Opinion
E079905
09-26-2023
In re S.R. et al, Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. S.M., Defendant and Appellant. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Christy C. Peterson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Tiffany Lok, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County Nos. J287271, J287272. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Affirmed.
Christy C. Peterson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Tiffany Lok, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MENETREZ J.
In this dependency action, the juvenile court applied the criteria in Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3 for placing a dependent child with a relative and determined that it was not in the best interest of the minor child, Sergio R., to be placed with his maternal grandmother, S.M. (grandmother). (Unlabeled statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Grandmother appeals from that determination. She and San Bernardino County Department of Children and Family Services (CFS) argue that the juvenile court abused its discretion. We disagree and affirm the order.
BACKGROUND
A. Investigation and Detention
Sergio was born in March 2014, and his sister, C.R. (sister), was born in 2012. In September 2020, they lived with grandmother in the home of maternal aunt, Y.M. That month, CFS received a referral alleging sexual abuse and general neglect of Sergio and sister by V.M. (mother). Y.M. reported that Sergio had touched her minor daughter's vaginal area. Y.M. worried that Sergio had been sexually abused.
Y.M. reported to the social worker that mother had left Sergio and sister (collectively, the children) with grandmother two years earlier because mother was homeless and an alcoholic. The social worker interviewed grandmother and the children at the hotel where they resided since moving out of Y.M.'s house. Grandmother confirmed that mother had issues with alcohol and that grandmother had been raising the children since 2018. Grandmother raised mother's adult son, Jesus V. Grandmother was willing to pursue legal guardianship of the children but worried how it would affect mother, who had previously threatened to take the children away from grandmother.
Another maternal aunt, M.M., reported that she had no concerns about the children living with grandmother but had been concerned about the children when they lived with mother, because of mother's issues with alcohol and because mother had attempted suicide. In 2014, mother was admitted to a hospital on a section 5150 hold because she had attempted to jump out of a second-floor window. Mother had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. According to M.M., mother had assaulted grandmother in the past and taken the children from grandmother, only to have the children later returned to grandmother when mother was intoxicated.
The children denied sexual abuse but reported that mother abuses alcohol, drinks "on a regular basis," and "'gets crazy' when she gets 'drunk.'" Sister described a recent incident in which mother had cut sister's hair while mother was drunk. Sister had "to punch [mother] in the face so that mother would stop cutting her hair." The children had last seen mother in person within the previous week.
Mother refused to talk with any social worker on the phone. CFS scheduled two in-person meetings, but mother did not attend.
In early to mid-October 2020, social workers informed grandmother that she could retain custody of the children while CFS conducted its investigation. The social workers instructed grandmother not to inform mother of the children's location and to contact CFS immediately if mother attempted to take the children. Grandmother agreed to the terms. In mid-October, grandmother asked the social worker if the children could visit with mother at a park under grandmother's supervision. The social worker approved the meeting so long as grandmother supervised and mother acted "appropriate."
The social worker spoke with the children a couple of weeks later and learned that the children had visited with mother several times in their hotel room and out in public. The children reported not feeling safe with mother.
On sister's birthday in early October 2020, mother picked up Sergio and took him to the store and to mother's boyfriend's house. Grandmother did not accompany them. Grandmother stayed with sister at the hotel, because sister was afraid mother would get drunk. Sergio had been "a little scared" to go with mother "because she 'gets crazy when she drinks,'" but he explained that he had the "'muscles'" to defend himself.
On Halloween night, the children went trick-or-treating with mother, mother's boyfriend, and M.M., while grandmother stayed at the hotel. The children reported that mother drank alcohol while with them.
The social worker questioned grandmother about the contact with mother that the children had reported. Grandmother said that mother had visited the children at the hotel once but was not left alone with them. On sister's birthday, grandmother allowed Sergio to go to the store with mother "'really quick'" but explained that mother "brought him back right away." Mother did not appear intoxicated and was accompanied by her boyfriend, who grandmother believed seemed "'appropriate because he has a job and [a] car.'" M.M. supervised the excursion on Halloween, and the children had not driven with mother, so grandmother thought the contact was okay. Grandmother denied that mother had otherwise been left alone with the children or taken them anywhere.
The social worker reminded grandmother that she had agreed not to tell mother where she was staying. Grandmother did not recall the conversation. Grandmother also remarked that "'those are [mother's] children, she needs to know where they are at.'"
