Opinion
B318187
11-01-2023
In re CASSANDRA T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. LEANNE A., Defendant and Appellant. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 20CCJP05237 Lisa A. Brackelmanns, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.
Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CHAVEZ, J.
Leanne A. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order denying an evidentiary hearing on her petition filed pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. The section 388 petition sought an order dismissing the underlying dependency petition concerning Cassandra T. (born December 2007) pursuant to section 390. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining that mother failed to make the necessary prima facie showing to obtain a hearing on her petition, therefore we affirm the order.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The family
The family consists of mother, Joseph T. (father), Cassandra, and Cassandra's adult sister Deanna T. Mother and father were married in 2001 and legally separated in 2010. Mother intends to divorce father. Cassandra has resided with mother.
Father is not a party to this appeal. His whereabouts were unknown for the duration of the case.
Initial referrals and investigation
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received two referrals regarding mother's adult daughter Deanna and mother. On September 23, 2020, a referral was made regarding Deanna, who gave birth to J.T. on September 20, 2020. Deanna had a long history of mental health issues, including two psychiatric hospitalizations in the previous year, multiple suicide attempts, and attempts to strangle Cassandra. Deanna was struggling with anxiety and called mother due to fear she may accidentally hurt her baby. Deanna resided in a sober living home. Mother brought Deanna and J.T. to stay with her for the night. Mother was reported to have a long history of mental health issues.
On September 29, 2020, DCFS received a companion referral regarding mother. It was reported that J.T. was likely to be detained from Deanna, prompting mother to threaten harm to staff at Deanna's home, stating if "someone messes with the baby" she would bring a shotgun. Mother is former military and there was concern she had access to weapons. She was reported to be hostile and aggressive with staff and child protective workers. There was concern for Cassandra's well-being.
Investigation and removal
A review of the records revealed that mother had been in the military and was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Mother saw a therapist to deal with those issues.
The family had a history of DCFS referrals. In March 2012, it was alleged that Cassandra pushed her sister off the bed causing an injury to then-minor Deanna's ankle. It was further alleged mother yelled at Deanna and hit her with a belt.
In June 2014, a referral alleged a male classmate inappropriately touched Deanna. Mother believed Deanna made up the incident, and the two attended counseling.
In July and August 2019, separate referrals were made regarding Deanna strangling and choking Cassandra on different occasions, and Deanna attempting to strangle herself with an exercise rope.
On August 26, 2020, a reporting party alleged Deanna had concerns about Cassandra in mother's care. Deanna disclosed Cassandra's living conditions were not clean, and she was told not to shower due to the water bill. In the past, mother had coached Deanna and her sister to lie to child protective services. Deanna also alleged she and mother had a history of smoking "weed" together and that they used to go to parties together and have parties in the home. The referral was investigated and deemed inconclusive.
On September 30, 2020, a DCFS social worker spoke with Deanna's therapist, who said mother was somewhat unstable. Deanna was concerned about Cassandra because Deanna was abused growing up. On two occasions, mother had verbal altercations with staff at Deanna's shelter. Mother also threatened if anyone "messed with" Deanna's baby, mother "would be ready with a shotgun." Deanna claimed her baby, J.T., was a product of Deanna being raped by her boyfriend. Mother reportedly used drugs with Deanna and her boyfriend on the night Deanna was raped. Mother wanted to send Deanna's boyfriend pictures of the baby, and there was speculation mother had an affair with the boyfriend.
The social worker visited mother at her home in the company of three sheriff's deputies due to mother's military background and threat to use a shotgun. During the visit mother's behavior was erratic and escalated quickly. Mother asked questions about the allegations, yelled and argued with the deputies, and appeared to have trouble regulating her emotions. Mother spoke loudly at times, walked with her fists clenched in a downward fashion, and held her arms straight down. Mother said she was upset and she did not want to hurt anyone, but said this in an aggressive manner with her fists clenched and voice raised. Mother claimed to have PTSD.
Mother was placed in handcuffs and patted down for weapons. Mother said she was groped, but the social worker did not observe the female deputy grope mother. A member of the Sheriff's Mental Health Evaluation Team, and later a Department of Mental Health (DMH) employee, arrived on the scene to speak to mother.
