in connection with the six-month review hearing. It noted the court at the review hearing on March 8 ordered mother to drug test that same day, which she had failed to do. The addendum also noted G.J. had provided personal information for Agency to assess her.

The April 13 report noted mother entered an inpatient drug treatment program in late March, after she was evicted from her home. Mother tested positive for methamphetamine shortly after entering the program.

The April 13 report further noted that the children were thriving in their placement with Yolanda and Bryan, as they had provided the children with a "safe, nurturing and stable environment;" that school administration had described the improved behaviors of Ja.K. and Je.K. as "astonishing" and noted both boys also had made "tremendous strides" academically while in their placement; and that Agency therefore recommended the children remain in their current placement.

Agency submitted an April 26 addendum report for the six-month contested review hearing. Agency noted that mother self-discharged from her drug treatment program on April 11 and left a voicemail with Agency stating that there was a "conspiracy against her and her family" warranting the involvement of the CIA and that G.J. had hired someone to "beat her ass." Agency thus expressed concern that mother was using drugs, as she had not complied with on-demand drug testing as ordered by the court. Agency recommended the children remain in their current placement.

At the contested six-month review hearing, the court found mother had made some progress in services and father none. The court ordered Agency to submit an amended case plan for mother, to provide her services consistent with that plan, and for mother to comply with those services. The court terminated reunification services for father and set the 12-month review hearing for September 2016.

The CASA submitted a report in connection with the 12-month review hearing. She noted the boys were happy, social and affectionate, were thriving in their placement with Yolanda and Bryan, and were developmentally on track. The boys described for the CASA their many summer activities during the CASA's visit in mid-August 2016. The caregivers again reiterated their desire to adopt all three boys if reunification was unsuccessful.

Agency's September 15, 2016 status review report prepared in connection with the 12-month review hearing recommended terminating mother's reunification services. The September 15 report noted mother failed to make any progress in individual therapy, as she attended only the initial intake, where she was described as being "very disorganized," but never returned for therapy. Mother was discharged from treatment for lack of attendance. Mother also showed little progress in drug treatment. After starting a new outpatient program, mother on May 13 tested positive for alcohol and amphetamine. Mother relapsed and again tested positive for alcohol and amphetamine on June 6. As a result, mother was referred to an inpatient program.

Agency on July 26 requested mother drug test. Mother was a "no show." Mother tested positive for alcohol on July 25 and July 28. Agency also learned that mother had tested positive for amphetamine on July 6. As a result, mother was given referrals but failed to follow through. Mother's substance abuse counselor described mother as "spinning her wheels" in drug treatment.

An FVC staff member informed Agency on August 16 that mother's visits were canceled due to excessive absences.

An Agency social worker met with mother on August 17 and discussed adoption as an option for the children. Mother expressed her family in Ohio should be considered for adoption of the children since they were her "blood relatives." Agency submitted an Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) request for assessment of the home of T.C. and T.D.C. in Ohio.

On September 28 - more than a year after the children had been placed with Yolanda and Bryan, maternal aunt B.C., a San Diego resident, filed a section 388 petition requesting the children's placement be moved to either her or maternal grandmother in Ohio. In support of her petition, B.C. stated that she was best suited for placement of the children because she did not need to "pretend" to be a "mommy"; that because she grew up in the foster care system, she knew that the children "would much rather be with blood relatives than to be with Yolanda permanently"; and that Yolanda did not love the children, B.C.'s nephews, as "much as I [i.e., B.C.] can and do love them."

B.C. further alleged that mother's reunification services were in jeopardy because of Yolanda, who B.C. claimed made allegations against mother with the "sole purpose" of "sabotag[ing]" her. B.C. explained she believed the children were only temporarily staying with Yolanda until mother finished her drug treatment program and that mother's family, including B.C., allegedly were not notified of "reunification problems" until just recently. B.C. stated removing the children from Yolanda and Bryan and placing them either with herself or maternal grandmother was in the children's best interests.

Agency's October 17 addendum report again recommended termination of reunification services for mother and the setting of a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to section 366.26. The October 17 report noted mother failed to drug test after the September 15 review hearing, despite the court order. It further noted the ICPC request to assess the home of maternal grandmother and maternal aunt in Ohio was pending. On September 29, social worker Saenz spoke to an ICPC social worker from Cuyahoga County in Ohio and learned T.C. had a "lengthy" social welfare history dating back to 1980. The ICPC social worker stated the children would primarily be cared for by T.C. "because she is always at home due to being disabled." Agency noted in its addendum that B.C. was also being considered for placement; that mother was in no position to care for the children, as she continued to struggle with mental health issues and substance abuse; and that G.J. had filed a section 388 petition requesting the court place the children in her home or, in the alternative, unsupervised overnight visits.

At the November 8 contested section 366.21 hearing, the court, after hearing the testimony of Saenz and mother, and after considering the Agency and CASA reports, found mother had "not made substantive progress with the provisions of the case plan." The court thus terminated mother's reunification services and set the date for a section 366.26 hearing.

Agency's December 8, 2016 addendum report prepared in connection with the section 388 petition of B.C. noted Agency was still assessing B.C. as a possible placement for children and also assessing G.J. Agency noted it also was waiting for an update regarding the ICPC submission for T.C. and T.D.C.

Saenz arranged visits between B.C. and G.J. and the children, which were to take place every other Saturday for four hours at B.C.'s home. On the first such visit on November 19, Saenz went to B.C.'s home and found Yolanda standing next to her car, with the children inside. Yolanda explained the children had become upset when she attempted to drop them off because they did not want to visit. Saenz spoke with Ja.K., who was crying. Saenz reported Ja.K wanted Yolanda to stay during the visit because he did not feel safe without Yolanda. Je.K. and L.C. also began to cry.

Saenz instructed Yolanda to drive the children to a nearby park, where B.C. and G.J. could visit the children. Saenz then tried to call B.C., but her phone was not accepting messages. He next called and left a voicemail for G.J., who claimed she did not receive the message until the following day. Yolanda confirmed that neither B.C. nor G.J. came to the park to visit the children.

At the December 3 visit between the children and B.C. and G.J., the children again did not want to be left alone. Yolanda thus called and left messages for B.C. and G.J. that she would take the children to a nearby park, where the visit could take place. After waiting at the park for more than 30 minutes, Yolanda and the children left.

Two days later, B.C. met with an Agency supervisor, expressing frustration that the December 3 visit had not been in her home. G.J. claimed they had gone to the park on December 3 and had seen Yolanda driving away with the children just as they were arriving. Although B.C. and G.J. visited the children on the weekends, Yolanda reported that neither B.C. nor G.J. called the children during the week, or made any other efforts to see or speak with the children other than during the visits.

Because the children were uncomfortable visiting B.C. and G.J. without Yolanda present, Saenz recommended that visits start off more "slowly" to allow the children to gain trust and confidence while with B.C. and G.J. Saenz noted that the children "have not had an ongoing consistent relationship with [either relative]. At this time the Agency does not feel it is in the best psychological or emotional interest of the children to force them to attend the visitation."

Yolanda and Bryan on January 20, 2017 sought de facto parent status. Their request included myriad attachments praising the caregivers and/or the children, including from community and/or church members, and from the children's school and school programs.

Agency's January 31, 2017 addendum report authored by Agency social worker Florence Keitel noted the relative home assessments of B.C. and G.J. had been approved. Keitel reported family services from Cuyahoga County had approved the home of T.C. and T.D.C., although this agency expressed concern regarding T.C.'s lengthy social welfare history and T.D.C.'s criminal history.

Regarding visits between the children and B.C. and/or G.J., the January 31 addendum noted that a certified visitation monitor had supervised a visit at the park between G.J. and the children on December 10 and that the children again did not want to visit with G.J., despite coaxing from Yolanda and the visitation monitor. As a result, the next visit was scheduled at Agency's office.

Keitel reported the December 21 visit she supervised between G.J. and the children had gone well. When the visit ended, Keitel informed the children they were to have another visit with G.J. and "could go somewhere" with her. Keitel reported that Ja.K. shook his head "no," while Je.K. and L.C. remained silent. On questioning during the drive home, Ja.K. told Keitel the visit with G.J. had gone "Okay," while Je.K. said it went "Good."

On the next visit on December 31, Ja.K. and Je.K. had no problem being left with G.J., but L.C. refused to separate from Yolanda. L.C. thus did not attend this visit. Yolanda reported that after the visit, Je.K. stated G.J. had grabbed his arm "really hard" while telling him to "stop being so hard-headed."

The January 31 addendum noted B.C. also had visited with the children with Yolanda present on December 13, 19, and 23. Both Yolanda and B.C. reported these visits went well. B.C. then had two unsupervised visits with the children on January 7 and 21, 2017, which again went well.

With respect to placement, Agency recommended against placing the children with B.C. because of what it described as her "extensive" history of Agency involvement with respect to her own 17-year-old son, including as recently as May 2015 when Agency received a referral on its hotline that B.C. was "taunting and cursing" her own son, calling him a "bitch," and telling him to "get the fuck out."

In addition, Agency did not believe B.C. was an appropriate placement for the children because it concluded B.C. lacked the "capacity" to care for three "energetic boys" and because neither Ja.K. nor Je.K. wanted to live with her. Keitel reported both Ja.K. and Je.K. instead stated they wanted to remain living with Yolanda and Bryan. Keitel noted this was not surprising because B.C.'s involvement with the children "ha[d] been sporadic," as B.C. "only began to make efforts to become more involved [with the children] after she learned that the mother was not going to be reunifying with them. So the nature and the extent of [B.C.'s] relationship with the boys h[as] not been very strong."

With respect to G.J., Agency also recommended against placing the children in her care. Agency noted it had received conflicting information with respect to G.J.'s interaction with the children before their removal from parents, but after such removal, G.J. typically interacted with them only about once a month when Yolanda invited her to family outings. As was the case with B.C., Keitel noted G.J.'s lack of interaction likely explained why the children had been reluctant to visit with G.J. Although the children had "slowly" become more comfortable with G.J. during visits, both Ja.K. and Je.K. stated they did not want to be placed in the home of G.J., and instead wanted to remain placed with Yolanda, where they felt "safe."

Finally, regarding T.C. and T.D.C., the January 31 addendum recommended against placing the children in their care because the children did not know them "very well," as only Ja.K. had actually visited them in Ohio. Keitel reported that when she asked Je.K. if he wanted to live with T.C. in Ohio, Je.K. responded, "Who's Grandma Teresa [i.e., T.C.]?"

Agency continued to recommend the children remain in the care of Yolanda and Bryan, as they had known Yolanda and Bryan all of their lives and were thriving in their care; that Yolanda had quit her job in order to care for all of her children, including the boys; that Yolanda managed the household well and had established routines for "everyone"; and that she had the children's best interest in mind.

Agency in its January 31 addendum noted the primary reason given by parents' relatives for placement of the children in a relatives' home was that the children were "blood" relatives. Agency concluded this reason was insufficient to "uproot[]" the children and change their placement.

As to mother, the January 31 addendum noted she had been arrested on January 16 after she went to the caregivers' apartment at about 1:00 a.m. and made "rambling statements about being jumped and need[ing] to save her children"; picked up rocks and threatened to throw them through residents' windows and threatened residents; and struck various residents' cars, setting off car alarms. Yolanda in response obtained a temporary restraining order against mother.

The court at the January 31 special hearing granted the caregivers' de facto parent request. It continued the various section 388 petitions to coincide with the section 366.26 hearing.

Agency's March 6, 2017 section 366.26 report recommended termination of parental rights and the children be freed for adoption. The March 6 report stated the children were in good health, developing within normal limits, and at an appropriate education level for their ages. Regarding the children's "[m]ental and [e]motional status," the report described Ja.K. as "polite," "respectful," "happy and well-adjusted in his placement"; Je.K. as "sweet," "affectionate," and "very independent-minded" who needed more "one-on-one attention" than his brothers; and L.C. as "happy and playful," who had not shown "any signs of emotional difficulties."

The March 6 report reviewed the extensive documented history of domestic violence in parents' home: between August 2010, when Ja.K. was born, until the children's removal in August 2015, Agency had received about 25 referrals for the family. Agency described the family as living in "chaos."

Agency reported mother's visits following the contested six-month review hearing were sporadic and as a result, her referral to the FVC was closed in mid-August 2016 due to excessive absences. When mother's visits recommenced in October 2016, Ja.K. did not attend as he preferred to stay at his after-school program. Agency reported mother was 30 minutes late for one visit and was a no-show a week later for another supervised visit.

Mother met with Keitel on December 15. After being told Agency was looking towards a permanent plan of adoption for the children, mother tearfully stated she "wished her family members [had] stepped up from the very beginning, as she want[ed] the children placed with relatives," not Yolanda and Bryan. Keitel arranged subsequent visits between mother and children.

Regarding sibling contacts, the March 6 report noted the children had lived with siblings D.C., Mn.E., and Mh.E. until summer 2015, when D.C. was sent to Ohio to visit T.D.C. and T.C. and when Mn.E. and Mh.E. went to live with their paternal father and his mother, C.E. The Agency report noted Yolanda and Bryan had "facilitated regular contact between the siblings," which the children seemed to enjoy.

Although the instant appeal involves relative placement, the March 6 report noted the children were "generally and specifically adoptable," both individually and as a family unit; that it would be "very likely" they would be adopted because the children's caregivers wanted to adopt them and there were several other families who also wanted to adopt them; that the caregivers had met the children's daily needs, including providing the "boys with love, safety, and support"; and that the caregivers were "very committed to the permanent plan of adoption," as over time they had come to see the boys "as their sons" and treat them the "same as the other children in the home."

Keitel reported Ja.K. referred to Yolanda as "mom" and on questioning, said he called her "mom" because he saw "her as his mom." Je.K. stated he wanted to be adopted by the caregivers, as they then would be his "mom and dad."

In recommending termination of parental rights, the March 6 report noted that the parent-child relationship between the children and parents was not significant enough to outweigh the benefits of adoption; that father had made no effort to reunify with the children; that while mother had made "some effort" in trying to reunify, in its view none of the children would suffer any detriment if her parental rights were terminated, inasmuch as each of the children looked to their caregivers, not mother, for their daily needs; that Ja.K. and Je.K. separately expressed the view the caregivers were their "mom and dad" and neither wanted to visit mother; and that while L.C. could not express any opinion, Keitel's observations of him showed he relied on his caregivers for comfort and support.

The March 6 report also recommended against applying the sibling exception to adoption, noting that for the last one-and-a-half years the children had lived apart from their other siblings and that, in any event, their relationship with their siblings was not so strong to outweigh the benefits of living in a "safe, stable, and permanent adoptive home."

Agency also prepared a March 1, 2017 addendum in which it recommended that the children remain placed with caregivers Yolanda and Bryan. Regarding placement, it noted B.C. and G.J. had alternating four-hour visits on Sundays; that these visits seemed "to go well"; and that T.C. and T.D.C. did not have any contact with the children within the reporting period.

Of concern and as discussed extensively post, the March 1 addendum noted B.C. reported the boys had disclosed that Yolanda and Bryan in the past had used physical discipline on them. Keitel separately questioned Ja.K. and Je.K. about punishment in the caregivers' home. Ja.K. disclosed when he was in trouble, he was grounded, but that he also had been spanked on the bottom with a belt when he was five years old. Je.K. disclosed that he had received a "whoopin" from his caregivers when he was in trouble, which he described as being struck with a belt on his bottom, but that it had been "a long time ago" when he had been punished in this manner.

Yolanda and Bryan disclosed that in the past they had "popp[ed] or patt[ed]" the boys on the hands for discipline, but this had been a rare occurrence; and that once a belt had been used on Je.K. when he was first placed in their home. Agency social worker Keitel recognized there were "varying accounts" of the use of such discipline, and reported she separately spoke to the caregivers to ensure they understood that under no circumstances should they physically punish the children, as "they are foster children." The caregivers understood and, on the social worker's recommendation, agreed to take parenting classes.

The March 6, 2017 CASA report, prepared in connection with the section 366.26 hearing, provided that the children were thriving in the care of Yolanda and Bryan; that Yolanda in particular took an active role in each of the children's education; that the children had developed "strong relationships" and got "along well" with the caregivers' other children; that there were no concerns regarding the children's medical, dental and development, nor with their educational targets;⁷ and that in her interactions with the children since being appointed their CASA on September 24, 2015, she found the caregivers provided the children with a "supportive, nurturing, stable environment and [were] meeting all of their needs."

7 The record shows that Ja.K. struggled in reading, but had made progress during first grade.

The court at the March 6, 2017 section 366.26 hearing continued G.J.'s section 388 petition to April 21, 2017 to coincide with the contested section 366.26 hearing. The section 366.26 hearing was subsequently vacated and trailed the section 388 modification hearing.