On November 12, 2020, CFS obtained a warrant to remove and to detain the children temporarily. CFS filed a petition under subdivision (b)(1) of section 300, alleging that the children were at substantial risk of serious physical harm because of mother's untreated mental health issues and substance abuse. The juvenile court detained the children in the home of Ms. B., a nonrelative caregiver.
The petition contained additional allegations under subdivisions (b) and (g)(1) against the children's father, S.R. He is not a party to this appeal.
B. Jurisdiction and Disposition
In December 2020, CFS filed the jurisdiction and disposition report. The children reported that they felt safe living with Ms. B. They also felt safe living with grandmother but not with mother. Sister said that when they lived with grandmother mother visited "a lot" and took the children weekly.
Grandmother admitted that mother had "stop[ped] by frequently" when the children lived with her and that she had once allowed mother to take the children to the store. Grandmother acknowledged that mother was addicted to alcohol but said that mother's addiction had "not affected" the children.
When the social worker asked grandmother about the safety plan created for the children during CFS's investigation, grandmother at first denied allowing the children to be alone with mother. Grandmother also said that the plan had not been clear and that there had been "no plan," because the restrictions were not court-ordered.
Grandmother did not believe that the children were in any danger living with her. Grandmother was willing to do whatever was necessary to have the children placed with her. Mother reported that her safety network and support system primarily consisted of grandmother.
The children had been allowed telephone visits with grandmother. The visits were temporarily suspended by CFS because grandmother "coach[ed] the children against [Ms. B] and speaking with" CFS. Grandmother denied making any concerning statements and agreed to be appropriate in the future.
CFS recommended that it was not in the children's best interests to be placed with grandmother because she failed to protect the children from mother.
The court held a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing in February 2021. The court sustained the allegations in the petition that the children were at substantial risk of serious physical harm because of mother's untreated mental health issues and substance abuse. The court removed the children from mother's custody, declared the children dependents of the court, and ordered reunification services for mother. The children remained placed with Ms. B.
As to grandmother, the court ordered CFS to assess her for placement and to process her application for resource family approval. The court acknowledged that grandmother had violated the safety plan, but the court indicated that grandmother seemed "generally remorseful for allowing that contact." The court also noted that the children wanted to be placed with grandmother.
C. Grandmother's Section 388 Petition
In April 2021, grandmother filed a section 388 petition. Grandmother argued that CFS had "refused to adequately and properly assess" her for placement under section 361.3, so she petitioned the court to order CFS to do so.
In a declaration in support of the petition, grandmother explained that she had been actively involved in the children's lives since their birth, and they had lived with her without mother since 2017 or 2018 (grandmother attested to both years). CFS did not provide grandmother with written instructions about the safety plan for the children. She believed that she had complied with the oral instructions that CFS gave her. She was never told that "no one but [grandmother could] monitor the visits with" mother. Mother did not have "unfettered access to" the children, and her visits with the children had been "monitored at all times" since 2017. Grandmother had acted as "the primary monitor for [mother's] visits with" the children. A third party monitored mother's visit with the children once. Grandmother would do anything needed to have the children placed with her "including keeping [mother] away from [the children], unless authorized by the Court."
The court set a hearing on the petition and ordered CFS to file a written response. CFS recommended denying grandmother's petition. CFS contended that grandmother would not provide the children with a safe, secure, and stable environment because grandmother would not protect the children from mother or follow court orders prohibiting mother from having access.
In March 2021, Ms. B reported that the children had not spoken to grandmother for over one month. The children did not want to speak with grandmother because grandmother cried when they talked, which caused the children to cry and to be sad. The social worker believed grandmother "lack[ed] insight" into what behavior of hers had caused such reactions in the children.
The social worker asked the children in April 2021 if they wanted to live with grandmother, and both indicated that they did not. Sister responded, "'No, I do not want to live with her, I would like to see her but my mom could come and take me away.'" Sergio similarly said, "'No, what happens if my mom comes to my grandmother's house and take[s] me away with my sister.'"
In May 2021, the court held an initial hearing on grandmother's section 388 petition and set a contested hearing. The court ordered supervised, in-person visits for grandmother at CFS's office without mother present. The court authorized CFS to terminate any visit if grandmother's emotions negatively affected the children.