Mother acknowledged an officer had come to her home the previous night, but said things were okay and her daughter was perfectly fine. Regarding the threat of a shotgun, mother reported she did not have any weapons of which she was aware. Mother did not recall saying that she would hurt someone if something happened to her grandson.
Mother was taken to the hospital to be psychiatrically evaluated. Mother was hospitalized due to her lack of emotional regulation and the statement about the shotgun. There was concern about how mother would react if she discovered her grandson was going to be detained.
Cassandra was interviewed. She had also spoken to social workers in the past. She felt safe in the home, and stated mother would never do anything to hurt her. She could not remember what happened when the police came the previous evening because she "has a hard time remembering stuff from before."
Cassandra said she got good grades and was never hit or spanked. She denied being afraid of anyone except Deanna's exboyfriend, who got Deanna pregnant without her consent and had been calling and texting. Cassandra was concerned for J.T. because she feared the ex-boyfriend could get angry and hurt them.
Cassandra said the family had been homeless in the past, and the house belonged to her grandfather (MGF). She denied sexual abuse and said if anyone touched her inappropriately she would "beat the shit out of them." Cassandra denied current drug use in the home, but said "they" used to eat cannabis edibles and regular cannabis, but no longer. It is unclear from the report to whom "they" referred. Cassandra had not known her mother to threaten anyone with a gun. She denied mother ever becoming aggressive and said when mother is angry she clenches her fists. Cassandra admitted the family had mental health problems.
During the interview Cassandra was made aware that J.T. had been detained from Deanna and became upset. Cassandra began pacing and said she "needed to get mad," and needed to punch something.
MGF, who resided in the home with Cassandra and mother, was interviewed. He denied owning weapons or knowing mother to own any weapons. He said mother drank very little. She may have used marijuana once or twice but he believed it was very little. Mother took prescription medication for pinched nerves. Mother was "somewhat disabled" and received pain management from the Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA).
MGF said Cassandra could have a temper but was in therapy and was close to mother. He added that her hygiene was not the best, but it was normal for her age. MGF believed Cassandra was safe with mother. MGF did not know Cassandra to have trouble remembering things. He said her grades were good before the COVID-19 pandemic, but were not as good now. Mother and Cassandra both had tempers and argued. Three or four years ago, they had a physical fight, but not recently.
Maternal grandmother did not live in the home with mother, Cassandra and MGF. She was unaware of any weapons in the home. She denied any concerns about substance abuse and agreed mother struggled to regulate her emotions, but stated mother was connected with therapists and doing much better.
On October 1, 2020, the social worker spoke on the phone to mother, who was at the VA hospital. Mother said her emotional state was brought on by the police being at her home. She believed the officers were going to shoot her and one of them groped her. The social worker informed mother that Cassandra was going to be detained, and a plan was being made to release Cassandra to MGF. Mother became upset, raised her voice, and said her mental capacity would be fine if DCFS "stopped being in her life." When the social worker asked mother if she had any information regarding Native American heritage, mother became frustrated and asked, "What does that matter?" Mother said she was insulted and hung up the phone.
As Cassandra's safety was of immediate concern due to mother's erratic and aggressive behavior, threats regarding her grandson, and her inability to regulate her emotions, Cassandra was placed in protective custody with a plan to reside with MGF.
Section 300 petition and removal
On October 2, 2020, DCFS filed a petition pursuant to section 300 on behalf of Cassandra, alleging that mother suffered from mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of PTSD, paranoia, suicidal ideation and aggressive behavior including making terrorist threats, rendering her incapable of providing the child with regular care and supervision. The petition further alleged that mother was involuntarily hospitalized for the treatment of mother's psychiatric condition, and that mother's mental and emotional problems endangered Cassandra's health and safety and placed her at risk of harm.
Mother was present at the detention hearing on October 7, 2020. She was provided counsel and entered a general denial. The court detained Cassandra from mother and placed her with MGF. Over DCFS's objection, the court granted mother unmonitored visits with Cassandra in a public setting on the condition that mother engage in mental health services.
