Opinion
B297221
02-03-2020
In re D.W. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. L.W., Defendant and Appellant.
Jane B. Winer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK97165) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed. Jane B. Winer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Veronica Randazzo, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
L.W., mother of four-year-old twin boys Da.W. and De.W., appeals from the juvenile court's April 9, 2019 order terminating her parental rights. On appeal, mother contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her request for a two-week continuance of the twins' permanency planning hearing, that the order terminating parental rights violated her due process rights, that the juvenile court's designation of the adoptive parents was an abuse of discretion because the adoptive parents are unfit, that the order terminating parental rights was an abuse of discretion because the report regarding adoptability by the adoptive parents was deficient, and that the juvenile court's ruling regarding the parental bond exception to termination of parental rights was not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude none of mother's contentions has merit, and affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. The DCFS Referral
Marie W., the twins' maternal grandmother, called the police on November 27, 2016 to report that mother had assaulted her. Mother was arrested and the twins were taken into police custody. Maternal grandmother reported to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and mother later confirmed, that mother was under the influence of drugs when she attacked maternal grandmother, and that the twins, then 11 months old, were present both when mother used drugs and then assaulted maternal grandmother. During its investigation DCFS learned that mother had also attacked maternal grandmother in October 2016. During that attack, mother charged at maternal grandmother with a knife and stole maternal grandmother's purse, money, and jewelry. Maternal grandmother also reported that mother is homeless and lives on the streets or in drug houses. When the twins were detained, they had what appeared to be bedbug bites on their faces, chests, and legs.
DCFS filed a petition on November 30, 2016 alleging three counts under section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (j) (abuse of sibling). Count b-1 alleged that mother's substance abuse "endangers the children's physical health and safety, creates a detrimental home environment[,] and places the children at risk of serious physical harm, damage[,] and danger." Count b-2 alleged neglect because mother had failed to obtain medical treatment for the bites covering the children's bodies. Count j-1 alleged that mother had another child, a daughter named Robin W. (born in December 2012), who had been a juvenile dependent because of mother's drug abuse and that the mother's drug abuse continued to place the children at risk of serious physical harm, damage, and danger.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
In its report for the November 30, 2016 detention hearing, DCFS detailed mother's extensive child welfare history. The oldest of mother's children, Robin W., tested positive at birth for amphetamines, resulting in mother's first referral. There were seven other referrals to DCFS from 2013 to 2016. Many of the referrals involved domestic violence between mother and Robin's father, C.R. A January 13, 2016 referral—when the twins were less than a month old—included allegations that mother was using methamphetamines and marijuana.
Mother completed domestic violence and substance abuse programs as part of the dependency proceedings involving Robin W.
C.R. was awarded sole legal and physical custody of Robin W. on August 25, 2014. C.R. was also alleged to be the twins' father, but a court-ordered paternity test excluded him as the father. A second alleged father, Marvin P., evaded service but received notice and declined to appear in the proceedings.
At the detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered the twins detained and placed in foster care. The court ordered family reunification services and random drug testing for mother.
B. Mother's First Relapse
Mother enrolled in a drug abuse treatment program on December 30, 2016 and moved into the program's "sober transitional home designed for pregnant and parenting women with children" on January 4, 2017. According to information provided by the program, "[f]rom the day a resident moves in, she is placed on restriction for the first 30 days or more until the staff decides she is stable enough to be put off restriction. During this time, she will be allowed to leave the house to medical or legal appointments. . . ."
Mother reported that on January 3, 2017, C.R. had hit and choked her in front of the couple's daughter, Robin W. The incident resulted in an additional DCFS referral and the filing of a first amended petition with two additional section 300, subdivision (b) counts related to the couple's extensive history of domestic violence. The first amended petition omitted count j-1, which was in the original petition.
On December 14 and 19, 2016, and January 4, 2017, mother was a "no show" for drug testing. On January 9 and 11, 2017, while she was living in the sober transitional home, she tested positive for marijuana. She failed to show up for a test on January 18, and tested positive again on January 20 and 21, 2017.
The twins were moved to a second foster home on February 15, 2017.
