Opinion
B228838 Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK55261
08-15-2011
In re BRITTANY C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ELSIE C., Defendant and Appellant.
Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Timothy M. O'Crowley, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anthony Trendacosta, Court Commissioner. Affirmed.
Lori Siegel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Timothy M. O'Crowley, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Elsie C. (Mother) appeals from the dependency court's denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and its finding that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) provided reasonable reunification services. We affirm the order.
All further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is the fourth appeal involving this family. In order to place the dependency court's ruling in proper context, it is necessary to understand how this case has unfolded. We take some of the facts from our last opinion.
Craig C. (Father) and Mother have seven children: Christopher (born 1994), twins William and Kyle (born 1999), and quadruplets Brittany, Heidi, Collette, and Wesley (born 2001). The family has been the subject of 30 referrals to DCFS.
As we explained in a prior opinion, since the inception of this case, Christopher has taken on a female persona and prefers to be referred to as Chris. As the parties and reports now refer to the child as a female named Chris, to maintain consistency and to avoid confusion we will do the same.
"In October 2008, some of the children alleged that Father sexually abused them and claimed other siblings engaged in substantial sexual conduct with each other. William and Collette accused Father of having sexual contact with Chris in their presence. Other children said that Mother physically abused them and coached them to tell lies against Father. What followed was an ongoing feud, fueled by Father's and Mother's domestic discord. The children hurled accusations at their parents and each other. In time, it became extremely difficult to ascertain fact from fantasy.
"In January 2009, DCFS filed a petition, alleging sexual abuse by Father and physical abuse by Mother. At the March 2009 contested jurisdictional hearing, the court heard testimony from Chris, William, and Kyle. The court recessed the hearing, stating that the quadruplets would testify the next day. The following day, the court and counsel had a meeting in chambers. The petition was amended and the court found that the severe family conflict placed the children at risk of serious physical and emotional harm. Chris was allowed to remain in Father's home and the other children were placed in the care of DCFS. The children were to be provided with counseling by a licensed therapist and visitation was to be monitored in a neutral therapeutic setting. Father appealed from the jurisdictional and dispositional orders, which we affirmed. (In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73.)
"In June 2009, Mother filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition requesting that conjoint counseling with the quadruplets begin immediately and that she be allowed unmonitored visitation. A July 1 hearing on her visitation request was set.
"The July 1 interim report continued to chronicle what has been clear from the outset of this case. Mother, who favors the twins, has had issues with the quadruplets and their relationship continues to deteriorate. In March 2009, after hearing Mother talk 'incessantly' about the twins, a social worker asked about Mother's relationship with the quadruplets. Mother said, 'Oh, Wesley he can go back with the father, he does not have to come here. He will try to ruin my life.' She claimed that Wesley hated her. In the same conversation, Mother asked the social worker's opinion about whether the quadruplets' foster mother would be interested in becoming their legal guardian. Not surprisingly, the ill will has been mutual. The social worker who visited the quadruplets at their foster home reported that "'the children have stated repeatedly how they do not wish to visit with their mother giving reasons that range from her being "evil" to "our mother hates us and says mean things to us when no one is looking.'" The children frequently contacted the social worker and pleaded with her not to force them to visit Mother. The social worker explained to them that the visits were court ordered. The children reluctantly continued to go to the visits, however, the foster mother reported that at times they were taken 'kicking and screaming.'" (In re Brittany C. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1343, 1346-1347, fns. omitted.)
Matters did not improve. In an August 2009 report, children's social worker Loretta Federico wrote that each of the quadruplets told her separately that he or she did not want to visit Mother. At the time, visits were being held at a foster family agency. On one occasion, Mother refused to come in because the quadruplets' foster mother was present. Mother left without visiting. The following week, Mother was 15 minutes late. She asked the children if they wanted to visit. She told them that if they did not, she could go to work. Given the choice, the children decided not to complete the visit.
As an example of Mother's preference for the twins, during the same month that Mother was unwilling to visit the quadruplets, she completed two 9-hour unmonitored visits with the twins without incident. On the day Mother refused to enter the foster family agency to visit the quadruplets, she had the twins with her. The day after she asked the quadruplets whether they wanted to visit with her, she took the twins to Soak City and Knott's Berry Farm.