Initial reports
During a January 7, 2021 interview of mother by the investigating social worker, mother said she believed the situation was out of proportion. When the social worker arrived mother saw three police officers at her door, who mother thought were going to pull their guns on her. She tried to remain calm and told the officers that she did not want to hurt anyone, but the officers told her she was going to be handcuffed due to her body language. Mother requested an attorney and to speak to her psychologist to help her calm down. Mother also asked to call the VA crisis line. Her requests were refused. Mother said she tried to remain calm but she felt like a "bear being poked." Mother said she would have been able to calm down if she had been allowed to speak to a therapist familiar with her medical history. Cassandra was present during the incident, but mother was unaware of Cassandra's reaction.
Mother told the social worker she did not own any firearms and only had a Swiss army knife and utility tools. She claimed the statement about the shotgun was directed at Deanna's exboyfriend who had caused problems for Deanna. Mother claimed she would not shoot anyone because she had no means to do so.
Mother was involuntarily hospitalized for two days and then voluntarily hospitalized herself for two to three days because she had a lot of anxiety and anger. Mother reported the social worker wanted to know about her ethnicity when all mother wanted to know was how her child was doing, causing her to become upset.
Mother was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, unspecified obsessive-compulsive disorder, and PTSD. She had been in treatment for five years and took psychotropic medication. Mother was willing to participate in services. When asked about her perception of the family's needs, mother responded, "Not to say stupid things in front of mandated reporters."
Mother's roommate, Rebecca, was interviewed. Rebecca was present during the incident but was told to stay inside. From the back room she could hear mother yelling "at the top of her lungs." Rebecca called MGF to come home and try to calm mother down. He arrived but was not able to calm mother. Rebecca had never seen mother act that way and found it shocking. Rebecca believed mother's PTSD and anxiety escalated due to the presence of law enforcement. Prior to that incident, Rebecca never observed mother act in an aggressive manner towards anyone. Rebecca had heard mother and Cassandra yell at each other over homework issues, but Rebecca believed Cassandra was safe with mother. Rebecca had never seen weapons in the home.
MGF was interviewed. He described mother as a calm person "for the most part" who had always taken care of Cassandra without any problems. A few years earlier, mother had become upset because she believed MGF was favoring the maternal uncle, and she "lost her cool." Cassandra was present at the time and told MGF not to say or do anything because mother would control herself and cool down, which she did. After that, mother began participating in mental health services at the VA. MGF had not observed mother's behavior escalating to a point where intervention was needed.
On the night of the incident when MGF arrived, mother was handcuffed and surrounded by police. She was yelling that she wanted her therapist. MGF said mother was not aggressive towards anyone and that Deanna made untrue statements. MGF observed that Cassandra was happy with mother, and he had no concerns about Cassandra being returned to mother's care.
Cassandra did not want to be interviewed by the investigating social worker and when the social worker attempted to interview her, she began to have anxiety and became upset. Due to Cassandra's emotional state, the interview was not conducted. Cassandra was 13 years old and in 7th grade. Cassandra did not do well with online schooling and had been participating in therapy for about two years. She was diagnosed with ADHD, depression, and anxiety, and was taking psychotropic medication. Mother was concerned because Cassandra had social anxiety and did not want to leave her room or the house. Mother visited Cassandra consistently, participating in unmonitored visits for a minimum of six hours. Mother sometimes took Cassandra with her to work delivering food. The child returned in good spirits and wanted to return to mother.
DCFS assessed the risk to Cassandra as moderate and recommended that Cassandra be declared a dependent of the court and returned to mother with services in place.
In a last minute information for the court filed January 25, 2021, DCFS provided letters from mother's service providers. Dr. Chung, a VA psychiatrist, provided a letter stating that mother was treated for a chronic mental health-related illness, was compliant with all treatment recommendations, and had demonstrated progress during the last couple of years.
Dr. Motiwala, a VA staff psychologist, provided a letter saying mother received treatment for anxiety and depression and attended a "DBT skills training group" weekly. Mother's psychologist, Dr. Potts, provided a letter showing mother was actively engaged in therapeutic services, making good progress, and consistent with her appointments. Dr. Potts stated no further psychotherapy was recommended for mother due to her progress and she was ready to practice her skills on her own with ongoing support in group therapy.