The court addressed grandmother directly and told her: "So, Grandma, it sounds like the children get sad because you're sad when they talk to you and I understand that that must be very emotional but they're going to end the visit if you're crying and it's upsetting the children." Grandmother responded, "For the record, I'm a person that doesn't cry, for the record." Grandmother acknowledged that she understood the instruction.
In late June 2021, CFS filed an addendum report describing grandmother's three visits with the children that month. The social worker was present during the visits and reported that there were no issues.
At the contested hearing in late June 2021, grandmother withdrew the petition without prejudice in order to allow her time to complete the resource family approval process. The court expressed concern about whether grandmother would "follow Court orders and be protective against" mother but did not rule out grandmother for placement. The court ordered continued visits with grandmother.
D. Six-Month Status Review Period
In August 2021, CFS filed a report for the six-month status review hearing. The children reported being happy living at Ms. B's house and feeling safe there. Sergio was in therapy because he was having tantrums and acting defiantly and disrespectfully toward women, including Ms. B. Ms. B called law enforcement that month because Sergio had hit her.
The children refused to visit with mother or grandmother after an encounter with mother in mid-July 2021. The children had refused to leave the car for a scheduled visit with mother at CFS's office. Mother then approached the car, the children ducked down, and mother told the children that they could not see grandmother if they did not see her. Mother called grandmother and told her not to come because the children did not want to see her. The children could hear the conversation. A social worker overheard mother telling grandmother, "'I know it's the caregiver not the kids.'" The children then confirmed to the social worker that they did not want to visit with grandmother.
The following month, sister reported that she did not want to speak to mother or to grandmother. Sergio wanted to visit with grandmother, but only at Ms. B's house.
At the six-month status review hearing in August 2021, the court ordered continued reunification services for mother. The court ordered continued visits for grandmother, separate from mother's. The court admonished grandmother "not to say anything negative about where the children are living" and authorized CFS to terminate any visits, including by phone, "if maternal grandmother is making any disparaging remarks." Grandmother responded, "I have never said anything negative."
E. Twelve-Month Status Review Period
In September 2021, Sergio was hospitalized and placed on a hold for being a danger to himself or others. He threatened to jump out of a moving car and to stab sister and Ms. B. Sergio had chased sister with scissors and said that he was going to "'kill'" her. Sergio had a "recent history of punching himself and banging his head." A doctor prescribed psychotropic medication, which the court approved.
Sergio was hospitalized again in November and December 2021. According to the doctor's report concerning the December hospitalization, Sergio had threatened Ms. B and was "hitting, biting, and kicking his family at home." Sergio had suicidal ideation with a "plan to drink dirty soap."
In late December 2021, CFS filed the 12-month status review report. During the review period, mother had lived at grandmother's house for an unspecified period but had subsequently moved to her boyfriend's house. Mother reported that her support system included grandmother.
In mid-December 2021, CFS moved Sergio into the home of Mrs. P. because of Sergio's "extreme defiant behavior," which included Sergio hitting Ms. B and her minor son.
As to visitation, the children had last visited with mother in July 2021 (before the six-month status review hearing). The children did not want to visit mother again and also did not want to visit with grandmother, because grandmother and mother arrived at visits together. But Sergio also indicated that he was willing to visit with grandmother.
The court held the contested 12-month status review hearing in January 2022. The court ordered continued reunification services for mother.
F. Eighteen-Month Status Review Period
CFS filed an 18-month status review report in May 2022. CFS recommended terminating mother's reunification services. CFS had reassessed grandmother for possible placement and recommended placing the children with grandmother after she had obtained resource family approval, which was in process.
Grandmother had been "appropriate" during weekly, unsupervised visits with the children. The social worker described grandmother's visits with the children from January 2022 through early May. From January through mid-February, grandmother's weekly, one-hour visits with the children occurred at CFS's offices after mother's visits. In mid-February, the social worker left the children unsupervised with grandmother during her visit at the office because the court was open to possible placement with grandmother. Grandmother's weekly, unsupervised one-hour visits were at CFS's offices through the end of April, when the social worker reported that he believed that the family was ready to transition to visits in the community.
The social worker reported that grandmother had expressed remorse for allowing mother access and not protecting the children. Grandmother said she would protect the children and not repeat the mistake. Mother did not know where grandmother lived, and grandmother would call the police if mother appeared at her residence. Mother continued to report that her support system included grandmother.