C. Jurisdiction & Disposition
DCFS reported that mother had three negative drug tests in February 2017. But it also reported that she was disruptive and hostile at one of the twins' medical appointments, she failed to administer time-sensitive asthma medication to one of the boys during one of her monitored visits, and that she was in denial about her current drug use, which DCFS claimed "impaired [mother's] protective capacity." DCFS ultimately recommended that the court sustain the section 300 petition, but that the twins be placed "into her care in mother's inpatient substance abuse program" on April 7, 2017 "if there are no safety concerns."
DCFS filed a second amended petition under section 300 on February 23, 2017. The second amended petition added count b-5, related to the twins' second alleged father, Marvin P. The juvenile court held a jurisdiction hearing on March 20, 2017. The court sustained count b-1 (related to mother's drug abuse), dismissed counts b-2 and b-3 (related to domestic violence between mother and alleged father C.R.), and dismissed without prejudice counts b-4 (related to alleged father C.R.'s criminal history) and b-5 (related to alleged father Marvin P.'s failure to provide for the children). The court also ordered DCFS to plan to transition the twins to mother's care; they were released to mother in her inpatient substance abuse program on April 7, 2017.
The contested disposition hearing was held on April 11, 2017. At that hearing, the juvenile court ordered mother to continue her drug abuse treatment and to submit to weekly random drug testing, among other orders. The court also ordered that the children would remain with mother as long as she continued to comply with the case plan.
D. Mother's Second Relapse & Failure to Comply with Case Plan
Mother tested negative for drugs on all of her tests in April and May 2017. In June, July, and August 2017, however, mother was a "no show" for two drug tests each month. In September, mother relapsed, testing positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine on September 19, 2017. Mother's treatment program ended September 30, 2017. On October 20, mother again tested positive, this time for amphetamine, methamphetamine, marijuana, and cocaine.
Mother tested negative once in June, and three times each in July and August.
Mother was a "no show" for every other September test.
DCFS was not aware of the October 20, 2017 test results when they filed their October 2017 status review report, but brought the second positive drug test to the court's attention in a filing on November 22, 2017 after the court again detained the children on November 20.
In a status review report in October 2017, DCFS reported to the court that mother had "missed a number of sessions for family preservation program and [had] 8 no-show drug tests between" April 1 and September 30, 2017. According to DCFS, "mother continues to be in denial regarding her recent relapse and fails to see the seriousness of her continued methamphetamine abuse and the safety of her children." DCFS recommended to the court that it detain the twins and again place them in DCFS custody "until [mother] is able to demonstrate a drug free lifestyle as evidenced by a series of consistent, negative drug test results, completion of another substance abuse program, and obtaining a sponsor." In its monthly progress report, the family preservation unit noted that mother had missed four in-home outreach counselor (IHOC) visits in August. "Since the family is not participating in IHOC visits," the family preservation progress report states, "the case will likely terminate due to non-compliance."
E. DCFS's Supplemental Petition
On November 20, 2017, the juvenile court ordered the twins removed from mother based on mother's relapse; the twins were placed in their third foster home. Two days later, DCFS filed a supplemental petition under section 387 alleging in count s-1 that mother was under the influence of methamphetamine, amphetamine, marijuana, and cocaine while the twins were in her care. On November 27, 2017, the juvenile court held a detention hearing based on the section 387 petition and ordered the children detained in shelter care under DCFS supervision.
Mother again tested positive for cannabinoids on November 30, 2017, and for amphetamines, methamphetamines, and marijuana on January 31, 2018, but otherwise remained a "no show" for drug testing in November and December 2017 and January and February 2018.
F. Mother's Referral of Her Cousin as a Potential Relative Placement
On February 7, 2018 (after DCFS filed the section 387 petition but before the adjudication hearing) mother informed DCFS that her cousin, Amanda A., and her cousin's husband, Patrick J., were interested in being considered for the twins' placement. DCFS promptly referred Amanda A. and Patrick J. (maternal cousins) to the Resource Family Approval (RFA) Program for a home assessment under section 16519.5.
The Legislature intended the RFA process to be "a unified, family friendly, and child-centered . . . process to replace the existing multiple processes for licensing foster family homes, certifying foster homes by licensed foster family agencies, approving relatives and nonrelative extended family members as foster care providers, and approving guardians and adoptive families." (§ 16519.5, subd. (a).) A family approved through the RFA process "shall be considered eligible to provide foster care for children in out-of-home placement and approved for adoption and guardianship." (§ 16519.5, subd. (c)(4)(A).)