On April 7, 2017, T.C. alone filed a section 388 petition seeking placement of the children with her and daughter T.D.C. T.C. alleged it was in the children's best interest to live in Ohio because "the children will reside with multiple ethical and hardworking blood relatives who will provide a safe and stable environment, will again live with the brother they lived most of their lives with so as to maintain sibling bonds, [and] will be surrounded by family committed to permanence."

At an April 14 hearing to address relative placement, the parties agreed to waive the right to a prima facie hearing and agreed that T.C. and G.J. were entitled to a section 361.3 hearing on their respective petitions.

Agency's May 8, 2017 addendum report again recommended termination of parental rights, order a permanent plan of adoption for the children, and the children remain placed with caregivers Yolanda and Bryan. The May 8 report summarized the children's visits with relatives. It noted T.C. personally attended a visit with the children and B.C. on March 14 and 29, and April 7 and 11, at Agency offices. After the first visit, Ja.K. and Je.K. reported the visit was "okay." At one point during the visit, T.C. called D.C., who was still in Ohio. According to Keitel who supervised the visit, Ja.K. and L.C. were too busy playing to say hello to D.C., and Je.K. said a "quick 'Hi' to [D.C.]," then got off the phone.

During the second visit on March 29, Je.K. was in a "mood," as he had just finished a video visit with mother. About 45 minutes into the visit, Keitel reported that Je.K. asked for Yolanda. T.C. in response grabbed Je.K.'s wrist, who resisted. Keitel intervened. T.C. then questioned the social worker about her "rights as a grandparent" and complained about Yolanda, noting she also would "be nice" like the caregiver "if [she] was getting $1000 a month for the boys." According to Keitel, T.C. "kept getting close to [her] face during this conversation. She said, 'I know you're biased, so that's why I'm putting in the extra work.' " At the end of the visit, T.C. and B.C. gave the boys Easter baskets, which they enjoyed.

On April 6, T.C. asked if she could take the boys out for ice cream. Agency agreed, and Yolanda stayed with the children during this visit, which went well. On April 11, T.C. and B.C. visited only with Je.K. and L.C., as Ja.K. had called the social worker saying he did not want to attend the visit because he would rather stay in his aftercare program. T.C. and B.C. brought food and toys with them. As Je.K. and L.C. were eating, T.C. explained the social worker should have required Ja.K. to attend the visit, noting, "I think you should make kids do things and they'll adapt. I'm going to have to call [Ja.K.] about not coming." As this visit continued, Je.K. and L.C. warmed up to T.C. and B.C., even allowing T.C. to kiss them.

On April 16, Yolanda invited G.J., T.C., and B.C. to hear the boys perform in an event at their church. Agency noted both G.J. and T.C. attended without incident.

On April 29, T.C. called Yolanda and asked to speak to the boys. Ja.K. and Je.K. said they did not want to talk to T.C. and L.C "[ran] off." Yolanda reported that while on speaker, T.C. asked why the children were "acting so weird," commented the "whole system is weird" and began to use profanity directed at Yolanda, causing the caregiver to hang up on T.C. When Keitel asked T.C. about this incident, T.C. claimed to have called Yolanda, and not the children, a "weirdo," and then blamed the entire incident on the caregiver who T.C. believed had used her "influence" over the children to make them believe she had called them "weirdos."

The May 8 addendum noted G.J. visited every other Saturday. Although L.C. did not like to separate from Yolanda when she dropped him off for visits with G.J., per Yolanda L.C. was "fine" when she picked him up.

The May 8 addendum included an interview of Ja.K. and Je.K. on May 1. On questioning, both boys stated their relative visits were "boring" and both stated they did not want to have any additional visits with G.J., T.C., B.C., or mother.

With regards to T.C., the May 8 addendum again recommended against placing the children with her in Ohio. Agency found the children were living in a stable, loving home, where all their needs were being met; they were happy in that placement; and they wanted to remain there. Keitel expressed concern over T.C.'s "lengthy" social welfare history involving her own children, including mother, who had "spent a significant portion of her [own] childhood in foster care in Ohio and in California." It also noted the children did not know either T.C. or T.D.C. "very well," and maintained the strength of the bond between the children and these two maternal relatives was "not very strong."

Keitel disagreed with T.C.'s view that the children's resistance to her was a direct result of Yolanda's influence. Keitel found the "only positive aspect of placing the children" with T.C. was "they would be placed with their brother [D.C.]" Keitel noted that during the reporting period, she met with Ja.K. and Je.K. on a "few occasions" to discuss the reason the boys were having visits with relatives, explaining to them a court would make a decision regarding their placement. According to Keitel, both boys stated they wanted to continue living in their current placement. On further questioning, Ja.K. demonstrated on a scale of zero to 10, with zero being "no way" and 10 being "yes," that he was at a "4" with respect to living with T.C. Je.K., however, pointed to zero, or "no way," regarding his desire to live in Ohio.

The May 8 report also addressed the physical discipline issues involving the children. During an April 3 interview with Keitel, Ja.K. denied being spanked, claimed he had never been "whooped" by Yolanda or Bryan, and stated he was "confused" when he was previously questioned on this subject matter. Ja.K. demonstrated to social worker Keitel that he knew the difference between a truth and a lie. On further questioning, Ja.K. denied "that anyone ha[d] ever asked him to lie to this worker."

The May 8 report also summarized a separate conversation between Keitel and Je.K. On questioning, Je.K. said, "he wanted to live with his caregiver and spontaneously stated, 'They don't give me whoopins.' This worker asked him why he just said that. He just smiled and did not saying anything. This worker asked him why he said last time that his caregivers give him whoopins. He responded, 'I forgot.' He said he gets in the corner if he gets in trouble. He initially denied that he gets slapped on the hand, until this worker said that the caregiver admitted she has done that. [Je.K.] replied, 'Yes she does.' This worker asked him what happens if his brother [L.C.] bites someone. He said [L.C.] has to nap or get time out. [Je.K.] was able to demonstrate to this worker that he knows a difference between a truth and a lie."

Keitel interviewed the caregivers after the boys had recanted their statements about physical discipline. Both Yolanda and Bryan denied coaching the boys. Keitel reported the caregivers "admitted using physical discipline when [the children] stayed in the home under a safety plan on 8/17/2015, but denied using physical discipline (outside of 'popping' on the hand) after the children were officially placed [with them] on 8/25/2015."

Agency prepared yet another Addendum report in connection with the 366.26 contested hearing. This May 23 addendum made the same recommendations as the May 8 addendum: that parental rights be terminated and the children remain placed with Yolanda and Bryan. During this short reporting period, Yolanda e-mailed the Agency to let her know that during the children's May 6 visit with G.J., she told Ja.K. and Je.K. that, if they wanted to have longer visits with her and B.C., they needed to "tell the social worker and [their] attorney"; and that Yolanda did not want the children's relatives to say anything about the ongoing placement issue because she wanted them to "just be boys and not have to worry about anything."

The May 23 addendum summarized a visit between T.C., her daughter B.C. and the children. The visit, supervised by Keitel, went without incident, although the social worker noted the children "began to get antsy about halfway through the visit" and went to Yolanda, who was seated a few tables away with her back to the boys.

The children during the reporting period also had a supervised video visit with mother. Agency reported the children seemed disinterested in talking to mother during this short visit. During the visit mother showed Ja.K. a piece of paper and said, "You need to make a decision if you are going to live with grandma or with [B.C.]" When Keitel intervened, mother continued, "Do they call Cookie 'mom'? Does she call them her boys? Does she?" Despite Keitel's attempts to redirect mother, she continued to ask the boys these same questions. Mother finally stopped when Keitel threatened to terminate the call. Near the end of the visit, Keitel reported the boys were off playing and "no longer interested in speaking to . . . mother."

The May 23 addendum included a summary of a phone conversation between Keitel and T.D.C., who was then in Ohio. T.D.C. stated she wanted the children to live with her because she wanted the family to stay together. T.D.C. expressed her opinion that it would be a mistake for the children to remain with the caregivers because Yolanda and mother had a negative relationship and at some point, the boys would rebel against Yolanda because they will always love mother and they will want to have contact with their "biological family." When Keitel noted that Yolanda already had been facilitating contact between the children and their siblings, T.D.C. stated that could change in the future. T.D.C. acknowledged she had no contact with the children's two other siblings, Mn.E. and Mh.E., but suggested they could visit the children in Ohio. T.D.C. also acknowledged she did not have a relationship with any of the children, although she said she loved them and spent some time with them when L.C. was born (in 2014).

With respect to the caregivers, the May 23 addendum noted they had registered to take a parenting class on June 3 per the recommendation of Agency. Keitel noted that the children had been placed with their caregivers for almost two years; that they were "thriving" in that placement; that the caregivers were strong "advocate[s]" for the children; and that the caregivers wanted to provide permanency for the children by way of adoption.

The contested evidentiary hearing on the separate section 388 petitions filed by T.C. and G.J. commenced on May 23 and concluded on September 11, almost four months later.

B. Witness Testimony

Ja.K.

The record shows Ja.K. testified in the court's chambers and initially was asked a series of questions by the court to determine competency. Ja.K. testified that he was six years old; that when asked if he understood what it means to tell the truth, he responded, "Well, let's say, like, I tripped somebody, and I didn't say that I tripped them, but I really did, that's telling a lie. And the telling the truth is saying like when I really did trip the[m], and I really say that I did trip them."

When asked if he understood the purpose of the hearing, Ja.K. responded, "So we can — so we can figure out who I'm going to live with." On questioning, Ja.K. stated he wanted to live with "Cookie and Bryan" because they "do fun things"; that when he does "bad things," Yolanda punishes him by making him sit on the floor next to her; that neither Yolanda nor Bryan ever spanked him; and that he was not afraid of his caregivers.

Regarding G.J., Ja.K. recognized she wanted him to live with her. When asked how he knew that, Ja.K. responded, "Because sometimes — sometimes she wants me to — most of the time she wants me to live with her, and I know that a lot of people want to live with me, but I know it's my choice and the judge's choice." When asked who he would choose to live with, the record shows Ja.K. again stated, "Cookie and Bryan."

Ja.K. testified that G.J. had suggested he and his brothers tell the social worker that they should tell the social worker they wanted to have longer visits with paternal grandmother. Ja.K. testified G.J.'s statement made him "nervous" because he did not want to have longer visits with her and he did not want to tell the social worker something that he did not want.

As to T.C., Ja.K. said he knew she also wanted him to live with her. Ja.K. testified that he knew D.C. lived with T.C.; that D.C. was then 10 years old; but that he had no recollection of ever living with D.C. and he did not want to live with D.C. When asked "why," Ja.K. responded, "Because I don't really know him that well. And I don't really — and I don't really see them that much." When asked what he meant by "them," Ja.K. stated, "[T.C.] and [D.C.]" On further questioning, Ja.K. stated he did not know T.D.C.

The court then questioned Ja.K. When asked if anyone had told him what to say, Ja.K. said yes, identified G.J. as this person, and repeated that G.J. had suggested during a visit that Ja.K. should talk to the social worker about longer visits. Ja.K. repeated he did not want longer visits with G.J. Ja.K. denied being told what to say by anyone else or being promised anything for his testimony.

Ja.K. was then extensively questioned about getting a "whooping" from the caregivers with a belt. Ja.K. denied ever being hit with a belt or getting "whoopings." Ja.K. also denied ever being instructed by anyone to say he did not get "whoopings." Ja.K. was asked if he told the social worker that he saw his brother Je.K. get spanked with a belt. Ja.K. shook his head no. When the court inquired, Ja.K. said by shaking his head he meant "no." When again asked if he saw Yolanda spank Je.K. with a belt, this time Ja.K. said, "yes."

The record shows the court intervened and asked Ja.K. a series of questions regarding being punished with a belt, including whether Ja.K. saw Je.K. get spanked with a belt; whether he heard Je.K. get spanked; whether Je.K. told his brother Ja.K. he had been spanked with a belt; or whether anyone else told Ja.K. they saw Je.K. get spanked with a belt. Ja.K. answered each question "no," reiterating he never saw the caregivers give Je.K. a "whooping." Ja.K. also denied ever being slapped by Yolanda on the hands, or seeing her slap his brothers.

When questioning by counsel resumed, Ja.K. was asked if he knew how brother L.C. got a burn on his foot. Ja.K. responded it occurred when L.C. was riding a skateboard without shoes.

Ja.K. was then asked if he recalled living with mother. After answering yes, he then was asked if he recalled living with D.C. Ja.K. responded, "I don't even really — I don't know if I ever lived with him before." Ja.K. testified he was "happy" to visit with D.C. at the court because he had not seen him "in a long time." When asked if he wanted to live with D.C., Ja.K. responded, "I don't really know."

Ja.K. was asked how he communicates with D.C. He said, "facetiming." Ja.K. stated that sometimes he asked Yolanda to call D.C. so they could talk. Ja.K. said Yolanda usually agreed to do so.

When asked if he knew what the social worker's job was, Ja.K. responded, "[t]o make sure that I'm telling the truth." Ja.K. then admitted he told the social worker he did not want to visit with G.J., after she suggested he speak to the social worker about longer visits. Ja.K. then was asked if anyone in his entire lifetime struck him with a belt. Ja.K. said, "yeah," and when asked who, said "Carla" (i.e., mother). When asked who was Carla, Ja.K. said, "[a] person who used to live with me." Ja.K. then testified that mother hit him with a belt more than once.

Je.K.

Je.K. testified that he was five years old; that he knew he was speaking to the judge "because the judge is going to decide where we're going to live"; that nobody told him the judge would be making this decision, as he just "kn[e]w it"; and that he wanted to live with Yolanda and Bryan because their household was "fun." Je.K. denied ever being hit by Yolanda and/or Bryan.

Regarding G.J., Je.K. testified that he knew she wanted him to live with her because she said so. Je.K. stated he did not enjoy visits with G.J. When asked why, he responded, "Because it's boring to go over there, and we don't want to stay." When asked if he was afraid when visiting with G.J., Je.K. stated, "I just don't want to stay — I don't want to stay." Je.K. testified that G.J. had suggested they ask the social worker for more visits with her. When asked how this made him feel, Je.K. stated, "I was fine, but then I didn't want to do any more visits, but I didn't want to say it. I just wanted to say it to Cookie [i.e., Yolanda]."

The court next asked Je.K. if he wanted to live with B.C. He said no, and in the same sentence added, "I want to live with Cookie and Bryan." When asked why he did not want to live with B.C., Je.K. stated, "They're boring."

When asked about T.C., Je.K. blurted out, "She called us a weirdo." On further questioning, Je.K. testified T.C. called them a "weirdo" when they were talking to her on the telephone because the boys did not want to speak to her, and that this made him "mad."

Je.K. was again questioned about his relationship with G.J. He stated they went to a movie. When asked what else they did during visits with G.J., he said, "We have to sit down and just watch T.V." When next asked if they sometimes went swimming during visits with her, Je.K. stated, "[o]nly once." Je.K. reiterated that he did not enjoy seeing or visiting G.J. When asked why, he said, "Because I don't want to. I just want to see Cookie instead." When asked if someone told him to say that, Je.K. said, "That's how I feel."

Je.K. was then asked if he ever received a "whooping from Cookie." He said no. Je.K. recalled telling the social worker he got a "whooping with a belt," but testified he was not being honest with the social worker when he made this statement.

Je.K. also was asked a series of questions about whether Bryan ever gave him a "whooping," including with a stick. Je.K. responded no. Je.K. was asked if it hurt when he was hit by the stick. He responded no. He was asked where he was hit with the stick. Je.K. stated, "I don't — I don't get whooped." He then was asked where the stick touches his body. Je.K. replied, "It doesn't touch me. I don't get whoopings." Je.K. also denied anyone told him to say this, and denied seeing his brothers Ja.K. and L.C. get hit with a stick or a belt.

D.C.

D.C. testified he was almost 11 years old and in fifth grade. Like the other minor witnesses, the record shows the court asked D.C. a series of questions to establish competency.

D.C. was asked if he wanted to come from Ohio to San Diego to testify in this case. He responded, "Yeah" and when asked why, he stated, "It's — to help out my mom and my grandma." D.C. recalled that he lived in an apartment with Ja.K. and Je.K. about two years ago; that he remembered living with the boys "a little bit"; and that if he could live with anyone, it would be with mother, his brothers, and sister.

D.C. testified that he knew G.J., as he recalled sometimes attending church with her and his siblings when he lived in San Diego. He noted G.J. treated him like her own grandson, which he appreciated. Since moving to Ohio, D.C. stated he communicates with Ja.K. and Je.K. "not a lot, not long."