Sister remained placed with Ms. B, where she felt happy and safe. Sister did not want to live with grandmother. She worried that if "placed with grandmother she will go back to [her] mother's care." Sergio was stable, on medication, and doing well in his new foster home.
The court held the contested 18-month status review hearing in June 2022. Mother testified that she had completed an inpatient treatment program and then enrolled in an outpatient program but left after a few days because it was too far from grandmother, making it difficult for grandmother to bring mother money.
On the day of the hearing, CFS filed an addendum report in which the social worker described a June 2022 visit with grandmother at a park. The social worker was present because sister refused to visit mother without the social worker. After an uneventful visit with mother, the children visited with grandmother and some maternal relatives. The social worker remained at the park but gave the family "space" because grandmother's visits were unsupervised.
Ms. B arrived at the park at 7:25 p.m. to pick up sister, and sister "immediately ran and got inside [Ms. B's] car." Mother's family followed sister and "confronted" Ms. B, telling her that she had arrived early and that sister had not said "'[g]oodbye.'" According to the social worker, "[a] verbal confrontation took place between" grandmother and Ms. B. The social worker attempted to de-escalate the situation. The social worker learned that M.M. had upset sister during the visit.
CFS reported that it planned to transition Sergio into grandmother's home within the week, because grandmother was about to obtain resource family approval. The social worker did not believe that sister would be ready to transition to grandmother's home soon but recommended continued visits and wraparound services for sister and grandmother.
The court terminated mother's reunification services and ordered CFS to assess grandmother for placement. The court expressed that it had serious concerns about grandmother, including that grandmother was enmeshed with mother and had yelled at Ms. B in front of the children at the park. Grandmother denied having been in an argument or fight with Ms. B. The court asked grandmother if she and mother had traveled to court together, and grandmother said they had. The court cautioned grandmother that "the kids aren't going to be placed with you if there's any concern that you're going to allow Mother to see them when they're not supposed to be."
G. Initial Section 361.3 Relative Placement Hearing
In August 2022, CFS filed an addendum report for an initial section 361.3 placement hearing scheduled that month. CFS interviewed Ms. B, grandmother, and sister about the June 2022 incident at the park. Ms. B reported that sister's family started running after sister when sister ran toward Ms. B's car. Grandmother confronted Ms. B., screamed at Ms. B, and acted aggressive and hostile toward her. Ms. B felt threatened by grandmother.
Sister told Ms. B that "'they'" had made her cry during the visit and were speaking "'negatively'" about Ms. B. Sister did not want to visit grandmother anymore. Sister said that grandmother acted differently when the social worker and Ms. B were not present and would "yell and scream" at sister but not at Sergio. When sister ran toward Ms. B's car, grandmother ran after sister and told sister that she could not leave.
Grandmother denied yelling at Ms. B. Sister ran toward the parking lot, so grandmother yelled at sister because of "'safety concerns.'" Grandmother also did not like that Ms. B had arrived five minutes early.
The social worker questioned grandmother about the court's concerns about whether she could be an appropriate caregiver. Grandmother explained that although she had helped mother with transportation in the past, grandmother "'absolutely'" would not do so if the children were placed with her. Grandmother understood that "mother . . . is not her obligation."
Sergio did not describe the June 2022 incident at the park to the social worker. Sergio reported having no issues with visiting grandmother. Sergio wanted to live with grandmother. Sergio continued to take medication and had recently "graduated from individual counseling."
CFS reported: "Overall, it appears that grandmother will be able to be protective of Sergio and attend his needs. The grandmother appears to be remorseful of the 'park accident.' The child, Sergio, appears to be doing well and the family tends to treat him differently since he does not 'argue or talk back.' The child, Sergio, tends to be receptive with family."
The court held the initial placement hearing in August 2022. The court indicated that the addendum report "only crystalize[d] the Court's ongoing concerns regarding" placement with grandmother. The court nevertheless "set a placement hearing so that all parties can be heard and the Court can address the [section] 361.3 factors regarding placement."
H. Contested Section 361.3 Relative Placement Hearing
In September 2022, the juvenile court held a contested hearing on relative placement under section 361.3. Grandmother testified at the hearing. She had obtained resource family approval and had leased a three-bedroom apartment so that each of the children could have a bedroom.