Jurisdiction and disposition hearings
On January 26, 2021, the juvenile court held a jurisdiction hearing. Mother was present. The juvenile court found the allegations of the petition to be true and sustained the petition as amended. The juvenile court placed Cassandra in mother's care pending the disposition hearing.
The amended allegation under section 300, subdivision b, read: "The Child Cassandra [T.]'s mother . . . suffers from mental and emotional problems including a diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, paranoia, suicidal ideation and aggressive behavior including making terrorist threats, which renders the mother periodically incapable of providing the child with regular care and supervision. On 9/20/20, the mother was involuntarily hospitalized for the evaluation and treatment of the mother's psychiatric condition. The mother's mental and emotional problems endanger the children's [sic] physical health and safety and place the child at risk of serious physical harm, damage and danger."
On February 25, 2021, the disposition hearing was held. Cassandra was declared a dependent of the court and released to home of mother under DCFS supervision. Mother was ordered to continue with mental health services and comply with all prescribed psychotropic medications. DCFS was ordered to refer wrap around and therapeutic behavioral services for Cassandra.
Status reports
Cassandra adjusted well to being back in mother's home, but concerns related to Cassandra's mental health had increased. She demonstrated increased isolation behaviors, social anxiety, irritability, and depression. Cassandra required constant redirection to engage in wrap around services, but was compliant with psychotropic medication.
Mother was cooperative, respectful, and motivated. She participated in individual counseling, dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) groups directed at anger management, and a parenting program. Mother advocated for Cassandra's mental health and highlighted the importance of Cassandra continuing mental health services.
Mother's parenting program facilitator reported that mother was an active participant and a great advocate. Mother's DBT program coordinator reported that mother met her treatment goals, actively participated, and made a tremendous amount of progress. Mother remained compliant with her psychotropic medication.
Cassandra reported feeling safe in mother's care. Mother consistently communicated with Cassandra's service providers to seek guidance and advocated for Cassandra's mental health needs. Mother requested continued support from Cassandra's wrap around team. The juvenile court continued the section 364 hearing to allow for mother to complete her parenting program and to allow wrap around services to continue to provide support.
On August 31, 2021, Cassandra's mental health team was contacted due to a crisis. Cassandra wanted to stay home for a "mental health day" and disclosed to her therapist that she experienced auditory hallucinations that had become increasingly overwhelming. The voice commanded her to kill herself, although she did not have a plan. Cassandra was admitted to a mental health center on September 1, 2021, and was discharged six days later. She was diagnosed with major depressive disorder with psychotic features and prescribed psychotropic medication.
In a status review report dated November 18, 2021, Cassandra was reported to be comfortable, healthy and stable in mother's home and was addressing her ongoing mental health concerns. She had demonstrated progress since her hospitalization, was engaged in mental health services, and remained compliant with medication.
Mother was cooperative, respectful, and motivated. She was participating in a parenting program, had completed her DBT group, and was consistent with her medication. Mother was in compliance with her case plan and consistent with her mental health services.
DCFS assessed the level of risk in the home to be moderate and recommended the case be closed.
Review hearing and termination of jurisdiction
The juvenile court held a section 364 review hearing on November 18, 2021. The court found the conditions justifying the initial assumption of jurisdiction under section 300 no longer existed and were not likely to exist if supervision were withdrawn. The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction and stayed the order pending the receipt of a juvenile custody order on November 29, 2021. The juvenile custody order hearing was subsequently continued until January 29, 2022.
The court order erroneously reflects a continued hearing date of January 29, 2021.
Mother's section 388 petition
On January 26, 2022, mother filed a section 388 petition requesting a change to the juvenile court's January 26, 2021 order sustaining the section 300 petition. In lieu of the order sustaining the petition, mother asked that the court dismiss the petition pursuant to section 390. Mother argued that section 390 "allows for dismissal of a petition . . . when the court finds the interests of justice and the welfare of the child require dismissal and the parent is not in need of treatment or rehabilitation."
As to changed circumstances, mother asserted since the time that the juvenile court took jurisdiction over Cassandra, the "minor has remained safely in the care of mother and mother has complied with court orders." As to Cassandra's best interests, mother argued that it was in Cassandra's best interests "not to have the sustained petition on her or her mother's records." Mother contended that it "may disqualify the mother from jobs she is seeking" and that financial stability is critical to mother's ability to support Cassandra. Mother also noted the "stigma" of the finding against mother could affect Cassandra's "education, mental health, and future court involvement."