D.C. testified he understood the purpose of the court hearing and wanted to speak to the court "[a]bout why they want to separate me and my family." On questioning, D.C. blamed "Cookie" for trying to break up his family, stating she also had "social workers on her side for no reason, and she just — when my mom gave her the kids, she was supposed to get them back. But now she wants to — now she wants to adopt them." D.C. confirmed that Yolanda was supposed to give the children back when mother "was ready for them."

The court also questioned D.C. He testified that nobody told him that Yolanda was trying to break up his family; that his siblings were "not her kids, and she's trying to keep them"; that she only took-in his brothers for "the money and wants to claim them as her kids. She uses them for social media and takes pictures of them on [the Internet]." When the court asked how he knew such things, D.C. exclaimed, "It's very obvious. Maybe you're not looking closely."

D.C. testified that when Yolanda sent pictures to him and T.C., they also included photographs of her other children. D.C. "really [did not] want to see the rest" of Yolanda's other kids because it made him "upset" because Yolanda's other kids were "not part of the family," but rather were "just some adoption kids." D.C. reiterated the caregivers should not be given any money for taking care of his brothers because they were not their children.

D.C. testified T.C. had told him that "once [his] mom gets her stuff ready, and gets her kids back, we're going back to Ohio. I'm pretty sure." D.C. reiterated, "My grandma had said that once she gets the kids, my brothers and my sister, they would go back to Ohio and take my mom — she's going to try to get my mom to go to Ohio with us." D.C. confirmed that they also intended to get the twins back, and they too would live in Ohio.

Saenz (May 24, 2017)

Saenz testified his involvement in this case began in August 2015 when he took over for Medina. Saenz's investigation included meeting with mother and the children, but not father because he was unwilling to meet with and be assessed by Agency.

Saenz was questioned about statements made by T.D.C. that were included in Agency's August 26, 2015 detention report authored by social worker Medina. As summarized ante, in that report, T.D.C. was quoted as saying she was willing to keep D.C. in Ohio until mother was "settled" and was "capable of caring for all of the children in Ohio." That report noted Medina agreed to "inform" T.D.C. "what the next step will be" as the investigation progressed.

Saenz testified he recalled these statements in reviewing the various Agency reports but that he did not consider T.D.C.'s statements as requesting placement, but more as expressing "concern for the well-being of the . . . children."

Saenz was questioned about a portion of the same report where father at detention indicated to Medina that G.J. would be willing to take-in Ja.K. Saenz testified he had two conversations with father after initially being assigned the case, as he was trying to get father into services, but that neither conversation involved placing Ja.K. and/or his two brothers with G.J. With respect to mother, Saenz testified she did not request placement of the children with G.J. until November 2016.

Saenz testified he first spoke to T.C. about placement and the ICPC process in August 2016, when T.C. requested she be considered for placement of the children.

T.D.C.

T.D.C. testified she began caring for D.C. in summer 2015 when mother "lost her kids." According to T.D.C., an Agency social worker (i.e., Medina) "advised us at that time to keep him because if he was to come back, he would be in foster care." T.D.C. testified she informed Agency from "day one" that her concern was the children and D.C. to remain a sibling group; and as time went on and T.D.C. started realizing this was a long-term issue with mother, she "started making [Saenz] aware that if [mother] wasn't going to get her kids back, then [she] wanted to be first in line for them."

T.D.C. further testified that she requested Agency place the children with her within "at least six months of them being with Yolanda"; and that mother was representing that "she was doing everything that she needed to do to get her kids back. [¶] So we never wanted to move her kids to Ohio, when she is in San Diego trying to get her life together for them. [¶] So it wasn't until we realized after about six months, it wasn't happening, and then that's when the real concerns kicked in." T.D.C. trusted mother was providing accurate information to her family because she knew mother "loved her kids."

T.D.C. also testified that it "wasn't an option from day one" for D.C. to come back to San Diego to live with his brothers because Yolanda had told her she could "she could not handle [D.C.]."

T.D.C. did not speak to D.C. about the dependency involving his brothers, but that he had spoken on numerous occasions to mother, which calls T.D.C. had not monitored. T.D.C. confirmed she had room in her house for the children, and Ja.K. and Je.K. would go to the local elementary school. She also believed the children would need counseling if they moved to Ohio, noting it would be a priority of hers. When asked what else the children needed, T.D.C. stated "to be kids" and "love, genuine."

On questioning about her criminal background that arose during the ICPC process, T.D.C. could not recall if she was charged with possession of marijuana in 2012 or 2013. In any event, she claimed it was someone else who was smoking marijuana in her home. T.D.C. also spoke about being involved in a fight about 10 years earlier. She could not remember if she was charged in connection with that incident, then added this offense was "dropped . . . down to something [she] might have pled out of that."

T.D.C. was questioned about her relationship with Ja.K. and/or Je.K., including what they talked about or did when together. She responded, "They're babies. I don't have any conversation with them." T.D.C. admitted the last time she had spent time with either child was about three years earlier, when she came to San Diego after L.C. was born. Since being in San Diego for the placement hearing, T.C.D. estimated she had spent about an hour with Je.K. T.D.C. stated she was prepared to take leave from work and bond with the children if they were placed with her and her mother T.C., as she already had alerted her employer to that possibility.

T.D.C. did not believe the children would be harmed by removing them from their caregivers and placing them in Ohio because "kids are resilient." She also promised to supervise visitation between the children and mother, as she did not want to give the children "anymore false hope" that they would be reuniting with mother. Finally, T.D.C. stated she was interested in adopting the children and providing them permanency.

T.D.C. testified that when D.C. first came for a visit, he did not talk much about his brothers. She also testified that her own 13-year-old son was now a brother to D.C.; that her own son quickly adjusted to having a new brother; and that in her view, "you just have to talk to kids" about such things.

Regarding her relationship with Yolanda, T.D.C. said she had known her for about 11 or 12 years; that Yolanda and her got along fine until Yolanda took the children and shortly thereafter started calling them, "My boys. My boys . . . and my children"; and that T.D.C. believed Yolanda was not even giving mother a chance to reunify. T.D.C. denied that mother and Yolanda were "close." In fact, T.D.C. described the relationship between mother and Yolanda as "very" negative.

T.D.C. testified she had no issue if the children were placed with G.J., stating that they were "all . . . supporting each other"; that they were "rooting for the kids to be with family"; and that there was "not going to be a battle between us and all of that." T.D.C. believed the children would be better off in her home in Ohio than in the caregivers' home "because — primarily we're — because we're family. It is an unconditional love, and it's going to be support beyond the age of 18. [¶] Not only that, I have an understanding of how they're feeling. I can help them and I can relate to them."

T.D.C. testified Yolanda admitted to "whoop[ing]" the children's "butts" when she first took the children into her home. T.D.C. admitted that when Yolanda allegedly made this statement, Agency was involved and that T.D.C. nonetheless did not reach out to an Agency social worker to report Yolanda.

T.D.C. testified that she believed it was important for the children to have therapy because they had been removed from mother. When asked if she believed the children also might need therapy if removed from Yolanda, where they had lived for about two years, T.D.C. stated, "I'm not even thinking about Yolanda because that's just a foster home to me, regardless of how long they've been there." T.D.C. reiterated counseling was necessary because the children were "being separated" from mother.

T.D.C. admitted that her mother, T.C., had a "substantial child welfare history" and that T.D.C., like mother, had spent years in foster care. T.D.C. testified she was removed from T.C.'s home because of T.C.'s drug use, which T.D.C. believed was the result of domestic violence.

When questioned (again) why it was important to her that the children be with "blood relatives," she testified it was about "unconditional love that comes from your blood relatives." T.D.C. then was asked why she did not apply that same standard to G.J., who ostensibly was not a blood relative of Ja.K. and L.C. T.D.C. stated that she knew G.J. always saw all three boys as her own grandchildren.

T.D.C. testified she last communicated with twins Mn.E. and Mh.E, mother's other children, in 2014. T.D.C. stated D.C. also does "[n]ot often" speak to the twins. T.D.C. recognized it was very unlikely any of the children would go back to living with mother. That said, T.D.C. stated that "if there was a chance that she could get her kids back, that would definitely be my first choice. One hundred percent" to have the children returned to mother.

Bryan

Bryan testified that before dependency began, he and Yolanda babysat the children, went to their birthday parties, and generally watched them when mother needed help. Bryan denied ever using any form of physical punishment on any of the boys. He also denied Yolanda used any such punishment. However, he also stated if necessary he would lie for his Yolanda, noting "It's my wife. I'll have her back."

Bryan denied telling the social worker at the outset of dependency that he and Yolanda would not take D.C. into their home. In fact, Bryan testified that if the court ordered the children to remain in their placement, they also would be willing to care for D.C. Bryan stated they had seven children; that Ja.K. and Je.K. shared a room with two foster brothers, who were 15 and nine years old respectively; that his two girls had their own room; and that L.C. slept in a crib in the master bedroom.

Bryan testified that a few years before the children were placed in their home, an allegation had been made to Agency regarding him and Yolanda that he said was "false." Bryan testified he could not recall telling Keitel on February 2, 2017, that Yolanda hit Je.K. with a belt. He gave a similar response when asked if his wife Yolanda hit or patted the children on the hands. When again asked if he would lie for his wife, including to the court, Bryan said yes, but testified that he had not lied to the court, including his statement that he had never used physical punishment on any of the children.

Regarding the children, Bryan testified they were competitive, liked to play sports, and he enjoyed doing these activities with them. When asked why he wanted to adopt the children, Bryan testified that over time, after being in his family's home and "sharing time together with them, they're just like one of — one of my own."

Regarding mother, Bryan stated he has known her for "20-plus" years. He testified mother referred to his wife Yolanda as a sister; and that he and Yolanda periodically helped mother with the children.

Yolanda

Yolanda testified that mother, whom she referred to as her "sister," was involved in a domestic violence incident in August 2015; that she and mother lived in the same apartment complex; that on learning about the incident, she twice went to mother's apartment and on the second visit, saw mother had been handcuffed; and that mother, on seeing her, started screaming, "Cookie, get my kids." Yolanda testified the children came to live with her and Bryan on about August 18, 2015.

Yolanda denied that she or her husband Bryan ever used physical punishment on the children. Yolanda recalled speaking to Keitel on February 2, 2017, about physical punishment, testifying that "sometimes wrestling can be construed as a whooping"; and that, because they had a lot of kids, the family tended to "play around a lot." Yolanda testified it thus was possible that while the family was "wrestling or playing around," Je.K. might have been hit by a belt as they tended to "grab what you see, and . . . swing it."

Regarding their February 2 conversation, Yolanda testified she never told Keitel she used a belt to punish the children. Yolanda also testified she was unaware that Keitel had just left their home when Yolanda, who was then at the children's school, called Keitel on that day. Yolanda also denied ever telling T.D.C. that she gave the children "whoopings" when they were first placed in her care.

Regarding Agency's investigation of her own family referenced by Bryan, Yolanda explained that the two boys they adopted had had a visit with their (biological) mother and she had called a "foster care license worker" claiming Yolanda and Bryan had "beat[en]" their adopted sons, which allegation was never substantiated.

Yolanda testified that Ja.K. has had perfect attendance since starting school; that he has done well in all of his school subjects; that Je.K. was in preschool at the same school as his brother Ja.K.; and that Je.K.'s "report card" showed he also was doing "great" in school. Yolanda noted L.C. was not yet in school, but participated in a program where an individual came to the family home and helped L.C. with "writing, drawing, colors, [and] shapes."

Yolanda testified that for about the last six months, the children were having visits with G.J. every other Saturday; that during this period, neither Ja.K. nor Je.K. asked to have more visits with G.J. or to call her; and that during this same period, Yolanda had sent pictures of the boys to G.J., T.C., B.C., and T.D.C., among other relatives including Yolanda's own family.

Regarding adoption, Yolanda testified she and Bryan wanted to adopt the children. However, Yolanda stated she would still want the children to have contact with T.C., their brother D.C., including by phone and video calls, and perhaps have the children visit in Ohio or have D.C. visit in San Diego. With regard to G.J. and/or B.C., both of whom lived locally, Yolanda stated she also wanted the children to have future visits and contact with them including in their respective homes.

Yolanda testified that when Ja.K. was about one year old, Yolanda referred mother and Ja.K. to the apartment manager where Yolanda and her family had lived for "years" because mother had been evicted from another apartment and was "going through some domestic violence issues." Mother, Ja.K. and ultimately Je.K. and L.C. thus lived in the same apartment complex as Yolanda. As a result, Yolanda saw mother and the children "[e]very day."

Yolanda testified she participated in a team decisionmaking meeting in June 2015, before dependency, concerning mother and the children. Yolanda testified during that meeting, they discussed all of mother's six children. As a result of that meeting, Yolanda volunteered between June and August 2015 to watch all of mother's children, help take them to and pick them up from school, and to be more available for mother because she also was required to attend domestic violence classes. Yolanda testified she also drove mother around, including to her classes because at the time mother did not have a car.

Regarding the day Ja.K., Je.K., and L.C. came to stay with Yolanda and her own family, Yolanda testified that she was with her daughter when a neighbor called and said Agency was at mother's home. Yolanda went to mother's home and found Ja.K. sitting on the living room floor and learned another neighbor already had taken-in Je.K. and L.C. Per mother's request, Yolanda took Ja.K. to her own apartment, then went back to mother's apartment where she contacted father and social worker Medina, whom Yolanda had met at the team decisionmaking meeting a few weeks earlier. Yolanda testified father was speaking on the telephone with G.J. After the call ended, social worker Medina said, "Cookie, either you take them or they're going to Polinsky."

Yolanda testified that as part of the "safety plan" she took in the children; and that for about a year thereafter, she encouraged mother to follow the care plan, gave mother clothes so she would look "pretty" when mother made court appearances, offered to drive mother places, including to church, and provided mother food, as she wanted mother to reunify with the children.

Yolanda testified about a conversation she had with G.J. shortly after the children had been placed in Yolanda's care. Yolanda testified that G.J. only wanted to take in Ja.K. Once the children were in her care, Yolanda testified she invited G.J. to attend various events involving the children.

Regarding the twins, Yolanda testified she encouraged contact between the children and the twins by keeping in contact with the twins' grandmother, C.E., whom Yolanda had known for some years. Yolanda stated the children and the twins visited both at Yolanda's home and in C.E.'s home where the twins lived; and the twins also attended various events involving the children.

Regarding maintaining contact between D.C. and the children, Yolanda testified she would call T.C. so the children could talk both to T.C. and D.C. Yolanda stated she also sent T.C. pictures and a video of the children. Sometimes D.C. used his grandmother's phone to call the children. Yolanda believed it was important for, and encouraged the children to maintain contact with, D.C. Between August 2015 and March 2017, when T.C. came to San Diego, Yolanda testified neither T.C. nor T.D.C. called to speak to the children.

Regarding her two adopted children, Yolanda said she and Bryan adopted them on December 14, 2012; that her two adopted boys still have contact with their "biological family members"; and that Yolanda facilitated that contact because "they need to know where they come from, their history."

Yolanda also described classes she took in June 2017 related to adoption and parenting, and explained how she used what she learned in those classes to be a better parent to all of her children, including the boys. She also took an adoption class in March 2017.

Keitel (July 10, 2017)

Keitel testified that she became the assigned social worker in this case in early December 2016; that in the May 23, 2017 addendum, she reported Agency's concern about placing the children with G.J. because paternal grandmother had not come forward and sought placement of all three boys until after mother's reunification services had been terminated; that a previous Agency report dated April 13, 2016, prepared by Saenz noted that G.J. had requested placement, but it was not clear as to all the children or just as to Ja.K., father's biological son; and that there was no documentation from Agency indicating that G.J.'s placement request with respect to Ja.K. in August 2015 was sent to placement for assessment. Keitel noted G.J.'s placement request was sent for assessment in November 2016, about 15 months after the children went into protective custody.

The record shows Keitel was subjected to extensive and rigorous cross-examination regarding whether the caregivers had used physical punishment on one or more of the children; whether Ja.K. and Je.K. had been "coached" to deny being punished in such a manner; whether the caregivers had given inconsistent statements regarding the use of physical punishment in his/her/their home; whether Agency adequately investigated, and properly reported the results of its investigation concerning, the use of physical punishment in the caregivers' home; and whether Agency was biased against G.J., T.C. and/or T.D.C. in recommending the children remain placed with the caregivers.⁸

8 Although not reflected in our opinion (other than perhaps by inference given its length), the questioning of Keitel and most, if not all, other witnesses was conducted by multiple attorneys and two self-represented litigants, as there were nine parties who participated in the section 388 placement hearing. As discussed post, the record clearly shows the issue of physical punishment was thoroughly litigated in the juvenile court. Indeed, after sustaining an objection under Evidence Code section 352 to a question on the punishment issue, the juvenile court commented, and the record so reflects, that the parties had "spent hours listening to everything that the social worker ha[d] testified to relating to the inquiry about corporal punishment."