Grandmother had not spoken to mother since June 2022 "because that's what the Court wanted me to do." Mother did not know where grandmother lived. If mother showed up at her home, grandmother would call the police and CFS. Grandmother would no longer provide mother money or assistance with transportation. Grandmother would abide by all court orders concerning the children's safety and access to mother. Grandmother was willing to adopt the children.
In response to a question about whether grandmother would allow mother access to the children, grandmother stated: "I made a mistake once. Okay. It won't happen again. If the Court grants me the children, the mother will not have access to those kids. I love the children and I will protect the children." Grandmother denied that when the children had previously lived with her CFS had told grandmother that mother should not visit with the children. Grandmother believed it was "okay" for mother to visit with the children.
Regarding the June 2022 incident at the park, grandmother said she had not yelled at Ms. B. Grandmother raised her voice at sister because sister was running and grandmother was concerned about sister's safety. Grandmother denied ever having said anything negative about Ms. B.
Grandmother described her weekly, unsupervised one-hour visits with Sergio as "fun." Concerning Sergio's mental health issues, grandmother said that Sergio appeared to be doing better, but she understood there could be challenges. The agency that had licensed her had resources available to help her with Sergio.
Grandmother believed that she had a "good relationship" with sister and did not understand why sister refused to visit her. Grandmother believed sister would "come around" so they could enjoy a "great relationship" again. The June 2022 visit at the park was the last time grandmother visited with sister.
Grandmother was asked if she understood why mother was "brought before the Court," and grandmother responded that it was because of mother's "substance abuse." Asked how grandmother currently felt about "that," grandmother responded, "It's a concern, yes, for the children."
The court asked grandmother the following question: "[H]ow do you think the mother's alcohol issues and the children's contact with her when she was under the influence have impacted them?" Grandmother responded: "I want to say that it's probably hard and I can only tell you, Your Honor, that I could do all I can to remove those feelings."
Jesus, the children's adult brother, testified about the incident at the park. When sister ran to Ms. B, grandmother and Jesus walked after her. Jesus was concerned for sister's safety because she was running in a busy parking lot. No one yelled. Sergio was seated at a bench about 30 feet away from Ms. B. He was playing with Legos and talking.
The social worker testified that grandmother had received her resource family approval and license. CFS recommended placement of Sergio with grandmother. Sergio's visits with grandmother were going well, and Sergio wanted to live with grandmother. The court questioned the social worker about Sergio's prior hospitalizations. The social worker confirmed that the "hospitalizations and extreme behaviors" coincided with visits with mother and grandmother.
I. Section 361.3 Ruling
The juvenile court found that placing the children with grandmother was not in the children's best interest. The court acknowledged that there were factors that supported placing the children with grandmother. The court found that (1) grandmother had been present in the children's lives since birth, (2) grandmother had received resource family approval, (3) grandmother is a "moral outstanding citizen," (4) grandmother had a strong commitment to the children, which she had shown by securing appropriate housing and completing the resource family approval process, (5) grandmother had a "very loving and sincere" desire to have the children placed with her, (6) mother wanted the children placed with grandmother, and (7) Sergio wanted to be placed with grandmother.
The court nevertheless found that there were "overarching issues" that had persisted throughout the case that outweighed the factors favoring placement with grandmother. First, the court was concerned about grandmother's ability to protect the children from mother. Second, the court was concerned about grandmother's lack of understanding of the "children's trauma that stems directly from the chaos experience prior to removal regarding their ongoing contact with Mother and her alcoholism." Third, the court was concerned about grandmother's ability to meet the children's "needs regarding that trauma and their particular mental health needs." Fourth, the court noted that sister did not want to be placed with grandmother.
Concerning grandmother's ability to protect the children from mother, the court noted that the children had lived with grandmother for two years before they were detained, but grandmother had never sought legal guardianship because "she did not want to upset the mother." The court was concerned about grandmother's failure to follow the safety plan during CFS's initial investigation. The court found it "very troubling" that although grandmother had acknowledged to CFS that "she made a big mistake," grandmother "continues to testify that she was completely unaware that Mom was not to have contact." The court found "that discrepancy to be concerning because [the court did not] believe that the grandmother is being forthright in what had occurred." The court found that it was "clear that there was a safety plan," despite grandmother's claim that CFS had been unclear. The court found that grandmother's testimony that allowing the children to see mother in that period was "a horrible mistake" contradicted her testimony that "she didn't know anything about that and it's the Agency's fault for not being specific." The court credited the jurisdiction and disposition report's statement that "grandmother failed to follow every aspect of that safety plan and was deceptive about it with" CFS. The court had hoped that in having grandmother reassessed for placement there would be evidence that grandmother's "circumstances had changed." But when grandmother was "given an opportunity . . . to show and demonstrate that [she] truly recognizes" the trauma that the children have suffered because of mother's alcoholism and instability, the court "didn't hear that from her."