Mother's counsel filed an accompanying motion pursuant to section 390. Mother's counsel argued that a dependency case "can cause barriers to employment, including excluding a parent from working with children in the school system or as a health aide." Mother was "interested in looking for stable employment in those fields." As to Cassandra, the motion highlighted Cassandra's mental health problems and argued it is in Cassandra's best interests to have the petition dismissed "so that she is not saddled with the association of once being a 'dependent of the court.'" Counsel argued that the judge terminated jurisdiction over the minor less than a year after taking jurisdiction and noted that there is no evidence the mother is in need of further rehabilitation.
Juvenile custody order hearing
On January 28, 2022, the juvenile court held a custody order hearing. Mother appeared.
The court heard argument on mother's section 388 petition. Counsel for DCFS argued mother had both failed to make a prima facie showing of a change of circumstances and that granting the petition would be in the child's best interest. Counsel argued this was a serious case and the harm identified was speculative. It was further noted that jurisdiction had already been terminated when the petition was filed and the order was merely stayed pending receipt of the juvenile custody order.
Counsel for Cassandra joined in the argument of DCFS. Cassandra's counsel pointed out that section 390 is used at disposition hearings and that California Rules of Court, rule 5.695(a)(1) addresses the juvenile court's ability to dismiss a petition at disposition.
California Rules of Court, rule 5.695(a)(1) provides: "At the disposition hearing, the court may: [¶] (1) Dismiss the petition with specific reasons stated in the minutes ...."
The juvenile court denied mother's section 388 petition without a hearing, noting it did not see evidence of a change in circumstances suggesting the court should not have sustained the petition at the adjudication or that dismissing the petition was in the best interest of the child. The court observed, "I think it's important that this dependency history be intact." The court found mother had failed to make a prima facie showing pursuant to section 388.
Appeal
On January 28, 2022, mother filed a notice of appeal from the denial of a hearing on her section 388 petition and dismissal of her motion under section 390.
DISCUSSION
I. Applicable law and standard of review
Section 388 allows a parent to petition the juvenile court for a hearing to "change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously made" on the grounds of "change of circumstance or new evidence." (§ 388.) The petitioning party bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence there is new evidence or changed circumstances and that the requested change is in the best interests of the child. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.)
The parent seeking modification or change of order must "make a prima facie showing to trigger the right to proceed by way of a full hearing." (In re Anthony W. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 246, 250.) "To make a prima facie showing under section 388, the allegations of the petition must be specific regarding the evidence to be presented and must not be conclusory." (In re Alayah J. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 469, 478.) "A 'prima facie' showing refers to those facts which will sustain a favorable decision if the evidence submitted in support of the allegations by the petitioner is credited." (In re Edward H. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 584, 593.) "If the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not show changed circumstances such that the child's best interests will be promoted by the proposed change of order, the dependency court need not order a hearing." (Anthony W., supra, at p. 250.) We review the juvenile court's summary denial of a section 388 petition for abuse of discretion. (Anthony W., supra, at p. 250.) Under this standard, we will not disturb the reviewing court's decision "'"unless the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination ...."'" (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318.)
Mother's petition in this matter specifically sought dismissal of the petition pursuant to section 390. "Filing a section 388 petition to terminate dependency jurisdiction under section 390 is entirely proper." (In re Samuel A. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1, 8.) A petition may be dismissed under section 390 if "the court finds that the interests of justice and the welfare of the minor require the dismissal, and that the parent or guardian of the minor is not in need of treatment or rehabilitation."
Section 390 "'dismissals are rare and usually occur only when the goal of protecting the child has been achieved without court intervention.'" (In re Carl H. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 1019, 1038, reh'g denied Feb. 22, 2017, review denied Apr. 12, 2017.) The denial of a request to dismiss a dependency petition pursuant to section 390 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (In re K.S. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 327, 339.) Generally, "the juvenile court is vested with '"very extensive discretion in determining what will be in the best interests of a child,"' and that determination will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of that discretion." (Id. at p. 340.)