On March 13, 2018, mother again tested positive for cannabinoids. With the exception of one other test, which the lab was unable to analyze, mother continued to no show for drug tests in March and April 2018.
In advance of the section 387 adjudication hearing, DCFS notified the court that maternal cousins were still in the RFA home assessment process. Because of Patrick J.'s background, including arrests and reports of child abuse, DCFS reported that "both Mrs. [A.] and Mr. [J.] required exemptions that ha[d] already been processed and approved" by the time DCFS filed its report on April 18, 2018. DCFS also reported that it had made contact with mother, who had been unresponsive to DCFS and who had failed to appear for a February 2018 juvenile court hearing. Mother also claimed to have enrolled in another drug treatment program, but neither mother nor the drug treatment program was willing to provide DCFS with any information regarding mother's enrollment. DCFS reported that mother was homeless and continued to refuse to cooperate with DCFS or comply with her case plan. DCFS also learned from the twins' foster caregiver that mother wanted the twins to be placed with maternal cousins "so that the cousin could give the children back to" mother.
The adjudication hearing on the section 387 petition was originally scheduled for February 13, 2018. The court continued the hearing to April 20, 2018 after mother failed to appear.
On April 20, 2018, the juvenile court held the adjudication hearing on DCFS's section 387 petition. The court sustained count s-1 and ordered the twins placed with maternal cousins.
The 12-month review hearing was set for the same day, but the court continued that hearing to June 28, 2018.
In May 2018, DCFS filed a section 388 petition asking the juvenile court to reconsider the twins' placement with maternal cousins. DCFS reported that it had learned of "an extensive [child protective services (CPS)] referral [history] with the Child Welfare Services Department in San Luis Obispo County," and that it had "concerns of the maternal relatives' past inappropriate disciplinary methods" based on their CPS history and Patrick J.'s arrest history. DCFS further noted that mother "has disclosed that she plans on moving into the maternal relatives' residence (once the children are placed there)." On June 8, 2018, the third foster mother, Vanessa M., filed a section 388 petition asking that the twins be re-placed in her home. The juvenile court set the section 388 petitions for hearing on June 28, 2018 and ordered DCFS to prepare a report addressing the petitions in advance of the hearing.
G. The 12-Month Review & Section 388 Petition Hearing
In its status review report for the 12-month review hearing, DCFS explained that mother had tested positive for cannabinoids three times in May and once in June, all after enrolling in another drug treatment program on May 7, 2018 (the third since the twins' detention). In its report regarding the section 388 petitions, DCFS withdrew its petition and noted that maternal cousins had been approved through the RFA program on May 29, 2018. Additionally, maternal cousins had clarified to DCFS that they "would not allow [mother] to come to [their] home and live" in their home, and that mother had not asked to do so. DCFS also noted that mother had enrolled in another drug treatment program (her fourth since the twins were detained) on June 22, 2018.
In advance of the June 28, 2018 hearing regarding the third foster mother's section 388 petition, the parties stipulated that the following issues would be tried: (1) "[w]hether children should be removed from maternal cousin's home due to it being a safety risk," and (2) "whether a 2009 child abuse referral for maternal cousin's husband places minors at risk." After an evidentiary hearing, the juvenile court denied the third foster mother's section 388 petition and ordered the children to remain placed in the maternal cousins' home under DCFS supervision and for family reunification services to continue.
We have no reporter's transcript of the June 28, 2018 hearing.
H. Mother's Third Relapse and the 18-Month Review
The juvenile court's 18-month review hearing was set for December 11, 2018. DCFS filed its report for the 18-month review hearing on December 3, 2018. DCFS reported that mother had completed another drug treatment program on August 20, 2018. Mother routinely tested negative for drugs in August, September, and October 2018, but relapsed again on November 13, 2018, testing positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. Mother entered another drug treatment program in late November 2018. DCFS also reported that while mother had been regularly attending monitored visitation, two visits had to be canceled because of mother's aggressive behavior toward maternal cousins.
At the December 11, 2018 hearing, the juvenile court noted that rather than 18 months from the original disposition hearing, the hearing was taking place 22 months, or an extra four months, after the original disposition hearing. Citing mother's repeated relapses, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set the matter for a permanency planning hearing for the twins on April 9, 2019.