"Federico attended the August 29 visit. When Federico arrived, she noticed, once again, that Mother was waiting outside the agency in the car. It was apparent to Federico that Mother was not going to come in as long as the foster mother was present, so Federico asked the foster mother to leave. During the ensuing visit, the quadruplets began confronting Mother, [according to Federico's report], 'frequently all talking, shouting or crying at the same time.' Although it was difficult, Federico attempted to document all of the children's comments. She wrote down almost 40 statements. The quadruplets accused Mother of hitting them with various objects, lying in court and about Father, encouraging them to tell lies about Father, preferring the twins, allowing the twins to abuse them, and telling a former babysitter to hit them. Federico reported that just prior to the visit, Chris, who had completed a visit with her siblings and Father, said that the quadruplets were telling the truth about what home life with Mother was like." (In re Brittany C., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 1348.)
Recognizing that counseling was essential to the goal of reunifying the family, Federico, who has been assigned to this case from virtually the beginning, sent letters to several agencies requesting therapeutic counseling services for Mother and the quadruplets. Only one responded positively. However, that agency was 27 miles from the children's foster home and Federico believed the long commute would cause the children to fall further behind in their school work. As it was, they were currently receiving special education services.
From as early as September 2009, Mother has requested that the court move the quadruplets from their foster home. Mother is convinced that the foster mother is the source of the difficulties Mother has with the quadruplets. In a section 388 petition seeking the removal of the children from the foster mother's home, "Mother alleged that her 'progress is threatened because the current foster home placement for [the quadruplets] has been interfering with mother's visitation with [them], and [the foster mother] has been coaching the quadruplets against their mother. The placement has [led to] unfounded accusations against the mother.' Mother accused the foster mother of making false claims against her and asserted that she was the reason Mother had missed 18 visits with the quadruplets." (In re Brittany C., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 1349.) The petition was summarily denied on September 18, 2009. Mother appealed.
"The September 24, 2009 status review report included several letters written by the quadruplets addressed to various individuals and the court. Each expressed a desire not to visit with Mother and accused her of abuse. In the report, another social worker, Tinita Dorsey, observed 'that the family continues to act as a dysfunctional unit in that the parents continue to favor not all, but only particular children, ones they wish to reunify with.' Dorsey informed the court that Father said he would first like to have the quadruplets return to his care because they 'are not as messed up as the twins.' Father claimed Mother 'brainwashed' the twins, leading them to tell lies about him. In Dorsey's opinion, Mother continued to seek reunification 'mostly with the twins Kyle and William.'
"At the September 24, 2009 six-month review hearing, the matter was continued to November 9 for a contested hearing. On November 9, the hearing was put over to November 16.
"The report prepared for the November hearing advised the court that the quadruplets' counseling sessions had been terminated, but Federico was able to convince the provider to resume them. Conjoint counseling between Mother and the quadruplets was to begin in November. When advised of the prospect, the children immediately expressed their disdain for the idea, questioning why they were being asked to maintain contact with a person who had abused them. Collette, Heidi, and Brittany told Federico that Father continued to have anger issues. He screamed at the children and the foster mother. All of the children said they did not want to return to their parents' home. Federico wrote that she 'has never dealt with children who are so adamant about going home. As the court knows, children almost always want to go home, regardless of the type or severity of the abuse.'
"The scheduled November conjoint counseling session did not occur because Mother cancelled after learning the therapist was not licensed. Mother protested despite the fact that the same therapist had been counseling the twins since May of 2009, and believed that they could safely return to Mother's home.
"In a December report for the contested six-month review hearing that was then scheduled for December 10, Federico advised the court that problems during visitation continued. During two visits, Father became embroiled in disputes with social workers at the foster family agency, during which he threatened and verbally abused them. One worker became so concerned that she contemplated calling the police. Because of Father's constant quizzing of them and his outbursts, the quadruplets stated that they were afraid of Father and no longer wanted to visit with him. Attached to the report were letters the quadruplets wrote to the judge imploring him to help. They expressed fear of their parents, a desire never to return to their home, and a wish to remain with their foster mother. Based on input from the staff at the foster family agency, who cited safety and security concerns, DCFS recommended that future visits be held in a therapeutic setting and limited to one hour per week (visits had been two hours weekly)." (In re Brittany C., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1349-1350.)