II. No abuse of discretion occurred
In order to obtain a hearing on her section 388 petition, mother was required to make a prima facie showing of (1) new evidence or changed circumstances requiring the proposed change of order and (2) that the proposed change of order promotes the child's best interests. (§ 388, subd. (a)(1); In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.) The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining that mother failed to make the required showing in this case.
A. New evidence or changed circumstances
"Not every change in circumstance can justify modification of a prior order. The change in circumstances must relate to the purpose of the order and be such that the modification of the prior order is appropriate." (In re S.R. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 864, 870.) A change in circumstances sufficient to create a prima facie case must be material to the parent's requested change of order. (In re N.F. (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 112, 120.)
Here, the juvenile court did not err in determining that mother's asserted changed circumstances did not justify the requested order. Mother simply restated the circumstances described in DCFS's reports, showing mother's participation in services and cooperation with her case plan. Mother's completion of her case plan and continued compliance with the court did not constitute changed circumstances or new evidence unknown to the court. These circumstances were well known to the juvenile court, which relied on them when terminating jurisdiction. Further, mother's completion of her court-ordered programs does not suggest that the court should engage in a retroactive dismissal of the petition. Instead, it suggests that the sustained petition and subsequent proceeding successfully addressed the issues that brought the child within the dependency system.
In her section 388 petition, mother asked that the section 300 petition be dismissed pursuant to section 390. Section 390 addresses a specific situation. It allows the juvenile court to "dismiss the petition" or "set aside the findings and dismiss the petition" if such action is in the interests of justice and "the parent or guardian of the minor is not in need of treatment or rehabilitation." (§ 390.) Mother failed to show that she was not in need of treatment or rehabilitation, as required by the statute. Instead, she highlighted that she had fully participated in, and successfully completed, court-ordered treatment. A parent who successfully completes treatment is not the same as a parent who is not in need of treatment at all. Mother set forth no evidence that she was not in need of the treatment she received. Thus, mother's purported changed circumstances were not relevant to her proposed change of order. She failed to show changed circumstances "such that the modification of the prior order [was] appropriate." (In re S.R., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 870.) The juvenile court did not err in determining that mother had failed to make a prima facie case of material changed circumstances.
Mother cites In re Jeremy W. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1413-1414, for the proposition that the juvenile court could deny mother a hearing "only if the application fails to reveal any change of circumstance or new evidence which might require a change of order." In Jeremy W., the mother sought to set aside an order terminating her reunification services. Her new evidence included evidence that she had "abstained from substance abuse for more than one year, had continued therapy at her own expense and had exhibited no psychological impediment to her parenting ability, and evidence Jeremy desired to be with his mother." (Id. at p. 1413.) Given that a petition must be liberally construed, the Jeremy W. court found this evidence sufficient to meet the changed circumstances or new evidence prong because it showed a "favorable change in the single negative factor on which the referee purported to base his section 366.21 order." (Id. at p. 1416.) Jeremy W. is distinguishable in that the mother did not seek to dismiss the petition entirely under section 390. Her changed circumstances were relevant to the order she sought to change-the order terminating her reunification services. As set forth above, mother's purported changed circumstances in this case were not material to the change of order she sought. Mother's compliance with her case plan, participation in court-ordered programs, and successful reunification with her daughter did not "require the change of order" dismissing the petition under section 390. (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).)
Mother argues that her evidence showed she was no longer in need of treatment or rehabilitation, therefore her request to dismiss pursuant to section 390 was appropriate. Mother cites In re Samuel A., supra, 55 Cal.App.5th at page 7, as support for her argument that the court may dismiss the appeal where the parent is not in need of treatment or rehabilitation. Samuel A. does not assist mother in this matter, as it involved a reversal on a procedural ground. It does not suggest that mother's evidence was sufficient in this case to require a hearing on mother's section 388 petition. Section 390 is relevant where a parent "is not in need of treatment or rehabilitation." Thus, as set forth above, it is mainly used "'when the goal of protecting the child has been achieved without court intervention.'" (In re Carl H., supra, 7 Cal.App.5th at p. 1038.) That is not the case in this matter. Mother underwent significant treatment while Cassandra was a dependent of the court. Her successful completion of those programs, such that treatment is no longer needed, is not a criteria for dismissal of the petition under section 390.