Keitel testified she interviewed Ja.K. and Je.K. at school on February 2 before going to the caregivers' home, as summarized in Agency's March 1, 2017 addendum; that she first interviewed Je.K., who on questioning informed Keitel he had received "whoopings" in the home of his caregivers when he got in trouble; and that when she asked Je.K. what he meant by a "whooping," he said, "Cookie and Bryan whooped him with a belt on his butt." Je.K. also suggested that Bryan may have used a stick to discipline him. Ja.K. also told Keitel he also got "whoopings" from his caregivers.

Keitel testified she in fact spoke to Bryan at his home about physical punishment on February 2 and on April 3, 2017. During their face-to-face meeting on February 2, Bryan admitted to Keitel in the past he had spanked at least one of the boys with a belt while in his care. Bryan also admitted during this same meeting his wife Yolanda had spanked the children while in their care. Keitel testified that, because Bryan's statements regarding the use of physical punishment seemed inconsistent, she found there was some increased risk to the children.

Keitel testified she received a call from Yolanda about five or 10 minutes after leaving the caregivers' home on February 2. Keitel described Yolanda as having "very high energy" during the call, as if she was upset. Yolanda then raised the issue of physical discipline with Keitel and not vice versa, although Yolanda then denied she had spoken to her husband before calling Keitel. Yolanda told Keitel that before the children had been placed in her care, while driving the children she sometimes used her "hand" on them to get them to behave.

Keitel also testified that she had a face-to-face interview with the caregivers on April 3. During this meeting, Bryan denied Yolanda ever used any physical discipline on the children. Yolanda also denied using any physical discipline on the children, other than occasionally "popping" them "on the hands." Keitel testified she also reinterviewed Ja.K. and Je.K., both of whom then denied ever being "whopped" by the caregivers. Ja.K. told Keitel he had been "confused" when he told Keitel he had been physically punished by the caregivers during his interview on February 2.

Keitel testified she confronted Yolanda and Bryan about her belief that the children had been "coached" to deny they had been physically punished while living with their caregivers. Keitel further testified she did not believe Ja.K. or Je.K. were being truthful on this issue, as they had "changed their story" since being interviewed on February 2, which belief she included in Agency's May 8, 2017 addendum report.

Keitel testified that, as a result of her investigation, she concluded "corporal punishment did occur. [She] admonished the caregivers that they are under no circumstances to use any corporal punishment. Whether or not they denied it or admitted to it, because they did both, [she didn't] believe it's happened since. [¶] [She] also advised that . . . it would be a good idea for them to take a . . . [¶] class on positive discipline," which the caregivers in fact took on June 3.

Keitel denied Yolanda ever admitted using a belt on the children, but indicated Bryan did admit he "hit" the children, although not with a belt. Keitel confirmed that Yolanda's statements to the court that she never hit the children were inconsistent with Yolanda's statements during their February 2 phone call when she admitted to using her "hand" to get the children to behave.

Keitel testified these various interviews impacted her risk assessment of the caregivers, as she considered any physical punishment on foster children to be "excessive;" that Yolanda admitted to Keitel that she did not see "anything wrong" with corporal punishment; and that, as a result of this admission, Keitel modified her risk assessment of the placement. Keitel nonetheless believed that the caregivers were the best placement option for the children.

Keitel testified she was unaware until she heard the testimony of Ja.K. and Je.K. that the caregivers' dog had bitten L.C. Keitel further testified that she had told the caregivers they were required to notify Agency if any of the children was injured. Keitel noted the caregivers had reported other injuries to the boys, including when L.C. in December 2016 suffered a burn to his shin from hot soup.

The record shows after Keitel's testimony regarding physical punishment, father filed his own section 388 petition alleging changed circumstances and seeking removal of the children from the caregivers. Mother stated she would join in that petition and file her own petition, which in fact she did, seeking the same relief.

Saenz (July 12, 2017)

Saenz retook the witness stand about six weeks after he first testified in this case. Saenz testified that he was assigned to this case in September 2015. He confirmed that G.J. did not ask for placement of all three children until September 2016, after mother's reunification services had been terminated, because G.J. believed "mother was going to get it together." Saenz noted Agency in its April 13, 2016 addendum incorrectly concluded G.J.'s criminal history prevented placing the children in her care; and that ultimately G.J. was cleared for placement of the children. Saenz admitted that even if G.J. had only requested placement of Ja.K. in August 2015, a relative placement evaluation should have been started but was not.

Saenz testified Yolanda was "very much" willing to facilitate visits between G.J. and the children, as Yolanda was "always" inviting G.J. to the children's events. Saenz further testified that when he was initially assigned the case, he felt there was a "little conflict" between mother and Yolanda; that as dependency progressed, he determined that Yolanda was "more stable" than mother and Yolanda was "very much concerned about the well-being of the children"; and that, although mother made several allegations against Yolanda, it was mother who was showing up at the caregivers' home requiring police intervention. Saenz stated that Yolanda was "very supportive" of mother's reunification efforts, contradicting the testimony of T.D.C.

Saenz also testified that he made sure the children were having contact with their siblings Mn.E. and Mh.E. Saenz noted Yolanda made this "very easy" because she was "pretty good about encouraging that on her own." Saenz also confirmed that the children were in phone contact with sibling D.C.

Regarding B.C., Saenz testified she was not involved in dependency until about the 12-month review hearing, when B.C. participated in a visit between mother and the children. At that time, B.C. became more actively involved with the children. Before the 12-month review hearing in September 2016, Saenz testified T.C. not once complained that Yolanda was preventing T.C. from contacting Ja.K., Je.K. and/or L.C.

Saenz testified that when he was first assigned the case, mother did not make any request of Agency to evaluate relatives for the placement of the children. Saenz also testified that mother only requested some "Mexican neighbors" be considered for placement but that she never provided Agency with the names of those neighbors. According to Saenz, mother first asked Agency to consider placing the children with maternal grandmother in September 2016, more than a year after dependency began. Up until this time, mother had never complained to Agency about the children's placement. Regarding father and his request for placement, Saenz testified father had not asked Agency to consider anyone — including G.J. — for evaluation in placing the children when they were first detained.

Regarding T.C.'s request to commence an ICPC that was made in about August 2016, Saenz testified he then was disinclined to move forward with this request because the children were in a "stable placement" that he did not believe should be disrupted. However, a few days after T.C. made this request and after consulting with his supervisor, Saenz started the ICPC process on behalf of T.C. Saenz noted Agency typically did not change a placement unless there was a need to do so, noting Agency sought to minimize the "trauma and emotional harm" to a child in dependency that may result if a child is moved from one placement to another.

Saenz testified he interviewed the children away from the caregivers. He further testified that such visits took place at their school, at least for Ja.K. and Je.K., and in an Agency office; and that during such interviews, he looked for "any marks or bruises" on them and saw none. Saenz also observed the children were "comfortable" with their caregivers and with Yolanda in particular because they were affectionate with her and she was affectionate with them; that Ja.K. told Saenz he felt safe around Yolanda; that Je.K. sought Yolanda's approval and always seemed "happy" when with Yolanda; and that at no time while assigned to this case did any of the children ever appear "fearful" of their caregivers. Saenz provided similar testimony regarding his observations of the children with Bryan. He also noted while assigned to the case, at no point did anyone report any concerns about the children while in the care of Yolanda and Bryan.

Saenz testified that while assigned to the instant case, at no time did he believe Yolanda was trying to interfere with visits between the children and G.J., T.C. and/or B.C. Saenz noted that at no time did T.C. reach out to him for help in facilitating visits between herself and Ja.K., Je.K., and/or L.C.

G.J.

G.J., then aged 68, testified that between January and August 2015, she visited the children sometimes once a week, and other times two or three times a week. Specifically, with respect to Ja.K., she saw him on a weekly basis, either at her home or at the home of parents. Before his removal from parents, G.J. observed Ja.K. was a "happy little boy."

However, after dependency, G.J. testified she noticed a difference in Ja.K., as he was "very, very, very withdrawn," appeared to need or want permission "to do something," was "not as happy-go-lucky as he used to be," and was "afraid" and unwilling to "talk freely" because he could get in trouble. G.J. testified about a specific event in which Ja.K. and Je.K. in her company talked about getting into trouble. She noted this event occurred before the placement hearing began (May 2017). Her concern was that if the boys got in trouble, they would get a "whipping" by Yolanda when they went back to their caregivers. G.J., however, also testified that she only learned about the use of physical punishment by the caregivers during the placement hearing, then clarified she meant the entire dependency proceeding, as opposed to the placement hearing. She also testified she did not notify social worker Keitel or Agency about her concerns that the boys might receive a "whipping" by the caregivers if they got in trouble.

G.J. testified that although Ja.K. said he wanted to continue living with his caregivers, he told G.J. "not to stop fighting for him." G.J. noted she would not stop fighting for the children "to make sure [her] grandchildren come into the custody of [herself] or their other grandmother." (Italics added.)

G.J. also described Je.K. as a "happy-go-lucky little boy" before dependency. She described Je.K. as follows: "[He] was, like, an active little boy. He was—he was like trying to see what things were. You know, like, pick and choose and look, and you know, um, [Je.K.] was kind of thick. [¶] What I mean by 'thick,' he was kind of heavy." After dependency, G.J. also noticed a change in Je.K., as he mostly was interested in his tablet.

G.J. stated she had a room in her home for the children, which she stated they each claimed as their own. In regards to taking care of the children, G.J. testified that she had two adult daughters who could help her; that although she worked full time, she could make arrangements for help in caring for them, as she had about 13 nieces and nephews, if not more; and that she sought placement because she was concerned about the caregivers "coaching . . . and whipping" the children.

G.J. testified about a visit with the children at the park in about January 2017. During this visit, G.J. claimed the caregivers' oldest daughter would not leave her alone, particularly when G.J. was engaging the children. After this particular visit, G.J. received a text message from Yolanda stating she and her husband Bryan believed future visits should be by phone. G.J. denied Yolanda made the children available for visits on a monthly basis, stating that she felt "supervised" by Yolanda and that Yolanda was interfering with her relationship with the children. On further questioning, G.J. stated Yolanda "would not allow [her] to see the boys," and while Yolanda on occasion would facilitate visits between G.J. and the children, it was on Yolanda's terms and not vice versa.

G.J. noted the children had asked her to have longer visits, including Je.K. G.J. explained to Je.K. that "his case worker, social worker — whatever, Mrs. Keitel is to them — had said — only gave [her] a few hours." G.J. denied telling the children to ask their social worker for longer visits with her.

G.J. admitted suffering two convictions, but noted those were in 1967 and 1968. One of the convictions was for prostitution, which G.J. denied, and the other for forging two checks, which she admitted was wrong.

Regarding placement, G.J. testified that mother called on August 17, 2015, and asked her to pick up the children because mother was going to jail. Because she was working, G.J. called father, who explained there had been a domestic violence incident involving parents. G.J. agreed to pick up the children the following morning, as they could stay the night with father. The next morning, father called and informed G.J. that Agency was at his home and was taking the children away. Father than put Medina on the phone.

G.J. testified she then asked Medina if she could pick up Ja.K. According to G.J., when Medina asked about the other two boys, who G.J. understood were not father's "biological children,"⁹ G.J. replied, "I don't know" because, she testified, she then was unaware she also could seek placement of the other two boys. Medina then promised to call G.J. back. After a few minutes, G.J. called father again. G.J. testified she had a second conversation with Medina, offering to take all three boys. G.J. testified Medina in response said Yolanda was taking the children; and, after taking G.J.'s phone number, said she would be in touch but never called. G.J. denied telling Medina during their first conversation that she would consider taking-in L.C. pending the results of a paternity test. G.J. also claimed that from the day the children went into protective custody, she had an "ongoing" request to take-in all three boys.

9 The record shows G.J. still believed L.C. was father's biological child even after a paternity test showed otherwise.

G.J. testified she confronted Medina in September 2015 at a court hearing and asked about placement. G.J. testified Medina in response stated, "I have no intention on removing these children from where they are." G.J. testified she also asked Saenz for placement of the children in March 2016, when she gave him her background information. G.J. reiterated she provided Agency this information for placement purposes and not for purposes of supervising visits between mother and the children.

Keitel (July 17, 2017)

The record shows Keitel retook the witness stand after Saenz completed his testimony. She testified after the disclosure about physical punishment, she conducted a risk assessment to determine whether the children should remain placed with the caregivers; that this assessment included whether the children had marks or bruises on them; how often they were subjected to physical discipline; when the children were last subjected to such discipline; and whether the children were fearful of their caregivers as a result of such discipline.

On questioning, Keitel reported that Ja.K. was only "fearful" of his caregivers when he did "something wrong," because he felt "bad for doing something wrong." Je.K. stated he was only fearful of his caregivers when "they say something to him," which he did not specify. Keitel continued to recommend the children be placed with, and not removed from, the caregivers. In making this recommendation, Keitel noted she continued to conduct risk assessments of the children, which included follow-up interviews with Ja.K. and Je.K. Keitel reported both children felt safe in the caregivers' home and denied being physically punished by the caregivers.

Keitel testified that when she took over the case from Saenz after mother's services had been terminated, she conducted a review under section 361.3 in connection with the placement requests of G.J., T.C., and B.C. in order to determine what was in the best interest of the children. In conducting this assessment, Keitel looked to the history of the case and the children's relationship, or lack thereof, with various relatives. Keitel also spoke to the children about their relationship with their relatives.

Keitel testified she spoke to Ja.K. and Je.K. in about January 2017 about T.C. Ja.K. told Keitel that he did not "really know" her. When Keitel asked Je.K. this same question, he responded, "Who's grandmother Teresa," leading Keitel to conclude Je.K. did not even realize that T.C. was his grandmother.

With regard to G.J., Keitel reported Ja.K. knew G.J. was his grandmother but reported he also did not know G.J. very well. Keitel noted Je.K. never mentioned his relationship with G.J. Between August 2015 and December 2016, Keitel estimated G.J. visited with the children on average about "once a month." Keitel noted G.J. had the opportunity to visit with the children more often, but did not, and that this was a factor in her assessment that the children should not be removed and placed with G.J.

With regard to siblings Mn.E. and Mh.E., Keitel estimated the children visited them about two or three times a month. Keitel testified Yolanda arranged these visits, often inviting the twins to various events in which the children were involved. This too was a factor in Keitel's assessment that the children should remain placed with their caregivers.

Keitel testified Ja.K. knew D.C. was his brother. As for Je.K., when Keitel on February 2, 2017, asked him if he wanted to live with T.C. in Ohio, where D.C. was living, Je.K. stated, "Is that [D.C.]'s mom?" Keitel stated the two boys had more contact with D.C. via telephone calls and text messages than with either T.C. or T.D.C. Keitel estimated the children were in contact with D.C. about once a week.

The record shows Keitel once again was thoroughly questioned on the issue of physical discipline. She testified when Ja.K. and Je.K. first went into protective custody in August 2015, they reported being physically disciplined by mother while in her care. Specifically, Ja.K. reported that mother used a belt to "whoop" him; and that Je.K. likewise reported mother used a belt to punish him.

Regarding physical discipline by the caregivers, Keitel testified that, for Agency to "substantiate an allegation of extensive discipline or physical abuse," it required "a child . . . to have marks or bruises on [his or her] body as a result of physical — using physical means of punishment on a child." Keitel confirmed that earlier in the placement hearing when (extensively) questioned about the use of physical discipline by the caregivers, Keitel had no concerns that the children had been physically abused by Yolanda and Bryan. Keitel also confirmed that when she expressed concern about physical discipline by the caregivers, it was because the children were in dependency and not because she believed the caregivers were excessively disciplining the children. After the issue of physical discipline arose, Keitel continued to question both Ja.K. and Je.K. periodically about how they were being disciplined in the home. Because L.C. was nonverbal, Keitel did body checks on him. Keitel found no additional evidence of the caregivers physically disciplining the children.

Keitel noted when the allegations of physical discipline arose, particularly with respect to the allegation that L.C. was hit when he bit someone, she went to the caregivers' home, conducted a "bodycheck" on L.C., and found no evidence of bruises or other marks "or anything of that sort." Keitel also interviewed Ja.K. on February 2, 2017, about the discipline used by the caregivers on his brother L.C. Ja.K. reported that Yolanda would talk to L.C. and then require him to take a nap. Keitel also interviewed Je.K., who reported that L.C. was "spanked on the hand on [sic] or the butt."

Keitel confirmed that one of the key factors she used to assess whether a child in dependency was being inappropriately disciplined was to "look at the relationship that the child has to the person who is alleged to be inflicting the corporal punishment." With respect to Ja.K. and his "interactions" with Yolanda, Keitel observed Ja.K. was "not fearful around her. He looks to her for approval. He is happy around her. He's affectionate with her." Keitel also observed Je.K.'s and L.C.'s interactions with Yolanda and came to the same conclusion.