In December 2009, the quadruplets began conjoint counseling. The plan was to have one child and one parent participating at a time. By the time of the contested six-month review hearing held on December 10, Mother had had one brief session with Collette. A second session scheduled for January 5 was cancelled by Mother on the day before the hearing. She stated that Kyle had a doctor's appointment.
Weekly monitored visits were ordered to take place at the DCFS office. During the first scheduled visit on December 16, Collette and Wesley became tearful and agitated at the prospect of joining their parents in the visiting room. The visit was cancelled because Federico and her supervisor believed that it would be emotionally harmful to force the children to complete the visit. "Federico opined that 'beyond physically picking them up kicking and screaming there would have been no way to get them into a room.' A December 17 visit involving Heidi, Brittany, and the parents was canceled after the children said they did not want the visit to take place." (In re Brittany C., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at p. 1351.)
At a January 7 progress report hearing, the court explained to the quadruplets that it was ordering the children to visit and to participate in counseling. Each child acknowledged that he or she understood. The court amended the visitation order by directing that visits were to be conducted in a therapeutic setting.
Mother appealed from the September 2009 denial of her section 388 hearing and the January 7 orders. We affirmed. (In re Brittany C. (Oct. 18, 2010, B220605, B222771) [non. pub. opn.].)
"After the January 7 hearing, the conjoint therapy between the parents and the quadruplets continued. It was agreed that Federico would transport the children to the clinic in order to avoid a reprise of the December incident when they refused to get out of the foster mother's van.
"On March 8, 2010, the therapist, Joey Tadie, sent a letter to Federico outlining the children's progress. Tadie planned to conduct 20-minute sessions between one child and one parent. However, the children 'continued to be extremely reluctant to meet with their parents. None of the children were able to sit in the same room with either parent for longer than 8 minutes, as they each became extremely upset and ran out of the room. Other times, they refused to enter the room and would instead stand in the hallway outside the therapy room.'
"When shortening the sessions proved unsuccessful, Tadie changed their format. The 'children were no longer asked to interact with their parents, but would instead participate in a short activity with the therapist (e.g.[,] small ji[g]saw puzzle, drawing) while the mother or father sat across the room, observing quietly.' Although Heidi and Brittany were able to remain in the room for the allotted time, Collette and Wesley were not. Instead, 'both screamed obscenities at their parents, accused them of molesting them, would not follow therapist instructions, knocked over furniture and bolted from the room.' In addition, Heidi demonstrated passive-aggressive behavior by drawing a picture of father being eaten by a shark and writing the words 'f... You.'
"Tadie set forth the reasons for Collette's and Wesley's anger. In several sessions, they accused Mother 'of abusing them by hitting them and touching their "private parts," but she has disputed this by saying that there is no evidence of abuse and that the children have been "brainwashed."' This scenario was played out during every session the two children had with Mother, including one at which Mother was instructed not to verbally respond to them. The children reacted to Mother's denials by becoming extremely agitated. They would curse at Mother, call her names, and run out of the room screaming.
"Tadie concluded that '[t]he children do not appear to be currently able to benefit from conjoint sessions with either of their parents and neither children, parents [n]or the relationship between them is yet benefitted by these sessions.' He recommended individual therapy for the children and conducting further visits when the therapist determined that sufficient progress had been made. Tadie suggested that conjoint therapy with Heidi, Brittany, and the parents could continue. However, at that point, such therapy was not an option for Collette and Wesley.
"As for the parents' role in problems that arose during therapy, Tadie noted that the sessions had become 'very unpredictable and difficult to manage. [¶] This unpredictability is compounded by the parents' repeated claims that the children are being influenced by their foster mother to make accusations against them. . . . [¶] Although the children's mother and father have both stated they will cooperate with therapy, the mother has consistently denied that she abused the children in any way and has openly disagreed with the children's claim during conjoint sessions.'" (In re Brittany C., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1351-1352.)