Concerning grandmother's lack of understanding of the effect of mother's alcoholism on the children, the court noted that grandmother had previously indicated that she did not believe that mother's alcoholism had any effect on the children. The court had wanted grandmother to demonstrate that she recognized that "the children's repeated exposure to the Mother's alcohol and instability has traumatized them, that their ongoing issues with each other in placement with the family, all stems from that chaos that was created under the initial family dynamic before our intervention." Instead, when the court gave grandmother an opportunity to express that she understood how mother's alcoholism had affected the children, grandmother said that "it would be hard for them to see [mother] under the influence." The court explained that "[i]t wasn't just hard. The children have been traumatized and their behavioral and psychological issues stem directly from that ongoing contact and there's no-in the Court's opinion, no recognition of that."
The court reasoned that grandmother's visits in which she blamed the caregiver for various issues, spoke poorly of the caregiver, and spoke to the children about mother's problems further demonstrated that grandmother lacked insight. The court explained that "[t]he behaviors that have been testified about from Sergio, specifically occurred after visitation with Mom and Grandma, it's concerning to the Court."
As for the June 2022 incident at the park, the court acknowledged that it was relevant only insofar as it was "placed in the context of the Court's overarching concerns about this case." The incident demonstrated that "the grown ups continue to engage in allowing their own emotions to outweigh what's in the child's best interest."
Returning to the criteria under section 361.3, the court did not find that grandmother "has the ability to provide a safe, secure, and stable environment for the children relating to protective capacity." The court found that "it's not in the children's best interest to be placed with [grandmother] at this time," and the court accordingly denied the request for placement.
DISCUSSION
Grandmother and CFS argue that the juvenile court abused its discretion under section 361.3 by not placing Sergio with grandmother. We disagree.
Section 361.3 provides that "[i]n any case in which a child is removed from the physical custody of his or her parents . . ., preferential consideration shall be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative." (§ 361.3, subd. (a) (§ 361.3(a)).) "'Preferential consideration' means that the relative seeking placement shall be the first placement to be considered and investigated." (§ 361.3, subd. (c)(1).) The statute "command[s] that relatives be assessed and considered favorably, subject to the juvenile court's consideration of the suitability of the relative's home and the best interests of the child." (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 320 (Stephanie M.).) The relative placement preference does not operate as "an evidentiary presumption that placement with a relative is in the child's best interest." (Ibid.)
Section 361.3(a) provides that a juvenile court evaluating a relative for placement "shall consider, but shall not be limited to, consideration of all the following factors:" (1) "The best interest of the child, including special physical, psychological, educational, medical, or emotional needs" (id., subd. (a)(1)); (2) "[t]he wishes of the parent, the relative, and child, if appropriate" (id., subd. (a)(2)); (3) "[t]he nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the relative, and the relative's desire to care for, and to provide legal permanency for, the child if reunification is unsuccessful" (id., subd. (a)(6)); (4) the ability of the relative to "[p]rovide a safe, secure, and stable environment for the child" (id., subd. (a)(7)(A)); and (5) the ability of the relative to "[p]rotect the child from his or her parents" (id., subd. (a)(7)(D)).
We review for abuse of discretion the juvenile court's determination concerning relative placement under section 361.3. (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067.) We afford great deference to the juvenile court (ibid.) and will not disturb the juvenile court's determination unless the court "'"exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination."'" (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318).
We cannot say that the juvenile court's decision was irrational or arbitrary. The trial judge's comments in concluding that placement with grandmother was not in Sergio's best interest show that the court considered the relevant factors, including the duration of grandmother's relationship with Sergio, Sergio's mental health needs, grandmother's ability to protect Sergio from mother, grandmother's ability to provide a safe, stable, and secure home for Sergio, and the placement wishes of grandmother, mother, and Sergio. Considering the relevant factors and the evidence, the court determined that placement with grandmother was not in Sergio's best interest because of the court's concerns that grandmother lacked insight into how mother's alcoholism had affected the children and that grandmother would consequently be unable to protect the children from mother. The juvenile court was well within its discretion in making that determination. (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318.)