I. The Permanency Planning Hearing and Mother's Request for a Continuance
The juvenile court held the twins' permanency planning hearing on April 9, 2019. At the hearing, mother's counsel represented to the court that mother was "two weeks from graduation from a substance abuse program"—her fifth substance abuse program during these proceedings. Mother's counsel requested a "continuance to file a [section] 388 [petition] upon [mother's] completion." The juvenile court denied mother's request. After hearing evidence and argument regarding mother's relationship with the twins, the juvenile court concluded that it "cannot find that the parental role and relationship has been shown to outweigh the benefits of permanence in adoption, nor that it would be detrimental to the children to terminate that relationship." The court concluded that the twins were adoptable and terminated mother's parental rights.
Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
A. Denial of Mother's Request to Continue Section 366.26 Hearing
At the twins' permanency planning hearing on April 9, 2019, mother requested a continuance so that she could file a section 388 petition after her expected completion of a drug abuse treatment program. Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied mother's request for a continuance and that the denial of the continuance violated mother's due process rights. We disagree.
In her opening brief, mother characterizes the continuance as a two-week continuance. The record does not support this characterization. Mother was expected to complete the drug treatment program within two weeks of the hearing. Any section 388 petition would necessarily have been filed after that, with necessary DCFS investigation and reports to follow to determine whether mother's completion of the program represented "changed circumstances," or merely "changing circumstances." (See In re Ernesto R. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 219, 223.) Mother's vague oral request for a continuance was, in effect, for a months-long continuance on top of the 29 months the then-three-year-old twins had already been without a permanent home.
"We review the juvenile court's decision to deny a continuance for abuse of discretion. [Citation.] 'Discretion is abused when a decision is arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd and results in a manifest miscarriage of justice.' " (In re D.Y. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 1044, 1056.)
In determining whether to continue a section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court must conclude that granting the continuance will not be "contrary to the interest of the minor." (§ 352, subd. (a)(1).) "In considering the minor's interests, the court shall give substantial weight to a minor's need for prompt resolution of his or her custody status, the need to provide children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary placements." (Ibid.) Additionally, mother's request came at a phase of the dependency proceedings when the court's focus had necessarily shifted from reunification "to the needs of the child for permanency and stability." (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 (Marilyn H.).)
The twins were detained after mother's drug-fueled attack of maternal grandmother on November 27, 2016. By April 9, 2019, when mother requested a continuance of the permanency planning hearing, mother had been in five drug treatment programs and had relapsed at least three times—twice while she was living in a sober residence and once while enrolled in her fourth drug abuse treatment program—all while the proceedings were pending.
We view the juvenile court's order in light of the timing of mother's request and the state of the proceedings when the request was made. At a time when the juvenile court was required to "give substantial weight to [the twins'] need for prompt resolution of [their] custody status" (§ 352, subd. (a)(1)), and after the entire focus of the dependency proceedings had shifted to the boys' "needs . . . for permanency and stability" (Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 309), we cannot conclude that it was an abuse of discretion for the juvenile court to deny mother's request for an indefinite continuance to allow mother to complete another drug abuse treatment program.
The five drug abuse treatment programs mother engaged in during these proceedings were not her only unsuccessful drug abuse treatment programs. During the pendency of mother's first DCFS referral—after Robin W. tested positive for amphetamines at birth in 2012—mother also completed a drug abuse treatment program that ultimately proved unsuccessful at changing mother's circumstances.
Additionally, mother's due process argument frames the question as though the court would have been compelled to find changed circumstances on a section 388 petition had she been granted the continuance she requested. Mother claims that "[t]he impediment to reunification at the December 11, 2018 section 366.22 hearing was mother's one positive tox screen the month before. That tox screen was her only slip-up and the only aspect of her reunification plan that she was not in compliance with." (Italics added.) Mother cites her November 2018 relapse followed by a period of no positive drug tests through April 2019 as evidence of a "prolonged period of maintaining sobriety."
The juvenile court's decision to terminate reunification services was not based on "one positive tox screen," and that "one positive tox screen" was not mother's "only slip-up." The juvenile court cited mother's multiple relapses during the two years following the twins' detention as its reason for terminating reunification services and moving forward with permanency planning for the twins. The record also details a host of other ways mother failed to comply with both family preservation and reunification services.