Unfortunately, the sibling visits fared no better. A February 2010 visit between the twins and quadruplets degenerated into a shouting match between William and Wesley. During a scheduled visit between Chris and the quadruplets, a confrontation ensued with the quadruplets accusing the parents of misconduct and Chris denying that it took place. The quadruplets left the premises, necessitating the intervention of several Torrance police officers after social workers could not locate the children.
At a March 15 hearing, the court ordered Dr. Michael Dishon to prepare an evaluation of the family pursuant to Evidence Code section 730.
"A conjoint therapy session among Brittany, Heidi, and the parents took place on March 18. After the session, Brittany became agitated and questioned why she was being forced to see her parents. On March 25, Collette and Wesley had individual sessions scheduled with Joey Tadie. That day, Tadie called Federico and told her that the children had refused to go into the room with him. Tadie said he and the clinic director were going to discuss therapy plans for the children.
"On March 26, Tadie called and stated that he and the clinic director felt that the agency could no longer provide adequate services for the children. The episode on the prior day with Collette and Wesley convinced Tadie that the children had been unable to establish a trusting relationship with him. He suggested that the children work with an individual therapist until such time as the therapist believes conjoint therapy should resume.
"On March 29, the court learned the quadruplets were beginning weekly individual therapy sessions. Visitation and conjoint therapy was suspended. The matter was continued to May 5, 2010. The court wanted 'written reports from the therapist and a recommendation about when we can start the therapeutic visitation and conjoint counseling.'" (In re Brittany C., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1353-1354.)
Father, Mother, and Chris appealed from the juvenile court's visitation order. We dismissed Chris's appeal due to the failure to file a timely notice of appeal and affirmed the order. (In re Brittany C., supra, 191 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1354-1359.)
The May 5, 2010 interim review report noted that the quadruplets were continuing to participate in individual counseling. The therapist, Yanira Torrez, informed DCFS that the children were not ready for parental conjoint therapy sessions to take place. Attached to the report were letters written by the children, wherein they stated they would kill themselves if forced to return to their parents' home or removed from their current foster placement.
On May 21, 2010, the court set a June 10 date to hear a section 388 petition Mother had filed on April 26. In the petition, Mother sought the resumption of conjoint therapy and visitation and the placement of the quadruplets in a different foster home. Mother made various accusations against the foster mother and alleged that she "has interfered with mother's visitation and reunification with the quadruplets."
The hearing date was continued several times awaiting the completion of the Evidence Code section 730 psychological evaluation by Dr. Dishon. On September 15, the court, having received Dr. Dishon's report, ordered DCFS to address the findings in his evaluation. On September 27, DCFS filed a report responding to Dr. Dishon's findings. We will discuss the doctor's report in detail when addressing Mother's contentions. A new date of October 6 was set, at which time the court would conduct a combined section 366.22 and section 388 hearing.
On October 6, 2010, the quadruplets were brought individually into chambers and informally discussed his or her feelings about the case in the presence of the court and counsel.
Collette referred to her parents by their first names, Craig and Elsie. She accused Mother of striking her and said both parents "touched" her. Collette said it was "okay" that they hit her, but not that they touched her. She stated, "And I want them to know that that's how I feel, and that's not what I want for my life. And if you guys want me, I'm sorry. I don't want to go back." In response to the court's question, Collette said she hated her parents and did not "want to be near them ever in my life." Collette also expressed a desire not to see Chris and the twins, alleging that they did "nasty stuff, too." She said she was happy living in her foster home and did not want to leave. She loved her foster mother, who she referred to as "Mommy."
Wesley said he did not "want and respect my parents because they did horrible stuff [to] me and it's not fair what they did to me. But I forgive the hitting, but I don't forgive the touching."
Brittany also referred to her Mother as Elsie. She accused Mother of feeding her nothing but rice, forcing her to scrub the floors too often and locking her in the closet when she did not listen. Brittany said she did not want to visit her parents because they hit her. She said her parents already had too many chances to have the children returned to their home.
Heidi told the court she was "living in a good home right now." She stated, "I don't want to meet my parents because they've been touching my privates, they were hitting me. And that's all I think I need to say." Heidi did not want to see Chris or the twins. She accused Kyle of "doing sex" with her and stated, "Christopher had sex with Craig, my dad."