The parties' arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Grandmother argues that the juvenile court misapplied section 361.3 and thus abused its discretion by not independently evaluating Sergio's interests in placement as being distinct from sister's. The argument lacks merit. The juvenile court expressly took into account Sergio's individual interests when those interests diverged from sister's. For example, the court recognized that Sergio wanted to be placed with grandmother, while sister did not. In addition, the court indicated that it was particularly concerned about Sergio's postvisit behavioral issues. The court thus did not have a "singular focus" on sister, as grandmother contends.
Moreover, there was no reason for the court to differentiate between Sergio and sister with respect to the court's primary concerns about placing the children with grandmother, namely, that grandmother would not be able to protect the children from mother and grandmother's demonstrated lack of understanding of how mother's alcoholism affected and traumatized the children. The children were similarly situated with respect to both the need to be protected from mother and grandmother's lack of insight, which could cause grandmother to be insufficiently protective.
CFS argues that the juvenile court's determination that grandmother could not provide Sergio a safe, secure, and stable environment was not supported by substantial evidence because the court relied on "stale and outdated information" and evidence that applied only to sister. We disagree. In support of the argument that the court purportedly relied on outdated information, CFS points out that the court relied "heavily" on early reports such as the jurisdiction and disposition report and the detention report as evidence of grandmother's lack of protective capacity. It is true that the court mentioned those reports and referred specifically to the early safety plan agreed to by grandmother, her failure to abide by that plan, and her inconsistent excuses about that failure. But the court's concern about grandmother's past failure to follow the safety plan was rooted in grandmother's present inability to take responsibility for what had happened. In that regard, the court found grandmother's testimony that CFS had not told her that mother could not have contact with the children "very troubling" and inconsistent with grandmother's acknowledgement that she had "made a big mistake." The court was concerned that the discrepancy indicated that grandmother was not "being forthright in what had occurred." Thus, the court found that grandmother's testimony on the issue of her past failure to protect the children demonstrated that she presently lacked credibility, thus undermining the credibility of her promise to follow future court orders to protect Sergio from mother. We do not reweigh credibility determinations. (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 640.)
CFS also argues that the juvenile court "never reconcile[d] its alleged concerns over [grandmother's] protective capacity with the fact that her visits were unsupervised and had been unsupervised for several months prior to the placement hearing." We are not persuaded. The fact that grandmother was able to visit unsupervised for one hour per week without incident does not show that it was unreasonable for the court to doubt that grandmother would be able to protect Sergio if she cared for him full time. Moreover, for the first two months grandmother's unsupervised visits occurred at CFS's office immediately after mother's visits. There was no risk that grandmother would not protect Sergio from mother under those circumstances, so the visits carried little probative weight as to grandmother's ability to protect Sergio if he were placed with her. And even if grandmother's unsupervised visits with Sergio could support a reasonable inference that she would be protective if Sergio were placed with her, it does not follow that the juvenile court abused its discretion by reaching the contrary conclusion. "When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court." (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 319.)
CFS also argues that it is "not clear what relevancy the June 2022 park incident is to [grandmother's] protective capacity towards Sergio." CFS contends that the court's analysis of the incident pertains only to sister. We disagree. The court explained that the incident demonstrated that grandmother continued to elevate her own needs over the best interest of sister. Grandmother's inability to prioritize the best interest of sister is relevant to whether she would be able to prioritize either child's best interest.
Lastly, CFS argues that "it is unclear what the juvenile court believed Sergio's present psychological needs were," because recent reports demonstrated that Sergio was doing well on medication. While Sergio was stable on medication and was no longer in individual therapy, Sergio had been hospitalized three times within the past year because he had suicidal ideation and acted violently toward the caregiver, the caregiver's son, and sister. The social worker testified that Sergio's behaviors had been related to visits with mother. Regardless of the evidence of Sergio's recent stability, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's concern about Sergio's mental health if placed with grandmother, particularly in light of the court's concern that grandmother would not protect Sergio from mother.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by not placing Sergio with grandmother.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's order of September 22, 2022, is affirmed.
We concur: RAMIREZ P. J., FIELDS J.