Keitel testified she also observed the children interacting with Bryan, although less frequently than their interactions with Yolanda. Keitel confirmed none of the children seemed afraid or fearful around Bryan, and they seemed comfortable in his company.

Regarding prior history with Agency, Keitel testified Yolanda had two referrals made on the same date in 2012 by the mother of the two boys the caregivers ultimately adopted. The referral, alleging physical abuse, per Keitel related to "one incident." The referral was "evaluated out" by Agency. Keitel testified this meant the referral lacked information to indicate any physical abuse had occurred and thus, did not meet Agency's "criteria for investigation," which was based on section 300. Keitel confirmed she reviewed the report generated from the 2012 referral in assessing placement of the children.

Keitel testified that she was unable to make a "definitive assessment" with respect to whether the caregivers "coached" Ja.K. to lie about whether he had been physically disciplined while placed in their home. Keitel noted that since February 2017, she has met with Ja.K. two or three times each month; that on these occasions, Ja.K. had always been open to talking to her; and she had considered that perhaps Ja.K. had not been coached, but rather, "on his own, did not want to say anything about the caregivers that he thought would jeopardize his chan[c]es of staying" in their home. Keitel also considered that same possibility with respect to Je.K. As such, Keitel testified she could not be sure whether either child had been coached and if so, by whom.

Although G.J. testified she had concerns about the children's placement with the caregivers, Keitel testified that since she took over the dependency in December 2016, not once had G.J. raised with her any concerns about the children, including Ja.K. and G.J.'s view that his demeanor had changed. When asked if she was surprised by G.J.'s testimony, Keitel stated, "Not exactly" and explained: "Well the paternal grandmother has indicated to me that she feels that the children need to be mentally evaluated because — I don't know. I guess she just feels that the caregiver is putting things in the children's head — heads." Keitel stated she did not share those concerns. Keitel noted she was troubled by the fact that G.J. told Saenz she had no criminal history when in fact she did, including in 2008.

Keitel testified that she also conducted an assessment of whether it would be in the children's best interest to be placed with T.C. In making this assessment, she considered the children's previous and existing relationship with T.C., and her level of commitment to the children; T.C.'s previous social welfare history; and T.C.'s "moral character." Keitel noted that with respect to Ja.K., this child had only once visited T.C. before his removal from parents; and that once Ja.K. was removed in August 2015, it was unclear whether T.C. had had any contact with the child.

Keitel testified that from 1979 until about 2006, T.C. had a "child welfare history" in Ohio; that T.C. also had her own children removed on "at least on one or two occasions" from her care while she was living in Ohio; and that mother, one of T.C.'s nine children, was not raised by T.C. When asked if this factored into her placement assessment, Keitel stated, "Well, the maternal grandmother has alarming child welfare history in the State of Ohio. Um, and it just concerns me that when she did not raise her daughter [i.e., mother], that she would want to raise — or that she could raise [Ja.K., Je.K., and L.C.]."

Keitel testified she observed visits between the children and T.C. Keitel noted these visits never progressed beyond supervised. When asked why, Keitel testified the visits between children and T.C. were "less than appropriate," explaining: "There were — there were occasions where the maternal grandmother [was] . . . talking to me about the case, and complaining about the caregiver, or her rights as a grandparent or — or about the case. [¶] There was another time where, you know, she had grabbed [Je.K.] by the arm after [the child] said, 'I want to see Cookie.' [¶] And her response was, 'You see her every day.' And she pulled on him — not very hard, but she pulled him, and he started to resist. [¶] And I told her 'to just give — give [Je.K.] some space.' [¶] On top of that, the children are not interested in having visits with the maternal grandmother." Keitel thus recommended against unsupervised visits between T.C. and the children because T.C. was unable to 'filter herself,' she has a tendency to say things that are not appropriate."

Keitel, who heard D.C.'s testimony, testified she believed T.C. had inappropriately influenced D.C. to believe that the court, Agency, and Yolanda were trying to "separate" him from his family. Keitel also was concerned by recent statements made by D.C. to the children. In one instance, D.C. asked Ja.K., "Do you want to live with me and Grandma Theresa?" to which Ja.K. responded, "No, I don't want to." Keitel noted that during this same outing, when one of Yolanda's daughters referred to Ja.K. as "her brother," D.C. became upset and started saying, "That's not your brother." When Keitel spoke to T.C. about these statements, T.C. became upset and stated, "Well, they are not brother and sister." According to Keitel, T.C. then talked about D.C. being at a family reunion and how D.C. observed that "these people" were the children's family, not Yolanda's family.

Keitel was asked about the additional information that had come to light during the lengthy placement hearing. She confirmed her assessment was that the children should remain in the care of Yolanda and Bryan.

T.C.

Maternal grandmother testified that when dependency began in August 2015, Agency never contacted her and asked if she wanted to take-in the children; that if it had, she would have requested placement; and that she understood in August 2015 that mother allowed the children to "go to Yolanda's." When asked "Yolanda who?" T.C. said, "Adams or something. I don't know her like that," thus unable or unwilling to give Yolanda's last name. T.C. also testified she was unaware that Yolanda's mother, Lisa J., was a foster parent for mother for several years and that mother and Yolanda also "resided in the same household . . . for several years" while growing up.

T.C. stated she requested placement of the children in about March 2016, when mother was evicted. At that point T.C. believed mother was not getting better. T.C. then decided to "get these kids."

T.C. testified she met Ja.K. in 2011 when he, D.C., and mother came to Ohio for a three-week visit. T.C. further testified that about three or four months after dependency, both she and mother pleaded with Yolanda to give the children to T.C. so that they would not have to go "through all of [this]." Because Yolanda refused to turn over the children to T.C., a "clash" arose between T.C. and the caregivers, as they both wanted the same thing.

When asked why she wanted the children to come live with her in Ohio, T.C. testified that she knew "what happens to these children when they're raised in other people's home"; that not being raised by family created a "void [that] is never filled"; that the children will come to "want [their] natural family"; and that they "just can't help that."

Regarding visitation with the children, T.C. testified she had about three or four visits over the last four months. T.C. spoke only a "little bit" to Keitel about more visits because T.C. "could feel that [Keitel] was biased" against her. T.C. described her visits with the children as "very painful," mainly because they were short and because D.C. was sad when the visits ended. T.C. stated during the visits, the children played and got along well.

T.C. testified that in the last two years, she has taken a parenting class and joined a "grandparent's school." T.C. denied ever talking to D.C. about Yolanda trying to take "his brothers" from him.

Regarding her social welfare history, T.C. testified that she had nine children, that seven were living, and that she had raised two to adulthood. T.C. stated she had been in a "horrible marriage," had been pregnant every year, and had been abused throughout her marriage. As a result, T.C. stated she "ran for her life," failed to interact with the social workers, and went through a bad depression. T.C. has tried to make amends to her own children and do anything she could to help them, including mother, whom she claimed she raised to about the age of six.

When asked what she meant by making amends, T.C. stated that none of her own children raised in foster care were taught family values. When her own sons turned 18, T.C. claimed "nobody wanted them anymore after they weren't getting any income for them, so they were looking for [her] because they didn't have nowhere to go."

T.C. testified that when the children were first removed from mother in August 2015, Agency social worker Medina explained to them that if D.C. came back to California, he could not reside with mother and would likely end up in protective custody.

Medina

Medina testified she first met parents and the children in April 2015, when Agency received a referral on its hotline for emotional and physical abuse of one of the twins, with the allegation that mother had pushed her daughter out of a car. Medina noted the family had over 30 referrals at that time. In connection with the April 2015 referral, Medina asked mother about her "support network." Medina testified, "[mother] basically said that she was on her own with the exception of the support of grandmother [C.E., who is the grandmother of [Mn.E. and Mh.E.], and her sister. She referred to her as her sister. Later on, as the time progressed that I had talked with the family, I can't recall the exact date, it was found out that she was her foster sister, Yolanda. J[.]"

While the April referral was pending, Agency in May 2015 received another referral alleging mother physically abused the same daughter that was the subject of the April referral. On investigation, Medina found this child had two black eyes and a bump on his head. Medina then determined mother's support network was still comprised of C.E. and Yolanda. Medina testified that Agency also received about two or three other referrals in June 2015 involving mother; and that, although Agency had closed the April referral, it kept the May referral "open" until July because of concerns about this family. According to Medina, the concern was mother had six children, "there was no support from the youngest children's father," and mother's only support was from C.E. and Yolanda.

In connection with the "safety mapping" that Agency conducted on this family between May and July 2015, Medina testified that parents were asked to invite "family, friends, whoever is a support [person] so they can come to the meeting and get a better picture of what are the current worries, what's working well." At that meeting, mother brought C.E. and Yolanda. No other relatives — including G.J., T.C., T.D.C., and/or B.C. — were present at or otherwise participated in that meeting.

Medina testified that during this same general time period, mother did not identify G.J., T.C., or maternal aunts B.C. and/or T.D.C. as persons who supported her and the children.

Medina testified when Agency received the August 17, 2015 referral that led to dependency, she went to the family home early the next day and found father, another unidentified male, and the children. Mother already had been arrested. On entry into the home, Medina smelled a very strong "chemical order" and noted father was "very fidgety," his hands were shaking and he kept excusing himself to "spit." Medina found father's behavior concerning, as he appeared under the influence. Father informed the social worker that the twins had not been home during the domestic violence incident and were with C.E., and that D.C. was in Ohio with his grandmother.

While then at the family home, G.J. called father, who handed his phone to Medina. It was then G.J. said she could temporarily take Ja.K. According to Medina, when she explained to G.J. that Yolanda could take all three children into her home, per the safety plan, G.J. did not object and appeared to be "okay" with that outcome. Medina noted that G.J. was at the detention hearing and sat right next to father. Medina testified G.J. appeared "standoffish" at the hearing and thus, Medina did not engage her.

At some point Medina spoke with D.C. in Ohio to ensure the child was okay. After speaking to her supervisor, Medina set up the safety plan that previously had been mapped out and asked Yolanda if she could take the children. Medina noted that the children had a "positive" reaction to, and easily went with, Yolanda when she took them in after mother was arrested. Medina observed after the children were placed with Yolanda, they appeared healthy and happy.

On her release from custody on August 20, Medina met with mother and explained the children had been placed with Yolanda under the safety plan. At mother's request, Yolanda was at this meeting to provide mother "moral support." Mother agreed and signed the safety plan that day. During Medina's investigation, she spoke to Ja.K. The child confirmed to Medina that when he got in trouble, mother gave him a "whipping" with a "switch or a belt" on his body, which he told Medina "really hurt."

In late August, Medina testified she spoke to T.D.C., who stated she could "care for the children" in Ohio because she wanted the children to be with sibling D.C. Medina further testified she did not consider this a placement request by T.D.C., nor when she again spoke to T.D.C. in mid-September 2015, as the conversation was mostly about D.C. Medina noted she was "very clear and honest" with T.D.C. that if D.C. was returned to San Diego, Agency "would have to file a petition in regard to [him]." At no time did Medina tell T.D.C., however, that she had to keep D.C. in Ohio, noting that would be inappropriate. Medina also told mother this same information regarding D.C.

When asked if she had any conversation with any grandparent of the children, Medina testified she spoke once to G.J., who had agreed to take Ja.K. on a temporary basis. Medina also reached out to B.C. about placement during this same time frame.

When asked if, during placement, Agency's policy was to place dependent children with relatives before a NREFM, Medina testified that when the children were placed with Yolanda, she considered — and still considers — Yolanda family. Medina testified she had a single conversation with T.C. in September 2015, in which maternal grandmother stated D.C. had started school in Ohio and provided the name of the school. During this conversation, Medina testified T.C. did not ask for placement of the children or otherwise inquire whether they could live with her in Ohio.

Parents

The court received stipulated testimony from parents. Mother stated that she wanted the children placed in the home of T.C. in Ohio. Otherwise, mother wanted the children placed with G.J. Father — who last visited the children in early 2016— wanted the children placed with G.J. If that placement could not be facilitated, father supported placement with T.C.

Court's Findings and Rulings

The court on September 11, 2017 — after beginning the hearing on May 23, 2017, or almost four months earlier — found by a preponderance of the evidence that it was not in the children's best interest to be removed from Yolanda and Bryan's home. Before making its ruling, the court preliminarily observed that the instant case was "unique" given the competing section 388 petitions filed by multiple relatives including by parents, and the fact that B.C. also wanted to be considered for placement; that the children had been in dependency for more than two years; and that for reasons not readily apparent, the placement hearing was tried with more "vitriol" than any other dependency case the court had presided over in dependency court.¹⁰ The court noted it had "carefully reviewed and re-reviewed all of the evidence"; had "heavily considered the arguments of counsel"; and had "read every case" provided by counsel.

10 The juvenile court specifically noted its livenote transcripts did "not fully reflect the antagonistic exchanges among lawyers, the exacting examinations of witnesses, the outburst of parties, and at times, the demonstration of lack of respect for the court process." This court's own examination of the record shows certain attorneys in this case, while ostensibly attempting to demonstrate it was in the best interest of the children to be placed with his or her respective client, engaged in obstreperous conduct over the course of the lengthy and drawn-out placement hearing, even after it was reported that the children were stressed by the lack of certainty in their placement. By way of example only (and the voluminous record is replete with such examples), counsels' inappropriate conduct included making myriad objections, many of them "speaking" and many of them devoid of any merit whatsoever (i.e., G.J.'s counsel objected on vagueness grounds when Yolanda was asked if she "loved" the children); continuing to object to a question even after the court had overruled an objection (i.e., when Keitel was asked if Ja.K. needed a psychological evaluation, G.J.'s counsel made the nonsensical objection, "It misstates the evidence"; when overruled, G.J.'s counsel next objected, "compound"; when again overruled, G.J.'s counsel then objected "vague as to 'psychological evaluation,' " which, not surprisingly the court again overruled); objecting to witness testimony that had no relevance whatsoever to his or her own client; speaking over the court while it made its rulings and ignoring the court's rulings; repeatedly asking to "be heard" after the court sustained or overruled an objection and thereafter engaging in a lengthy argument over why testimony should or should not have been admitted; repeatedly asking witnesses the same questions over and over again, which questioning not only caused delay in and of itself, but also led to additional delay because of scheduling problems with witnesses who had to be recalled, sometimes after substantial time had passed; and giving the court time estimates to complete witnesses' testimony and then blowing past those estimates. This behavior was compounded by the fact there were multiple parties seeking placement of the children, six of whom (i.e., the children, Agency, T.C., G.J., mother, and father were each represented by counsel), and three of whom were in pro persona (B.C., T.D.C. and Yolanda). In this court's view, the sheer length of this hearing — when the children understandably were concerned about where they would be living, where they would be going to school, and who would be taking care of them — was decidedly not in the best interests of the children.

Changed Circumstances

The court first turned to mother's and father's separate section 388 petitions, based on "changed circumstances" as a result of the physical punishment allegation investigated by Keitel while the children were living with Yolanda and Bryan. The court found the service logs admitted into evidence were the "best record of what was originally recorded by social worker Keitel," as compared to the witness testimony.

The record shows the court reviewed in detail, as summarized ante, the circumstances, statements and testimony of Je.K. about the use of physical punishment by the caregivers and his recanting of such statements. The court noted when Je.K. testified (in chambers), it was satisfied Je.K. (who was then five and a half years old) understood the difference between a truth and a lie. The court found Je.K. "convincingly" reported that he liked living with Yolanda and Bryan and wanted to continue living with them in the future, and that he did not like visits with G.J. The court noted that Je.K. was seated about four feet away when he testified, and that it carefully observed his "face and his demeanor [and] also his entire body." The court found after extensive questioning about physical punishment, Je.K. did not show the "telltale signs" of a child not being honest, which the court had observed with other child witnesses over what it noted was its "share" of dependency cases.

Regarding Ja.K., the court reviewed the circumstances, his statements, and testimony regarding the use of physical punishment by the caregivers, including his inconsistent statements on this important subject matter. Again, the record shows the court went into significant detail when summarizing the evidence on these important issues. As was the case with respect to Je.K., the court also went into detail regarding Ja.K.'s May 2017 in-chambers testimony at the outset of the placement hearing. The court noted that Ja.K. sat nearby when testifying, allowing the court a full view of his body. The court found Ja.K. understood the purpose of the hearing, and he "opined clearly and directly" that he wanted to continue living with Yolanda and Bryan.

The court found that Ja.K. was aware that "a lot of people wanted him to come live with [them]"; that he appeared "mildly upset" in chambers when describing how G.J. had suggested that he speak to the social worker about longer visits; that he acknowledged that T.C. also wanted him to live with her and his brother D.C., who Ja.K. knew was 10 years old; that he never remembered living with D.C.; and that he was "clear" that he also did not want to live with D.C., as Ja.K. said he really did not know him very well. The court also found Ja.K. did not want to live with T.D.C., as Ja.K. stated he did not know her at all.