Mother cites In re D.B. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1080, 1093, for the proposition that she need only produce "'material evidence that, with due diligence, the party could not have presented at the dependency proceeding at which the order, sought to be modified or set aside, was entered.'" Mother argues that the order she seeks to set aside is the January 26, 2021 order sustaining the dependency petition and that her new evidence, showing conditions justifying the initial assumption of jurisdiction no longer existed, meets the standard set forth in D.B. Thus, mother argues, she met her burden of showing new evidence and a change of circumstances. However, as the D.B. court also pointed out, any such change in circumstances "'must relate to the purpose of the order and be such that the modification of the prior order is appropriate.'" (Ibid.) Mother's new evidence does not suggest that modification of the order sustaining the dependency petition is appropriate. On the contrary, it suggests the sustained petition, and consequent court-ordered services, were proper.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in determining that mother failed to show material changed circumstances requiring her requested change of order.
B. Best interests of the minor
The record supports the juvenile court's determination that mother failed to make a prima facie showing that dismissal of the section 300 petition in this matter was in Cassandra's best interest. Mother mainly focused on her own potential difficulty working in certain fields. The best interests of mother are not at issue in a section 388 petition. A parent's "focus on how [she] believe[s] the dependency proceedings reflect poorly on [her] misconstrues the purpose of juvenile court dependency jurisdiction." (D.M. v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1129.) "'The purpose of the California dependency system is to protect children from harm and preserve families when safe for the child.'" (Ibid.) Thus, mother's concern about finding work in the future was not a proper factor for the juvenile court to consider.
Further, mother's argument that the sustained petition may jeopardize her ability to work in childcare or home health care was highly speculative. Mother provided no evidence that she had been passed over for any specific jobs. In order to merit a hearing, mother was required to make "specific" allegations "regarding the evidence to be presented and . . . not be conclusory." (In re Alayah J., supra, 9 Cal.App.5th at p. 478.) Mother's statements that she might potentially have an interest in pursuing employment in the school system or as a health aide, and that a sustained dependency petition may "cause barriers" to such employment, were vague and conclusory. Thus, they were insufficient to warrant a hearing.
Mother points to Cassandra's mental health problems as grounds for dismissing the petition, arguing that being a former dependent of the juvenile court could "stigmatize and prejudice" her. However, as the juvenile court noted, the record showed Cassandra's well-being was furthered by the sustaining of the petition and mother's and Cassandra's participation in programs ordered by the court. Contrary to mother's position, Cassandra is safeguarded by having the sustained petition on the record in the event that further intervention is needed in the future.
The record showed a number of prior referrals for the family. Mother and Cassandra both suffered from serious mental health conditions. Mother's condition made her periodically unable to provide appropriate care for Cassandra. Cassandra was in need of an attentive caregiver to advocate for Cassandra's own mental health needs, and mother was not consistently able to provide such care prior to the dependency proceeding.
Additionally, there was evidence in the record that Cassandra was not always willing to offer information to social workers. Deanna alleged mother had coached her and Cassandra to lie to child protective workers in the past. Cassandra declined to speak to a social worker in this matter because she was too anxious and upset. In addition, when interviewed by a social worker early in the proceeding, Cassandra claimed not to remember an incident with mother the previous night, although MGF did not believe Cassandra had any memory problems. Due to Cassandra's reticence, it was in her best interest to preserve the sustained petition and a full and accurate record of the family's child welfare history.
Mother argues that in order to obtain a hearing on her petition, she was only required to show that her proposed change of order might be in the child's best interest. Mother cites In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 526, footnote 5, as support for her position that she need only provide evidence that "the best interests of the child 'may be promoted'" by her request. Even under this this broad standard, we decline to find the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding Cassandra's best interests were not served by mother's proposed change of order. There was ample evidence in the record that juvenile court intervention was necessary to protect Cassandra, that mother was in need of the services provided, and that maintaining the full record of the proceedings served Cassandra's interests.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother a hearing on her section 388 petition. The court's determination that mother failed to set forth a prima facie case under section 388 was well within the limits of its legal discretion.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
We concur: ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P.J., HOFFSTADT, J.