The parties reconvened in court. No further witnesses were called and the court received DCFS's and Dr. Dishon's reports. Among the reports was the latest assessment by the quadruplets' therapist, Yanira Torrez. Torrez called Federico and stated she was very concerned about Wesley, who told her that he had thoughts of homicide and suicide. When Torrez questioned him, Wesley said he wanted to kill his parents and he did not care if he lived or died. Heidi told Torrez that she had thought about stabbing herself with scissors, but did not follow through, fearing the foster mother would get in trouble. Torrez said Collette was very anxious and asked what was going to happen to them.
After the call, Federico went to the foster home to speak with the children. The children expressed fear of their parents. They complained that the court had heard only Heidi's testimony at a prior hearing. They expressed concerns that they were not believed by anyone. Collette and Wesley wanted to know exactly what was going to happen at the upcoming hearing. Federico told them she did not know, but assured the children that the judge and the attorneys were aware of their feelings.
After admitting the reports, the court announced its tentative ruling, indicating that the "unique and special circumstances" of the case justified extending reunification services for another six months. It proceeded to hear the parties' arguments.
In the dependency court and on appeal, most of the discussion revolved around the quadruplets' placement. The parents insisted that the foster mother was to blame for the intransigence of the quadruplets. The parents accused the foster mother of coaching the children to make up false stories of abuse and to refuse visitation with the family. They cited language in Dr. Dishon's report that suggested the foster mother was an impediment to reunification. They contended that DCFS's failure to find a more suitable home for the quadruplets represented a failure to provide reasonable reunification services.
DCFS's and minors' counsel took exception with Dr. Dishon's critical assessment of the foster mother. They argued she had done an exceptional job under difficult circumstances and that removing the quadruplets from her home would cause them to suffer extreme emotional harm.
The court concluded that DCFS's efforts were "extraordinary," noting the difficulties the case presented. Apparently reluctant to give up, the court extended reunification services, hoping to diminish the harsh feelings the quadruplets felt toward the rest of their family. It noted, "I think we ought to try. Even if reunification is never going to happen. . . . There needs to be something that we can do hopefully to move the relationship from one of nuclear war [to something less volatile]."
The quadruplets were brought into the courtroom. The court explained it was hopeful the children would reach a stage where they could at least visit with their parents and siblings. The attorneys agreed to work with Federico to craft a workable visitation plan. The court ordered continued placement in the current foster home. This timely appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. The Court Properly Denied Mother's Section 388 Petition
Mother contends the dependency court "abused its discretion in denying [her] section 388 petition to the extent she requested the court order the children moved from [the foster mother's] home and placed in a foster home more likely to facilitate, rather than interfere with, [her] reunification efforts."
"A party may petition the court under section 388 to change, modify or set aside a previous court order. The petitioning party has the burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) there is a change of circumstances or new evidence, and (2) the proposed change is in the child's best interests." (In re Jackson W. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 247, 257.) "The grant or denial of a section 388 petition is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly established. [Citation.] A trial court exceeds the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd determination. [Citation.]" (In re Shirley K. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 65, 71.)
DCFS argues that Mother failed to demonstrate a change of circumstances, thus justifying the court's denial of her motion. It notes that Mother has filed repeated section 388 petitions and urges that her latest filing merely repeats her claims of foster mother's misconduct. Mother counters that "DCFS fails to consider the telling Evidence Code section 730 psychological evaluation which was conducted by Dr. Dishon and admitted into evidence in support of Mother's section 388 petition." We agree with Mother that Dr. Dishon's report constitutes new evidence in support of her claim that the quadruplets' placement is no longer appropriate.
Citing extensively from Dr. Dishon's report, Mother contends there is overwhelming evidence that the quadruplets must be moved from their current placement. "Dr. Dishon concluded he 'did not find [the foster mother] to offer suitable placement, nor an ability to facilitate reunification.'" Mother quotes other passages from the report that are highly critical of the foster mother and asserts the dependency court "seemingly ignored Dr. Dishon's negative opinion of [the foster mother] and her detrimental interfering with this family's reunification goals." Mother urges the court abused its discretion by disregarding the expert's opinion. Her claim is without merit.