The court also noted that Ja.K. felt "like no one is listening when he says that he wants to live with Cookie." The court found "there was no hesitancy in his testimony [in chambers]. He had no physical signs of untruthfulness. And, quite frankly, had the court been unaware of his prior inconsistent statements, [it] would not have a shred of doubt as to whether he had been physically punished by Cookie and Bryan. It is clear to the court that he understood the nature of the proceedings, and [Ja.K.]'s answers did not seem memorized or rehearsed, as [it had] seen with other children who have been coached. [¶] [The court]'s assessment of his testimony from the vantage point of being within four to five feet of him, and observing his entire body, is that there were no telltale signs that [it had] seen with other children witnesses of indications of coaching. [¶] During his testimony, he did not appear to be hiding something, nor did he appear to [the court] to be a child who was trying to remember something that someone told him to say."

The court found as soon as Keitel learned about the "whoopings" on February 2, 2017, she went to the caregivers' home and confronted Bryan. The court found the service logs to be a "very accurate record" of what transpired during this unannounced visit, which information was confirmed by Keitel in her testimony.

The court found that during this visit, Bryan admitted to Keitel that they "pat the boys on the hand and make them stand against the wall for 10 or 15 minutes, which was consistent with something that one of the children had already told the social worker." The court found Bryan also admitted that Yolanda one time had used a "belt to spank" Je.K. on the "butt" when he was first placed in their home.

The record shows the court again went into substantial detail regarding the evidence summarized ante, including the telephone call made by Yolanda shortly after Keitel left the caregivers' home on February 2; Keitel's subsequent interviews with the children regarding punishment; and her view the children appeared to have been coached when recanting their statements about being physically disciplined.

Regarding Bryan, the court reviewed his testimony, including his statements that his wife Yolanda did not use physical punishment on the children; that he had his wife's "back"; and that if necessary, he would "lie" for his wife, all of which is summarized in detail ante.

The court found Bryan "was not a sophisticated witness. He was not a very emotive or expressive person. However, [it] was struck by the fact that he truly did genuinely appear to care about the boys, and [the court does] believe that he wants to offer them permanency and stability. [¶] Much of what he said was corroborated by other sources and witnesses. His description of [Ja.K. and Je.K.] were consistent with that provided via other evidence. [¶] Much has been made by way of argument about the speculative comment that he would lie for his wife, which has been interpreted by some counsel as an admission to lying . . . under oath. [¶] However, [the court] note[s] with his demeanor, he also on multiple occasions said he was not lying during his testimony. That raises the question, if someone truthfully admits that they would lie for their wife, but also with the same demeanor, they say they are not currently lying for their wife, which one — which statement should be afforded more weight than the other[?]

"[The court] watched him like a hawk to see if he — if there were any physical signs to discern that he was being untruthful on that point about whether he was lying for his wife under oath. And [the court] could not observe anything. [¶] [The court] found him to be straight — straightforward on many points. [¶] It is clear from the assignment of responsibilities in the household, that he works outside the home full time, but he does play and engage with the boys. It is also clear that Yolanda has a greater responsibility for the rearing and educating the children. [¶] This — it is also clear that this home seems more organized with more rules, which is necessary for a family with three or more children, than the previous environment in which the children were raised."

The record shows the court next assessed Yolanda and her credibility, who it noted was "grilled by multiple counsel" over the course of two days' testimony. After reviewing the details of her testimony, again summarized ante, including how the children came into her care, her relationship with mother, and many other subject matters, the court noted much of it was "corroborated by other information and evidence in social worker testimony or records."

Because the court was focused on the separate section 388 petitions filed by mother and father alleging changed circumstances, the court reviewed Yolanda's statements regarding physical discipline. "[The court has] observed Yolanda H[.] in court on many occasions. She has been called upon to provide information during previous status review hearings and has previously reported to the court. [¶] She is an animated person. She does speak rapidly and loudly. She appears very accommodating to others and is very genuine in her concerns for the children, and wanting to offer the court and the relatives information about the children. [¶] She also strikes the court as being very aware of the animosity displayed toward her family by [parents'] family members and wanting to get beyond that.

"Based on her facial expressions and her demeanor while describing the wrestling as an explanation of whoopings, and the preposterous nature of that as an explanation of how children could interpret that as discipline, [the court does] not find that portion of her testimony to be credible. [¶] Although [the court does] believe, based on the fact that she raised when she was first speaking with the social worker, and before she knew the exact nature of the children's claims, that there had been some wrestling in the home, but not that that was the source of discipline for the children.

"[The court does] find, particularly based on the admissions of — of Yolanda and Bryan to social worker Keitel, that there was some physical punishment in the home, although not recent[ly] and likely when [Je.K.] first arrived in the home. [The court] cannot make a finding, and the facts do not support that it was frequent or often repeated.

"[¶] . . . [¶]

"So there has been some physical punishment in the home. There is no evidence to support hitting with sticks. And the only — the only evidence of that was [Je.K.]'s vague reference to a stick, which the social worker was not able to confirm in any way or pin down. And the circumstances of portions of [Je.K.]'s statements are too fuzzy to be reliable."

The court next turned to social worker Keitel's observations and impressions regarding coaching. The court found Keitel had "extensive experience" at Agency, as she had worked both the hotline and investigated child abuse, and further found her testimony "to be straightforward, clinical, and categorical." The court found significant that when Keitel first learned of the possible use of physical punishment by the caregiver(s), she did not remove the children or make a referral to the hotline.

The court found it "clear," "having observed Keitel in the courtroom, as well as all of her subsequent behavior upon learning of this information in February, and — and in her follow-up interview in April, that she clearly viewed this as — as a historical event or events. [¶] She had the best opportunity to see whether the children were in distress in February when they were making these reports. She also had the best opportunity to see whether they were in distress, or appeared to be under duress when they were interviewed in April. They were not. She has not so reported.

"[The court] also note[s], based on the history of this case, that this is not a circumstance where the social worker did not have options for these children. Indeed, at this point in time, when these events were — these historic events were — or events in the past were being reported to her, she had many placement options for the children. She had multiple relatives who were before the court, and who had notified the Agency that they wanted to have the children in their care, and they had approved home studies. [¶] [The court does] think that the social worker made some assumptions about the children's responses, and — but [the court] also note[s] that she — she clearly was aware of their young ages and did acknowledge, as is common with young children, to — that there are issues, particularly with young children, about their understanding of the passage of time and putting dates on things.

"[The court] find[s], having considered all of the evidence, evaluating the credibility of multiple witnesses, [the court] do[es] find by a preponderance of the evidence that there [were] changed circumstances, that is, that there were some isolated incidents of physical discipline of [Ja.K.] and [Je.K.]." The record shows the court went on to find that the incident of physical punishment with a belt involving Je.K. occurred during the transition to the caregivers' home, which it noted was corroborated by the "explanation provided by multiple people that, when [Je.K.] first came to the home . . . he was unruly, and that he was having some difficulty transitioning"; that Yolanda "popped" or slapped the hand of the children; and that with respect to foster children, as Keitel noted, there can be no physical punishment.

The court also found that it had no concern regarding the source of the burn on L.C.'s shin; that other than a "slap on the hand or a quick pat on the butt," as Ja.K. described in his testimony, the caregivers had never used physical discipline on L.C.; and that the changes in the statements of Ja.K. and Je.K. from February to April 2017 regarding the caregivers' use of physical discipline was not the result of any coaching.

Regarding this last point, the court noted Keitel assumed the two boys had been coached. The court, however, noted that by April 2017 when the boys again were interviewed by Keitel, multiple people knew of the reports of physical punishment, including the lawyers and parties in the instant case. As to Ja.K., the court found "believable" his statements he was not coached or otherwise told what to say under oath. As to Je.K., the court noted his spontaneous statement to Keitel when re-interviewed in April that he had not been spanked, showed this child knew the use of physical discipline was a "topic" that was "very troubl[ing]." The court refused to attribute or "assign" that statement to the caregivers, "versus a conversation with an attorney, versus a conversation with someone else in this case." The court also found when Je.K. made the statement in April 2017 that he had not been spanked, it showed "he wants to live with Cookie, that that was a message that he clearly wanted the social worker to know and remember."

Although the court found there had been changed circumstances, the court noted it could not ignore the fact that the children were "doing exceedingly well in the care of Yolanda and Bryan." The court also found that the children knew "they ha[d] other places to live, and many options, if they were being initially disciplined harshly, such that it frightened them, or caused them to want to leave, or if they were feeling they were under pressure. They certainly are able to articulate when they feel pressured, as they have said with respect to comments made by [G.J.] [¶] [The court] also note[s] that these children have been seen by multiple social workers, attorneys, investigators, and voices for children liaison. They are in school, as to [Ja.K. and Je.K.], where they see mandatory reporters constantly. They see people in the community. These are not children who are hidden. [L.C.] has an in-home provider that comes once a week. [¶] And despite [the court's] finding that this — there has been some physical punishment in the past, [the court] do[es] not find that there — that there — that is an ongoing occurring event."

Best Interests

After making extensive and detailed credibility findings regarding the witnesses, and after finding changed circumstances, the court next turned to the best interest prong of section 388, noting both mother and father argued that it was in the children's best interests to be removed from the home of Yolanda and Bryan. The court noted parents' respective section 388 petitions "dovetail[ed]" with the individual relatives' petitions for placement.

T.C.

The court first turned to T.C.'s petition. The court found not true the claims of T.C. and T.D.C. that "their actions could have been interpreted as their own placement requests to [the children], in August or September of 2015." In support of its finding, the court first referred to T.D.C.'s conversation with social worker Medina; the court placed it in the context of D.C.'s "situation," inasmuch as the court found this child was merely visiting for the summer when the children had gone into protective custody. The court found Medina was advising mother's relatives that if D.C. was returned to California, he too would be placed in protective custody along with the children.

In further support of its finding that T.C. did not request placement of the children during this time frame, the court recognized Medina had no authority to assess T.C.'s home in Ohio or to make a determination whether D.C. was or was not safe in that home. Instead, the court found Medina was relying on mother's authority to "designate a caregiver" for D.C. Although the court noted T.D.C. stated she had a long-term desire to keep the children all together, it found nothing in the record to support T.C.'s claim that T.C. requested placement of the children in September 2015 during a call with an Agency social worker.

The court also found that Agency was communicating with T.C. during this time period, as there were issues concerning the Indian Child Welfare Act; and that mother was "vacillating," as testified to by T.D.C., about whether D.C. should stay in Ohio or return to San Diego. As to the latter point, the court noted mother changed her mind about where D.C. should live "multiple times" during the first year of dependency. The court found if mother wanted D.C. returned to San Diego to be near her, it would not have been appropriate to send the children to Ohio to live in a temporary placement, or to live in a placement where D.C. was no longer living.

The court also found, based on the testimony of T.D.C. among other witnesses, that initially mother wanted Yolanda to have the children so they would be close to mother, who then was claiming to her relatives, as T.D.C. and T.C. also testified, that she allegedly was "doing everything that she needed to do to get her kids back." In addition, the court noted "mother made no mention of these relatives when she came to court or requesting to have their homes considered during any hearing before [this court] until [mother's attorney] made the request in 2016."

In further assessing the placement of the children in Ohio, the court noted it reviewed the ICPC approval document. It noted ICPC approvals "are never speedy" but found in the instant case there were "very legitimate reasons" for the lengthy delay in light of T.D.C.'s criminal history and T.C.'s "extensive child welfare history."

The court found two concerns with respect to T.D.C. regarding placement of the children in her home in Ohio. First, the court found that while D.C. has been in the care of T.D.C., this child had been led to believe that he would be returning to mother. The court found "they have agreed, on the maternal side of the family," that the children should all be together and that mother also should come to Ohio to live. While in their care in Ohio, the court found D.C. "has been exposed to extensive information about circumstances with Cookie, stories that she is only in it for the money, and assumptions about pictures [of the children] on social media. [¶] It is not appropriate for this 10 year old to have his view tainted regarding the current circumstances. It is unclear exactly who told him these things, but it is clear that [T.D.C.] was not adequately monitoring [D.C.]"

The court's second concern with placement of the children with T.D.C. was her testimony that mother's family had drawn "battle lines" when it came to the children: "On the one side of the line are relatives. [The court's] going to use the term 'Blood relatives' because a number of witnesses did, and the other side is Yolanda H[.] and her family. [¶] It is quite clear that [T.D.C. and T.D. have] very strong feelings about and animus towards Cookie. She also did not acknowledge the good care that the children have received in the home. [¶] In making comments about Cookie, it was clear to the court that [T.D.C.] was relying on hearsay, but was reporting them as facts, and relying on them [from] afar, although she has not lived here for a long period of time.

"[The court] quite frankly [is] astounded when [T.D.C.] testified that Cookie didn't do enough to help her sister, and she felt that Cookie was spying on her sister. That showed a real lack of understanding of the need to be open and honest about [mother's] circumstances, and really what would help [mother] in terms of her issues, particularly when it comes to her children, and protecting her children — being [mother's] children.

"[The court] does not use the term 'battle line' lightly. In fact, as [it] mentioned, it was [T.D.C.'s] words. And she described the plan, to first get the three children to Ohio, and then to get the siblings [i.e., twins] [t]here . . . [¶] who are also in San Diego, and she used the terms 'that is another battle we'll fight separately from this one.' Assessing a strategy regarding how to get all of the children back is not geared to have custody of them, but — or to — is not fully geared to having custody and thinking about the best interest of these three children, but more so to follow through with a family plan of reunifying all of these children under their — under their plan and their circumstances.

"[The court] also note[s] that the maternal grandmother has — and she acknowledged that she has told [D.C.] that she's going to get his brothers for him, and we want the twins in the summer. [¶] And it appears to the court quite clearly, and, again, understandably, that both [T.D.C. and T.C.] are very devoted to [D.C.], and they are very interested in meeting [D.C.'s] needs. And that appears to the court to be very much a higher priority than analyzing fairly and objectively the needs of these particular three children."

Because T.C. had filed the section 388 petition and would be the primary caretaker if the children were placed in her care, the court focused on her when applying the various factors under section 361.3. With respect to the first factor, the children's best interest including "special physical, psychological, educational, medical, or emotional needs" (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(1)), the court found T.C. knew "little about these children," as she acknowledged when she testified that once in her care, she will need this type of information.

The court also found that, in describing certain events, T.C. showed a lack of "sensitivity" toward the children; that T.C.'s "motivation" appeared to be removal of the children from Yolanda and placement of the children with "blood relatives," as opposed to an "individual analysis of the needs of these three children, particularly [L.C.] who has absolutely no relationship with her"; that although T.C. testified about D.C.'s feelings, his moods, the impact of the short visits between him and his siblings, T.C. did not show the same concern for the children and for their needs, which the court reiterated she knew "little about"; that T.C. had the ability to learn much more about the children, but chose not to, including refusing to talk to Keitel; and that T.C. had no idea of the children's medical needs, and "made no inquiry."

As to the second factor, the wishes of the parent, the relatives, and children, if appropriate (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(2)), the court found parents supported placement of the children with T.C., although it recognized father's first request would be placement with G.J. The court found both Ja.K. and Je.K. had "repeatedly articulated . . . throughout the case to the court, and social worker Keitel, they have strongly indicated that they do not wish to live with her."

With respect to the third factor, which the court summarized as the legislative preference that dependent children be placed with a relative unless it is not in their best interest (§ 361.3, subd.(a)(3)), the court stated it considered this factor in ruling on the section 388 petition of T.C.

As to the fourth factor, placement "of siblings and half siblings in the same home" (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(4)), the court found D.C. had lived in Ohio with T.C. and T.D.C. since June 2015; D.C. had not been "legally placed there by a court"; and thus, they "do not, at this point in time, have a right to keep him permanently." The court also relied on the testimony of T.D.C., who admitted they were advised in the summer of 2015 to seek legal guardianship of D.C., but they "just didn't get around to it." As such, the court found it was "speculation to find that [D.C.] will be in their home for the long term" and that, because permanency was the court's primary consideration given the "eve of a [section 366].26" hearing, it was not clear the children would be living with D.C. for the "long term."

Regarding the next factor, the "good moral character of the relative and any other adult living in the home" (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(5)), the court cited to T.C.'s lengthy child welfare history and to the fact that she only raised two of her nine children. The court found unpersuasive T.C.'s explanation for her social welfare history. The court noted the ICPC showed T.C. had abandoned her own children "at various times," "leaving them with a domestic violence perpetrator," and had a substantiated physical discipline claim involving a 13 year old, despite T.C.'s testimony that she "never hurt anyone." Finally, in evaluating T.C.'s credibility, the court was "extremely concern[ed]" by T.C.'s "lack of candor with child welfare services in Ohio."