The record contains no evidence at all of any drug testing past November 2018. Mother's drug testing for these proceedings terminated when reunification services terminated. Consequently, the last evidence regarding mother's drug use the juvenile court had when it denied mother's request for a continuance was her third relapse during the pendency of these proceedings. Mother presented no evidence of drug testing past November 2018 that would have permitted the court to conclude she was suddenly sober for any length of time. The record does, however, support DCFS's observation that "[m]other's relapse adds to a pattern of drug use, participation in services which she sometimes does not complete, and subsequent relapse."
B. Issues Regarding Maternal Cousins as Adoptive Parents
Mother raises several contentions on appeal related to the twins' adoptive parents, maternal cousin Amanda A. and her husband, Patrick J. Mother contends that the designation of maternal cousins as adoptive parents was an abuse of discretion and was not supported by substantial evidence because, according to mother, Patrick J. "has a history of physically abusing young children and there was no evidence he was rehabilitated." Mother further contends that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it terminated mother's parental rights because the report concerning adoptability of the twins by maternal cousins was deficient. Finally, mother contends that substantial evidence does not support the finding of adoptability because maternal cousins were not appropriate adoptive parents for the twins and because the record discloses no other potential adoptive parents. Mother's contentions are without merit.
Amanda A.'s and Patrick J.'s suitability as both a temporary placement and as adoptive parents for the twins was litigated extensively without mother's participation on DCFS's and the third foster mother's section 388 petitions. After mother referred maternal cousins to DCFS as a potential relative placement for the twins, maternal cousins agreed to undergo RFA program approval under section 16519.5. Mother concedes that she never raised the unsuitability of maternal cousins as either foster or adoptive parents at any proceeding below. When DCFS and the twins' third foster caregiver independently petitioned the court to have the children removed from the maternal cousins' home, mother was silent. When DCFS withdrew its section 388 petition, filed a report regarding the foster caregiver's section 388 petition, and the juvenile court denied the section 388 petition, mother was silent. Mother remained silent about the petition through the twins' 12-month and 18-month review hearings. And when the juvenile court was ruling on the twins' adoptability and the maternal cousins' suitability as adoptive parents, mother made no objection to the court. Mother also failed to provide us with a transcript of the June 28, 2018 hearing where the question of maternal cousins' fitness to foster the twins was adjudicated.
We do know, however, that on May 29, 2018, maternal cousins were approved to provide a resource family home for the twins under section 16519.5. Section 16519.5, subdivision (a) instructs the California Department of Social Services to "implement a unified, family friendly, and child-centered resource family approval process to replace the existing multiple processes for licensing foster family homes, certifying foster homes by licensed foster family agencies, approving relatives and nonrelative extended family members as foster care providers, and approving guardians and adoptive families." (Italics added.) Because of the RFA requirements set forth in section 16519.5, when the juvenile court received the maternal cousins' approval as a resource family home, it knew that maternal cousins had "successfully met both the home environment assessment standards and the permanency assessment criteria . . . necessary for providing care for a child placed by a public or private child placement agency by court order . . . ." (§ 16519.5, subd. (c)(1).) It also knew that maternal cousins had demonstrated the following, among a multitude of other things:
• "An understanding of the [twins'] safety, permanence, and well-being needs . . . and the capacity and willingness to meet those needs, including the need for protection . . . ." (§ 16519.5, subd. (c)(1)(A).)
• "An understanding of children's needs and development, effective parenting skills or knowledge about parenting, and the capacity to act as . . . reasonable, prudent parent[s] in day-to-day decisionmaking." (§ 16519.5, subd. (c)(1)(B).)
• "An understanding of the role of the individual or family as a resource family and the capacity to work cooperatively with the agency and other service providers in implementing the child's case plan." (§ 16519.5, subd. (c)(1)(C).)
• "The financial ability within the household to ensure the stability and financial security of the family." (§ 16519.5, subd. (c)(1)(D).)
• "An ability and willingness to provide a family setting that promotes normal childhood experiences
that serves the needs of the child." (§ 16519.5, subd. (c)(1)(E).)
• "[A]n understanding of the rights of children in care and the [maternal cousins'] responsibility to safeguard those rights." (§ 16519.5, subd. (d)(2)(C)(i).)