Mother wholly ignores her burden to demonstrate that removal of the children from their current placement is in their best interest. She focuses on the perceived "fact" that the foster mother is making reunification difficult, without addressing the effect of moving the quadruplets to a new foster home on their lives.
Initially, we reject Mother's implicit argument that the court was required to accept the uncontroverted expert's opinion that the foster mother's home was not an appropriate placement for the quadruplets. A trier of fact, provided he or she does not act arbitrarily, may reject the uncontradicted testimony of an expert witness. (Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 890.) A review of the facts demonstrates that the court had good reason to question the evaluator's conclusions.
Federico was present during Dr. Dishon's interview with the quadruplets. According to Federico's report, when Collette told Dr. Dishon that if he made her go back to her parents she would kill himself, "Dr. Dishon chuckled at her and said, 'You're not going to do that.'" When Collete insisted she would stab herself immediately if Dr. Dishon gave her a sharp instrument, Dr. Dishon told her that she would not, speaking in what Federico described as a "very dismissive tone."
In discussing the case, the court made it very clear that in its view, the quadruplets were "way fragile and way damaged before they ever came [to court] and before they ever got to [the foster mother]." Federico's observations of Dr. Dishon's interaction with Collete explains the trial court's statement with regard to his findings: "And it's disingenuous to argue on the one hand that if Dr. Dishon's saying that [the foster mother] is an inappropriate person and we should take Dr. Dishon at face value[,] [t]hen I should take Dr. Dishon at face value that the children's claims and mental health issues are to be laughed at." Clearly, the court was implying that Dr. Dishon missed the mark if he believed the quadruplets' problems were little more than a figment of their imaginations. The court's refusal to blindly accept Dr. Dishon's conclusions was hardly arbitrary.
This brings us to the heart of the matter. Did Mother prove that the proposed change was in the quadruplets' best interest? No. Indeed, she has never addressed the question. Mother simply argues that the children's current placement is detrimental to her hope of reunification and assumes a forced move will not cause them to suffer physical or emotional harm. Her view is belied by the evidence.
Several facts cannot be ignored: (1) the children have made serious allegations of abuse; (2) Mother's continued denial of the children's claims has caused them to remain angry and to want nothing to do with their parents or siblings; (3) the quadruplets believe Mother favors the twins; (4) Mother's behavior has validated that concern; (5) attempts to force visits have been disastrous; (6) a trained therapist could not continue conjoint therapy; (7) the quadruplets' current individual therapist does not believe they are ready to participate in conjoint therapy; (8) the quadruplets are happy with their current placement and, more importantly, have expressed that dire consequences will ensue if they are forced to move; and (9) while the current therapist and social worker are genuinely concerned that the quadruplets' threats to do harm to themselves and others are real, Mother views the threats as nothing more than the musings of spoiled children.
Mother dismisses the quadruplets' concerns by stating that there was no expert testimony establishing they would suffer emotional distress if separated from their foster mother and criticizes the court for simply giving undue weight to the children's desire to remain in their current placement. She fails to grasp that it was her burden to establish the proposed change is in the children's best interest. DCFS had no obligation to prove that moving the quadruplets would cause them to suffer physical or emotional harm.
At this point, Mother's claim that the foster mother is solely to blame for the family's state rings hollow. At the very least, there is ample evidence in the record to conclude that the trial court's decision to refuse to change the quadruplets' current placement was not capricious or patently absurd. The court did not err in denying Mother's section 388 petition.
II. The Issue of Reunification Services Is Moot
Mother takes issue with the court's finding that DCFS provided reasonable reunification services. She asserts DCFS failed to ensure that visits and conjoint counseling took place and thwarted reunification efforts by refusing to move the quadruplets to another foster home. We need not address her claim.
The remedy for a failure to provide reasonable reunification services is an order for the continued provision of services. This may be done even at the section 366.22 18-month review hearing. (In re Daniel G. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1211-1215.) In this matter, the trial court extended reunification services for another six months. For the time being, the question of whether DCFS has provided reasonable reunification services is moot.
DISPOSITION
The dependency court's denial of Mother's section 388 petition is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUZUKAWA, J. We concur:
EPSTEIN, P.J.
WILLHITE, J.