The court then looked to the sixth factor, the "nature and duration" of the relationship between T.C. and the children and this relative's desire to provide permanency if reunification was unsuccessful. (See § 361.3, subd. (a)(6).) As noted ante, the court found T.C. had "little to no relationship with any of the three children," even after Keitel encouraged supervised visits between T.C. and the children beginning in 2017. Also in connection with this factor, the court found that, although T.C. claimed she was willing to adopt the children, inasmuch as reunification with mother was unsuccessful, based on T.C.'s demeanor while testifying the court was not convinced of T.C.'s desire to do so.

The court also noted in connection with this factor its "significant concern" that D.C. and the children would be reunited with mother in Ohio. The court stated it had "observed the many gestures, the eye rolling, and the facial expressions, as well as the tone of voice at times during the maternal grandmother's testimony, which call into question her credibility . . . . [¶] She has expressed open distaste for the social worker and expressed this distaste in a rather immature way."

The court also found T.C.'s "open hostility" towards Keitel concerning, whom T.C. would have to work with if the children were placed in her care, as well as T.C.'s explanation for the reason she grabbed Je.K.'s arm during a visit. The court further found T.C. displayed similar behaviors when Saenz was testifying, which, based on its review of the evidence, led the court to conclude that T.C. was "less than credible [in] her descriptions and her claims as to the number of calls and the communications that she had with social workers in this case."

Finally, the court considered a series of factors enumerated in subdivision (a)(7) of section 361.3. The court noted vis-à-vis the ICPC that T.C.'s home was deemed fine and acceptable, but that through no fault of their own, if the children were moved to Ohio, they would have less contact with their myriad relatives in San Diego, including twins Mn.E. and Mh.E., and G.J., and B.C. among others.

After weighing all these factors and considering the best interest of the children, the court found placement with T.C. and/or T.D.C. was not appropriate and thus denied the section 388 petition of T.C.

G.J.

The court next turned to G.J.'s separate section 388 petition for the children to be placed with her. It noted at detention, upon the request of counsel, Agency should have assessed G.J. for placement, even if she only asked to take-in Ja.K., inasmuch as parents had requested Agency to do so. The court, however, rejected the argument that Agency knowingly refused to assess her, but rather found it was the result "of inattention on many person's parts."

In connection with this latter finding, the court noted that Medina at the time was investigating several referrals involving this family; that this "was a complicated matter," as there were multiple children, including some who were then not living in parents' home at the time of the domestic violence incident; that Agency "clearly [made] efforts to work with and meet with the mother," as demonstrated by multiple meetings between Medina and mother; that before dependency, mother on at least two occasions identified her support network as "her 'sister' Yolanda" and C.E.; that also before dependency, a plan had been worked out between Agency and mother in which Yolanda would take a more active role in helping mother and all her children; and that at about 6:30 or 7:00 a.m. the day after the incident, Medina went to the home and was confronted with a "very concerning situation" involving father, who appeared under the influence.

The court found, after evaluating the credibility of all witnesses, that "there was only one phone call [between Medina and G.J.]; it was very brief. And at that time, [G.J.] only expressed interest in Ja.K. [¶] Indeed, had it been otherwise, it would have been simpler for the social worker because she could have worked on placing all three together with [G.J.]." The court also found father "globally consented" to placement of the children with Yolanda and Bryan under the safety plan, as a protective custody warrant had not yet been issued by the court.

With respect to G.J.'s testimony that she had a second phone call with Medina that same morning and it was then G.J. said she would take all three boys, the court noted the evidence showed father had left home with his phone immediately after the first call, before signing the safety plan (but after orally agreeing to it). Thus, the court did not find credible G.J.'s testimony on this point, or her testimony that she confronted Medina at detention and again requested placement. The court instead found Medina "testified credibly" she had no interaction with G.J. at this hearing. The court also found credible Medina's testimony that "in conversations in August" between G.J. and Agency, G.J. said she "only wanted [Ja.K.] placed with her, which is the child to whom she knew for sure to be biologically related to her."

The court found Saenz made a "mistake" in Agency's March 8, 2016 report referencing an evaluation of G.J. "for placement, as opposed to supervising visitation." The court noted the evidence showed mother's visits then had gone from unsupervised to supervised (i.e., after she had driven the children without a license and proper restraints and visited the children while under the influence), and mother therefore "was searching for relatives and others to supervise her visits." The court found Agency was not evaluating G.J. for placement in March 2016 and found G.J.'s testimony on this point not credible.

The court further supported its finding that G.J. did not seek placement of all three boys, as opposed to just Ja.K., when dependency began because G.J. at a team decision-making meeting later in 2016 acknowledged she had "hung back" because she believed mother would get her children back. While the court found that did not excuse Agency's failure to evaluate G.J.'s home sooner for purposes of Ja.K., it did "not necessarily agree with the arguments of counsel that the course of the children's placement would have been different had that been conducted earlier or at disposition," and that, in any event, it was not useful "at this point in time to engage in that sort of speculation."

As was the case with respect to T.C., the court next analyzed the various factors in section 361.3 with respect to G.J., noting for efficiency it would review them in a different order.

The court found both mother and father supported placement of the children with G.J. (See § 361.3, subd. (a)(2).) As to the "wishes" of G.J. (see ibid.), the court reiterated that initially G.J. was only interested in placement of Ja.K., and that "some of her actions throughout the course of the case suggest that is her primary goal in this case." As to the "wishes" of the children (see ibid.), including as expressed through their guardian ad litem, the court found they "adamantly do not wish to be placed with her." In making this finding, the court noted the children's wishes did not control. It also noted Ja.K. did not make a "wholesale change" regarding placement in February 2017, after the physical punishment issue came to light.

Regarding placing the children in the same home as their siblings (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(4)), the court found that G.J. would strive to maintain the children's relationship with D.C., but that G.J. did not have a close relationship either with twins Mn.E. and Mh.E. or their caregiver C.E.

Regarding G.J.'s moral character (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(5)), the court found two issues concerning. First, although noting G.J.'s convictions were very old, the court did not find her testimony credible that she pleaded guilty to a crime she did not did commit, "particularly for prostitution, which had — had a stigma attached to it." The court stated it was not considering G.J.'s other conviction, as she acknowledged it.

Second, the court found concerning G.J.'s "lack of veracity regarding her interactions with the social worker." The court found G.J. untruthful when she described the "nature and extent of her conversations with social worker Medina, or her claims about events that occurred at other court hearings, or her claims that she was — she had expressly had a conversation with social worker Saenz about placement in the spring of 2016."

With respect to the "nature and duration" of the relationship between G.J. and the children and her desire to provide them permanency (see § 361.3, subd. (a)(6)), the court found G.J. overstated her "role in the children's life prior to their removal." To support this finding, the court noted that, although G.J. clearly loves the children and took them on outings, mother did not consider her to be "a significant figure or a support to the mother vis-à-vis the children, at a time when the mother was being thoroughly investigated for allegations regarding exposure of the children to abuse and neglect." In addition, the court found that, because reunification by parents had been unsuccessful, permanency for the children was an important factor, and that, while it had "no doubt that [G.J.] would do so . . . as to [Ja.K., the court was] less convinced as to her commitment [to] the other two [boys]."

In finding this factor did not support placement with G.J., the court also stated it had "some slight concerns" that if the children were placed with G.J., "ultimately, she might permit the other two children [i.e., Je.K. and L.C.] to go to other relatives."

As to G.J.'s ability to exercise "proper and effective care and control" of the children (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(B)), the court considered G.J.'s testimony that Ja.K.'s demeanor completely changed after he had placed with the caregivers and that G.J. was disturbed by Ja.K.'s and Je.K.'s willingness to help around the house during visits, their asking for permission, and their concern about not getting in trouble. The court noted that while G.J. believed Ja.K. was more "carefree" before dependency, "that was a time where the children were not — were in a home that was chaotic and not fully meeting their needs. [¶] The evidence also reflects that they were in a home where the mother was clearly overwhelmed, engaged in drug use and domestic violence, and that the children were at times out of control. [¶] While this, too, is not something upon which [its] decision is laid, it is a mild concern as to [G.J.'s] interpretation as to what the children need. And essentially, what she has told the court is that she would like them to be freer and not as concerned about rules."

Regarding G.J.'s ability to protect the children from parents (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(7)(D)), the court found this factor also did not support G.J. It noted on the one hand, G.J. claimed she had frequent contact with the children, but on the other hand also claimed to have been unaware of the ongoing domestic violence and drug abuse in parents' home, despite her report to Medina in connection with Agency's August 26, 2015 detention report that mother and father were always fighting and their relationship was "destructive" and "messy."

The court found the overarching issue — the children's best interest (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(1)) — also did not support placing them with G.J. In support of this finding, the court noted G.J. had little relationship with L.C., and, while she asserted Je.K. had "issues," it found she was unfamiliar with the causes. Regarding Ja.K., although G.J. claimed to have insight into this child based on her testimony he underwent a "complete personality change" while in the caregivers' home, the court found there was no other evidence before it to support this claim, and G.J. never raised this concern with Agency, Keitel or minor's counsel.

To the contrary, the court found there was overwhelming evidence showing Ja.K. was "doing extremely well" in the caregivers' home, as summarized in detail ante. The court thus found G.J. not "truthful" on this issue.

As was the case with T.C., the court found G.J. was very biased against the caregivers, particularly Yolanda. While the court recognized G.J.'s frustration regarding Agency's delay in evaluating her home for placement, during the hearing it heard her make "multiple comments and side comments" about Yolanda and how Yolanda was responsible for "complicat[ing] things without concern for the appreciation that there must be visitation rules." While not "ignoring the issue of physical discipline," the court found the evidence "clearly" demonstrated the caregivers had met the children's daily needs, and had included parents' relatives in the children's activities and lives, including G.J. The court thus rejected G.J.'s view that Yolanda was trying to break up the family.

Removal

The court next turned to the section 388 petitions separately filed by mother and father during the lengthy placement hearing. In denying both the petitions, the court found that removing the children and placing them in a relative home or in a licensed foster home would not be in their best interest.

In so doing, the court noted Keitel continued to believe the children's best interest was to remain placed with Yolanda and Bryan even after the physical punishment issue arose and despite acknowledging the law, "for good reason," gives "preferential treatment to relatives" for placement. The court acknowledged the increase in risk to the children as a result of the use of physical punishment by the caregivers.

In making these findings, the court noted it had spent "hours and hours contemplating" the evidence in this case, both through the lens of sections 361.3 and 388; that despite the increased risk, the children were doing "exceedingly well" in the care of Yolanda and Bryan; that they had made "extraordinary progress in the community and in their school environments"; that Ja.K. and Je.K. "verbalized great security" in the presence of the caregivers, even when the two boys acknowledged they could live elsewhere; that the use of physical punishment was not ongoing or even recent, but rather "historical"; that although very concerning, the use of such discipline was limited, as it was based on one report in February 2017, despite the children being exposed to and having "constant access to numerous mandatory reporters and an attorney who could share reports, and who has an ethical duty to do so"; that Yolanda and Bryan over the years had helped mother and the children even before they were placed in the caregivers' home and had done so without any "ulterior motive" as suggested by the relatives; that Agency was to continue "close monitoring" of the children, including by making "frequent unannounced visits" to the caregivers' home in light of the increased risk; and that over the course of about 24 months, there had been myriad visits by Agency social workers, both announced and unannounced, and other than the one reported incident, there had been no other instances or reports of physical punishment in the home.

DISCUSSION

I

Relative Placement

A. Guiding Principles

"When a child is removed from his or her parents' custody under section 361, the juvenile court places the care, custody, control, and conduct of the child under the social worker's supervision. (§ 361.2, subd. (e).) The social worker may place the child in several locations, including the approved home of a relative. (§ 361.2, subd. (e)(1)-(8).)" (Alicia B. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 862-863 (Alicia B.).)

As the juvenile court here repeatedly recognized, " '[s]ection 361.3 gives "preferential consideration" to a relative request for placement, which means "that the relative seeking placement shall be the first placement to be considered and investigated." (§ 361.3, subd. (c)(1).)' (Cesar V. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1033.) The intent of the Legislature is 'that relatives be assessed and considered favorably, subject to the juvenile court's consideration of the suitability of the relative's home and the best interests of the child." (In re Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708, 719 (Isabella G.), italics omitted.)

In considering whether to place the child with a relative, "[t]he Agency is required to assess those relatives seeking placement according to the factors described in section 361.3, subdivision (a) and must document those efforts in the social study prepared under section 358.1." (Isabella G., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 719, italics omitted.) When the juvenile court considers "whether to place the child with a relative, [it] must apply the placement factors, and other relevant factors, and exercise its independent judgment concerning the relative's request for placement." (Ibid.) "The linchpin of a section 361.3 analysis is whether placement with a relative is in the best interests of the minor." (Alicia B., supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at pp. 862-863.)

In addition, the relative preference applies at both the dispositional phase when a child is removed from parental custody, and if "a new placement . . . must be made" thereafter. (§ 361.3, subds. (a) & (d).) A relative may seek placement under section 361.3 after the dispositional phase by filing a section 388 petition, as was the case here. (See Isabella G., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 722, fn. 11.) Even if the request is made during the reunification period, however, the juvenile court assesses the request under the factors set forth in section 361.3, subdivision (a), which the court did here with respect to each of the relatives' petitions, in contrast to the generalized best interest standard found in section 388, which the court applied in considering and ultimately denying the respective petitions of mother and father. (See Isabella G., at p. 722, fn. 11.)

A child's placement with a relative is governed by the factors set forth in subdivision (a) of section 361.3, which provides: "(a) In any case in which a child is removed from the physical custody of his or her parents pursuant to Section 361, preferential consideration shall be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative, regardless of the relative's immigration status. In determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate, the county social worker and court shall consider, but shall not be limited to, consideration of all the following factors: "(1) The best interest of the child, including special physical, psychological, educational, medical, or emotional needs. "(2) The wishes of the parent, the relative, and child, if appropriate. "(3) The provisions of Part 6 (commencing with Section 7950) of Division 12 of the Family Code regarding relative placement. "(4) Placement of siblings and half siblings in the same home, unless that placement is found to be contrary to the safety and well-being of any of the siblings, as provided in Section 16002. "(5) The good moral character of the relative and any other adult living in the home, including whether any individual residing in the home has a prior history of violent criminal acts or has been responsible for acts of child abuse or neglect. "(6) The nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the relative, and the relative's desire to care for, and to provide legal permanency for, the child if reunification is unsuccessful. "(7) The ability of the relative to do the following: (A) Provide a safe, secure, and stable environment for the child. (B) Exercise proper and effective care and control of the child. (C) Provide a home and the necessities of life for the child. (D) Protect the child from his or her parents. (E) Facilitate court-ordered reunification efforts with the parents. (F) Facilitate visitation with the child's other relatives. (G) Facilitate implementation of all elements of the case plan. (H)(i) Provide legal permanence for the child if reunification fails. (ii) However, any finding made with respect to the factor considered pursuant to this subparagraph and pursuant to subparagraph (G) shall not be the sole basis for precluding preferential placement with a relative. (I) Arrange for appropriate and safe child care, as necessary. "(8) (A) The safety of the relative's home. For a relative to be considered appropriate to receive placement of a child under this section on an emergency basis, the relative's home shall first be assessed pursuant to the process and standards described in Section 361.4."

Preferential consideration under section 361.3 is not, however, "an evidentiary presumption in favor of a relative, but merely places the relative at the head of the line when the court is determining which placement is in the child's best interests." (In re Sarah S. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 274, 286 (Sarah S.); see In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 321 (Stephanie M.) [noting "the court is not to presume that a child should be placed with a relative, but is to determine whether such a placement is appropriate, taking into account the suitability of the relative's home and the best interest of the child"]; In re R.T. (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1295 (R.T.) [same].)

We review the court's placement orders pursuant to section 361.3 under the abuse of discretion standard of review; the court is given broad discretion and its findings and determination will not be disturbed absent a manifest showing of abuse. (Sarah S., supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 286; see Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318 [noting "when a court has made a custody determination in a dependency proceeding, ' "a reviewing court will not disturb that decision unless the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination [citations]" ' "].) Thus, a court of review "should interfere only ' "if we find that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court's action, no judge could reasonably have made the order that [it] did." ' [Citations.]" (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067 ["evaluating the factual basis for an exercise of discretion is similar to analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence for the ruling"].)

B. Analysis

G.J. argues the court erred in finding it was in the best interests of the children to remain living with their caregivers, as opposed to being removed from their care and placed with her. Specifically, she argues that, because the risk to the children increased as a result of the caregivers' use of physical punishment, the court should have placed them with her, where no such risk existed. She further argues the court erred because it ignored both the fact that the caregivers had lied under oath about the use of such punishment and that the children had been coached by the caregivers to recant their allegations of physical punishment.