• An understanding of maternal cousins' "responsibilities with respect to acting as . . . reasonable and prudent parent[s], and maintaining the least restrictive environment that serves the needs of the" twins. (§ 16519.5, subd. (d)(2)(C)(iii).)
To be approved under the RFA program, the maternal cousins were required to undergo caregiver training and "[a] family evaluation, which . . . include[d] . . . interviews of [maternal cousins] to assess [their] personal history, family dynamic, and need for support or resources, and a risk assessment," which includes "physical and mental health, alcohol and other substance use and abuse, [and] family and domestic violence," among other factors. (§ 16519.5, subds. (d)(3)(A) & (B)(ii), italics added.) Approval of a family to provide a resource family home under section 16519.5 requires the family to undergo a resource family home assessment that includes "[a] criminal record clearance of each applicant and all adults residing in, or regularly present in, the home . . . utilizing a check of the Child Abuse Central Index . . ." and "[c]onsideration of any substantiated allegations of child abuse or neglect against the applicant and any other adult residing in, or regularly present in, the home . . . ." (§ 16519.5, subds. (d)(2)(A)(i)(I) & (II), italics added.)
Mother's argument relies heavily on the maternal cousins' criminal record exemption approvals, which state that the exemptions are "based solely on [maternal cousins'] criminal record history and do[ ] not include a review of the Child Abuse Central Index." Mother's argument ignores that the RFA process requires review of the Child Abuse Central Index independent of criminal record exemption approvals.
The court would also have understood that "resource family approval means that the applicant or resource family successfully meets the home environment assessment and permanency assessment standards" and that the "resource family shall be considered eligible to provide foster care for children in out-of-home placement and approved for adoption and guardianship." (§ 16519.5, subds. (c)(4)(A) & (c)(5), italics added.)
The report to the juvenile court that the family had been approved to provide the twins' a resource family home under section 16519.5 gave the juvenile court sufficient information to conclude that maternal cousins' home was a suitable placement for the twins and that the maternal cousins were suitable adoptive parents. Although mother never raised her contentions before this appeal, the record reflects that the adoptive parents' suitability was fully litigated below. We find mother's contentions regarding the adoptive parents to be without merit.
C. Parental Bond Exception to Termination of Parental Rights
Mother contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court's determination regarding the parental bond exception to termination of mother's parental rights. Specifically, mother contends that she demonstrated that the twins' relationship with her "promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents." (See In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) We disagree.
Mother's first referral to DCFS for the twins in January 2016—when the twins were a month old—involved drug abuse allegations. The referral that led to these proceedings involved mother's drug use in the twins' presence. When the juvenile court returned the twins to mother during the pendency of these proceedings, the children were later removed because mother had again used drugs—while living in sober transitional housing—in the twins' presence. During her visits with the twins, mother acted out aggressively toward her cousin, Amanda A., to the point that overnight visits were terminated. Mother had disrupted the twins' medical care, acting out during visits to doctors, and had failed to give one of the twins his asthma medication during one of her monitored visits. In its last report before the juvenile court terminated parental rights, DCFS reported that at their last complete visit with mother, the twins "had a hard time adjusting to being with mother. [Amanda A.] stated that after the visit the children had nightmares and began 'acting out.' " The visit after that was terminated early because of a confrontation between mother and Amanda A. DCFS reported that "[a]lthough mother continues to participate in her monitored visits, liberalization could not take place due to reports of mother not being appropriate during the visits, constant conflict with the caregiver, and difficulty with traveling to the . . . meeting point on mother's designated travel dates."
Mother's very first referral to DCFS in 2012—after Robin W. tested positive for amphetamines at birth—also involved drug abuse allegations. --------
The question before us is whether mother demonstrated that "the relationship [between mother and the twins] conferred benefits to [the twins] more significant than the permanency and stability offered by adoption." (In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 623.) The twins have spent more than 75 percent of their lives caught up in the juvenile dependency system, moved from foster home to foster home, and repeatedly adjusted to mother's relapses and inappropriate treatment of the people providing the twins safety, stability, and security. The record before us contains substantial evidence that the children are better served by the permanency and stability of adoption than by a continued relationship with mother.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's orders are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
CHANEY, J. We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
BENDIX, J.