At the outset, we note G.J.'s contention is simply a request for this court to reweigh the evidence, in what is a voluminous record, and make new findings and credibility determinations even if substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's myriad findings, which as summarized ante, it explained in detail with references to the evidence supporting them. This we cannot do. (See In re K.B. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 972, 979 (K.B.); In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53 [noting as trier of fact, it is the juvenile court's role to assess the credibility of the witnesses and to weigh the evidence to resolve conflicts in the evidence and noting it is not within the purview of a court of review "to judge the effect or value of the evidence, to [re]weigh the evidence, to consider the credibility of witnesses or to resolve conflicts in the evidence"]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [same].)

Turning to section 361.3 and the factors set forth in subdivision (a), we conclude the court did not abuse its broad discretion when it found the best interest of the children was to remain placed with Yolanda and Bryan.

Regarding the best interest of the children (§ 361.3, subd. (a)(1)), G.J. argues the "three young boys are not safe in the caregivers' home." This argument, however, also ignores another fundamental rule of appellate review that we also must follow: when an appellant such as G.J. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellant must set forth "all material evidence on the point" and not merely state facts favorable to appellant. (See Stewart v. Union Carbide Corp. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 23, 34 (Stewart), disapproved on another ground as stated in Webb v. Special Electric Company, Inc. (2016) 63 Cal.4th 167, 188; see also K.B., supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 979.)

In finding the best interest of the children was to remain placed with caregivers Yolanda and Bryan, as summarized ante the record shows the juvenile court went into substantial detail on the issue of physical punishment of the children by the caregivers, which it found very troubling, as does this court. The court found that Yolanda had physically punished Je.K. when he was first placed in the home; that the use of physical punishment had been "historical" and "not . . . frequent or often repeated"; and that neither Ja.K. nor Je.K. had been "coached" by the caregivers to recant their statements of being physically punished in subsequent interviews with Keitel or in their in-chambers testimony in the placement hearing. We note G.J. largely ignores these findings, and the evidence on which they were based, in arguing the court erred in applying the various factors in section 361.3, subdivision (a). (See Stewart, supra, 190 Cal.App.4th p. 34; see also K.B., supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 979.)

Moreover, the record shows that in connection with these findings, the court relied heavily on Keitel's testimony, which it found very credible, and Agency reports. The court found Keitel immediately investigated the issue of physical punishment when these allegations surfaced on February 2, 2017. After interviewing Ja.K. and Je.K. at school, Keitel went to the caregivers' home and had a face-to-face meeting with Bryan, who admitted Yolanda had used a belt to spank Je.K. when he was first placed in their home in August 2015 because he had been unruly and disruptive. The record shows Keitel also spoke to Yolanda about this issue, re-interviewed the children and came to the conclusion that, while there was an increased risk to the children, that risk did not outweigh the benefits of keeping the children in the care of Yolanda and Bryan, despite the fact Agency then had other placement options for the children.

To further support its finding the use of physical punishment was historical and infrequent, the court recognized the children had been in dependency for almost two years and thus, had been involved in myriad interviews with social workers, lawyers, Voices for Children liaison, school counselors and other "mandatory reporters." The court noted other than the one disclosure by Ja.K. and Je.K. on February 2, there had been little or no other evidence of physical punishment used by the caregivers on the children. In addition, the court relied on Agency reports, Keitel's testimony, and its own observations of the in-chambers testimony of both boys, who were seated about four feet away, in finding at no time did either child show any sign of being fearful of Yolanda and/or Bryan or in distress when testifying regarding this issue.

The court also noted that when either Ja.K. or Je.K. felt pressured, they were able to verbalize their concerns. The court noted both children separately testified they felt uneasy during a visit with G.J. when she had suggested they speak to the social worker about longer/additional visits with her. Ja.K. testified this request made him feel "nervous" because he did not want longer visits with G.J. and he did not want to tell the social worker something that he did not want.

We further note that in making its findings in connection with the best interest factor, the court stated it would order Agency to continue to make unannounced visits to the caregivers' home, interview the children, and check them for any bruises or other marks to ensure they were not being physically punished by the caregivers.

Although concerned about the caregivers' use of physical punishment on foster children in their care, it is clear from the record that the court thoroughly considered this issue. The court also found the children were thriving in the care of Yolanda and Bryan, which finding is supported by overwhelming record evidence including the testimony of social workers Medina, Saenz, and Keitel; Agency reports; reports and feedback from the children's teachers and school administrators; the caregivers' testimony; and the reports of the CASA liaison, among other evidence. Exercising its broad discretion, the court thus found that, despite the increased risk to the children, it was still in their best interest to remain placed in their caregivers' home, a finding that is supported by ample record evidence. (See Isabella G., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 719.)¹¹

11 We note the evidence in the record is undisputed that mother used physical punishment on the children prior to removal, including giving the children "whoopings" with a "switch and a belt" as described by Ja.K. in the August 26, 2015 detention report. Ja.K. reported that mother would hit him "on the arm, butt and everywhere"; that it " 'really hurt[]' "; and that it left marks on his body. We further note from the record that none of the children's relatives criticized mother for using such punishment on her own children, or otherwise expressed concern of her use of such punishment while the children were living in the family home.

Regarding the next factor, the wishes of the parents and, if appropriate, the child or, in this case, the children (§ 361.3, subd. (2)), the record shows mother in August 2016 requested her family in Ohio be considered for placement of the children, about a year after the children went into protective custody. The record shows this request coincided with Agency's recommendation that her services be terminated. Mother's reason for requesting placement of the children with maternal relatives was because they "were her 'blood relatives," a phrase that resonated with the juvenile court and one that was often repeated throughout the course of the placement hearing (and on appeal, as noted in case No. D072797). As an alternative, mother stated she wanted the children placed with G.J., as noted.

As to father, the record shows immediately after the August 17 domestic violence incident he suggested to social worker Medina that his mother, G.J., was willing to take-in Ja.K., his only biological child of the three boys. More than a year after his reunification services were terminated (i.e., in April 2016), and despite "being absent from the children's lives almost from the inception of this dependency case," father in July 2017 filed a section 388 petition, as noted, seeking removal of the children from the caregivers and placement of them with G.J. or in licensed foster care.

As to the wishes of the boys, the court found both Ja.K. and Je.K. were competent to testify, as each child clearly knew the difference between the truth and a lie and each child understood the purpose of the hearing when they testified. The court found that it was very clear that both Ja.K. and Je.K. wanted to continue living with Yolanda and Bryan, a finding we note is amply supported by the record.

Indeed, the record shows Ja.K. and Je.K. repeatedly told social workers, the court, their CASA, sibling D.C., and many others throughout the two-year dependency that they wanted to remain living with Yolanda and Bryan. The court found particularly relevant Ja.K.'s testimony that he felt as if no "no one [was] listening" to him when he said he wanted to remain in the care of Yolanda and Bryan. Although L.C. was not yet as verbal as his older brothers, the record shows, and the court found, he too displayed all the signs of being bonded to his caregivers, as he was affectionate to them and they with him, and he often refused, or had to be coaxed, to leave Yolanda, and obviously the comfort she provided him, before relative visits.

Moreover, the court found Je.K. stated he did not want to live with G.J., as he found visits with her "boring." Ja.K., as noted by the court, was a bit more ambivalent than his brother, but also stated his desire was to continue living with Yolanda and Bryan. We thus conclude the court properly exercised its broad discretion in finding this factor supported keeping the children in the care of Yolanda and Bryan. (See Isabella G., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 719.)

The record shows the court considered the legislative preference that a removed child be placed with a relative (see § 361.3, subd. (a)(3)), but nonetheless found, in the exercise of its discretion, that it was not in children's best interest to remove them from Yolanda and Bryan. As noted, the relative placement preference statute neither creates an evidentiary presumption that such a placement is in the child's best interests (R.T., supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 1295) nor does it guarantee such a placement. (In re Joseph T., Jr. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 787, 798.) The preference simply places the requesting relative at the front of the line in deciding among available placements. (R.T., at pp. 1295-1296.)

Regarding placement of the children with "siblings" or "half siblings in the same home" (see § 361.3, subd. (a)(4)), the court generally found G.J. would continue to facilitate contact between the children and their older sibling D.C., who lived in Ohio with T.C. and T.D.C. As to the twins living in San Diego, the court found G.J. had little or no relationship with them or their relative caregiver, C.E. The record supports the finding that this factor was not particularly germane to the best interest analysis.

The court also found the "good moral character" factor (see § 361.3, subd. (a)(5)) weighed against G.J. Although the court recognized G.J. pleaded guilty for prostitution in 1967, it nonetheless was concerned by her testimony she was innocent of this charge, despite pleading guilty to it. As the trier of fact, the court was entitled to consider this conviction and evaluate G.J.'s credibility in denying guilt, just as it was entitled to disregard her 1968 conviction for forgery, which the court found she acknowledged. (See Sarah S., supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 286; see also In re Precious D. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1258-1259 (Precious D.) [noting the credibility of a witness is a question of a fact for the trier of fact, not a court of review], disapproved of on another ground as stated in In re. R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 624.)

The record shows the court also found this factor weighed against G.J. based on what it found was her lack of truthfulness when testifying about the nature and extent of her communications with social workers Medina and Saenz, including during phone calls and at court hearings about such subject matters as placement. The court instead found the testimony of Medina and Saenz credible.

Specifically, it found G.J. had only one conversation with Medina on the morning when the children were removed, as the evidence is undisputed that father immediately left the apartment after the first phone call between Medina and G.J. had ended; that Medina had no contact with G.J. at the detention hearing, and thus found G.J. had not confronted the social worker seeking placement of the children with her, as G.J. testified; and that G.J. in spring 2016 did not speak to Saenz about placement of the children in her home, as the issue then was finding a relative or someone else to supervise mother's visits with the children, after it was determined she had put the children at risk during unsupervised visits. Again, as trier of fact, the court was entitled to believe or disbelieve the testimony of these various witnesses and decide the weight, if any, afforded it. (See Precious D., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1258-1259.)

As to the "nature and duration" of the relationship between G.J. and the children and her desire to provide them permanency (see § 361.3, subd. (a)(6)), the court's findings that paternal grandmother had "little to no relationship" with L.C., and not a substantial relationship with Je.K., are supported by substantial evidence. Indeed, the record shows when G.J. first requested placement after the domestic violence incident on August 17, she limited that request to Ja.K. only, as he was father's only biological child out of the three boys, and wavered on whether she also would take-in L.C. Despite G.J.'s testimony to the contrary, the court found she did not include Je.K. in that initial request.

In addition, the record shows the court was concerned that, if the children were placed in her care, G.J. might be willing to allow two of the boys (i.e., ostensibly Je.K. and L.C.) to live with other relatives. There is evidence in the record to support this finding, as G.J. made clear in her testimony that she was in a "long battle" for the children and wanted the children placed in her own home or with "their other grandmother."

In addition, the court found neither Ja.K. nor Je.K. wanted to visit with G.J., whom they referred to as "Gloria." While G.J. blamed this behavior on Yolanda's alleged influence over the boys, the court found otherwise, noting G.J. had overstated her involvement and interaction with the children and was also strongly biased against the caregivers.

G.J. claimed prior to dependency that she had frequent contact with the children, noting it was sometimes three times per week. However, the record shows in the months leading up to the August 17 domestic violence incident, when Agency was receiving and investigating multiple referrals involving this family, mother did not identify G.J. as a member of her support network. The record also shows G.J. did not participate in the "safety mapping" meeting in May 2015, despite the fact both mother and father, G.J.'s son, were told that they could invite family and friends to the meeting in order to assist the family. This evidence also supports the court's finding that G.J. overstated her contact and involvement with the children prior to dependency.

As additional support for its finding and credibility determination, the court had trouble reconciling G.J.'s testimony that, prior to dependency, she was in frequent contact with the children, as noted, with the fact she claimed not to have known about the ongoing domestic violence and drug abuse in parents' home, which led to their removal from parents, even though G.J. at the outset of dependency told Medina that parents were always fighting and described their relationship as "destructive" and "messy."

Moreover, the record shows when removed, L.C. was just over a year old and thus unable to verbalize, and Je.K. was not quite four years old and was also not able to verbalize, as noted in Agency's August 26, 2015 detention report. This was not the case with Ja.K.: he then was about five years and was able to verbalize not only about the domestic violence incident on August 17, but also about the events leading up that incident.

Specifically, the August 26 detention report summarized a conversation between Medina and Ja.K. that took place on August 18, the day after mother had been arrested. The August 26 report noted Ja.K. disclosed that mother and father had been fighting and hitting each other during the August 17 incident; that "every time" father came to mother's home, parents' fought; that Ja.K. "felt sad and scared" when parents' fought; and that on an earlier occasion, father had tried to "cut" mother while she had tried to hit father "in the face."

The August 26 detention report also summarized an Agency interview involving Mh.E., who was then seven years old. She reported that mother "whooped" her twin brother Mn.E. when he got in trouble; that a "whoopen" was "being hit using a hand"; that she did not get a "whoppen[]' because she [was] good"; that when she was at mother's home, mother would fight with her "step-father 'Donald' "; that she knew mother and Donald "hit each other" but that she had not witnessed it because she took her brothers into her room "so her brothers [were] not hit" when parents' fought; that sometimes mother and Donald fought in the mornings, but mostly in the evenings; and that she became scared when they fought.

This evidence — and the reasonable inferences in support thereof — supports the court's finding G.J. was less than credible regarding her involvement with mother and her six children prior to dependency, as the record clearly shows that Mh.E. and Ja.K. were able to articulate the chaos they were experiencing in parents' home; that there were multiple referrals regarding this family in the months leading up to the August 17 domestic violence incident; but that G.J. claimed to have little to no knowledge of the domestic violence and drug issues in that home, despite her testimony she saw the boys — and their older siblings — often.

And there's more. As noted, the court found G.J. had a strong bias against the caregivers, and in particular Yolanda. G.J. testified she was in a "battle" for the children and claimed Ja.K. told her not to stop "fighting" for the removal of him and his brothers from Yolanda and Bryan.

The court found G.J.'s strong bias against Agency concerning because G.J. refused to acknowledge the children actually were thriving in their caregivers' home and instead believed the children were actually better off and more "happy-go-lucky" living in "chaos" with mother prior to dependency. The court also found this bias led to G.J.'s belief that once in the care of Yolanda and Bryan, Ja.K. had undergone a "complete personality change" for the worse.

However, the court noted that this view was not shared by anyone else, including the social workers who had met with Ja.K. myriad times over the course of the two-year dependency; his teachers and school administrators; his CASA liaison; and others in the community who frequently interacted with him and his brothers. These individuals all found Ja.K. was thriving after being placed with the caregivers. We thus conclude substantial evidence supports the court's finding that G.J.'s motivation in "fighting" for the children was more about removing the children from their caregivers, than placement of the children in her own home.

As to the last factor (see § 361.3, subd. (a)(7)), as noted ante the court found it was concerned about G.J.'s ability to protect the children from parents (id., subd. (a)(7)(D)), given that G.J. was seemingly unaware, despite testifying she had frequent and ongoing contact with the children prior to dependency, of the repeated instances of domestic violence in the family home, which per father began when mother became depressed in 2012, or about three years before the August 17 incident.

In conclusion, we reject G.J.'s repeated requests for this court to reweigh the evidence and the credibility of the multiple witnesses who testified in this prolonged placement hearing, and make new findings when the juvenile court's findings are supported by ample record evidence. (See K.B., supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 979; Precious D., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1258-1259.) It is clear from the enormity of the appellate record, as summarized in this opinion, that the issue of the best interest of the children was thoroughly litigated in this case. We therefore conclude the juvenile court properly exercised its broad, independent discretion in denying G.J.'s placement request. (See Isabella G., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at p. 719.)

II

Parents' Respective Section 388 Petitions ¹²

12 Agency argues parents lacked standing to challenge the denial of the relatives' various placement requests. (See In re K.C. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 231, 238 [concluding a parent only had standing in an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights to challenge an order concerning a dependent child's placement "if the placement order's reversal advances the parent's argument against terminating parental rights"].) Because we reached the merits of parents' respective claims, we decline to address the standing issue. --------

Parents separately contend the court erred in refusing to remove the children from the home of the caregivers and placing them either with T.C. (mother's first choice), or with G.J. (father's first choice). We disagree for the reasons already provided in detail above, in connection with G.J.'s section 388 petition, or in the related appeal of T.C., case number 72797.

DISPOSITION

The court's order denying G.J.'s section 388 petition is affirmed.

BENKE, J. WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J. HUFFMAN, J.