Filed 4/6/22 In re G.T. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Browder A. Willis III, Judge. Affirmed.

Christy C. Peterson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Lonnie J. Eldridge, County Counsel, Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Dana C. Shoffner, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A.P. (Mother) appeals from juvenile court orders denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 to reinstate reunification services and transition placement of her daughter G.T. and terminating her parental rights.[1] Mother contends the juvenile court erred by applying a rigid best interest determination to the exclusion of factors that weighed in favor of granting her petition, including her positive and improving relationship with G.T. and the potential for a future sibling relationship with Mother’s unborn child. We reject Mother’s contentions and affirm the orders.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

San Diego County Child Welfare Services received the first report of suspected child abuse involving G.T. on the day she was born in March 2020.[2] Both G.T. and Mother tested negative for drugs at that time, but Mother admitted to hospital staff that she had used drugs during her pregnancy.[3] G.T.’s meconium subsequently tested positive for methamphetamines, indicating Mother had used the drug in her fifth month of pregnancy or later. Mother described herself as a drug addict with a 20-year history of drug abuse involving marijuana from age 14, cocaine from age 17, and methamphetamines from age 19. She had participated in various drug treatment programs but had always relapsed. She indicated she planned to enroll in a program and intended to remain sober. She knew that being under the influence would impact her parenting ability and she would not be able to meet her baby’s basic needs. She stated that G.T.’s biological father (Father) was listed on the birth certificate. Mother denied that Father used illicit drugs.

A social worker reported that both Mother and Father have an extensive arrest history involving drugs, and Father was previously incarcerated for selling drugs.

When G.T. was three days old, Mother agreed to a safety plan pursuant to which she would provide a drug-free environment for the baby and be sober while caring for her. Mother was living with her mother (Grandmother) at the time, and Grandmother agreed to participate as Mother’s support network. Father refused to participate with the safety plan. Mother subsequently agreed to drug test and accepted a referral for Community Services for Families.

In early April, Mother tested positive for methamphetamines. She admitted to using drugs but claimed she did not violate the safety plan, as she left the baby in Grandmother’s care when she used and “came down from her high.” Mother was referred to a drug treatment program but did not show up for her intake. The Agency attempted to contact Mother, Father, and Grandmother between April 10 and April 20, but no one responded.

On April 24, the Agency received a second referral involving G.T. after Father took her to the hospital on two occasions demanding she be drug tested. G.T. appeared healthy and her drug test results were negative, but Father was reported to have “pressured speech,” and to be “hyper verbal” and “paranoid.” Father refused services and refused to drug test.

On May 7, Mother contacted an Agency social worker and reported that she was temporarily residing with a family member in Tijuana because she “had issues” in Grandmother’s home. Mother indicated she was willing to comply with services and agreed to drug test in San Diego on May 8, but on that date she reported she had returned to Tijuana and would be unable to test. Mother agreed to drug test and update her safety plan on May 11. However, the social worker no longer believed voluntary services were appropriate as Mother had taken only “minimal steps” to become sober and Father had refused offered services.

On May 11, the Agency filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1) and the juvenile court issued a protective custody warrant pursuant to section 340, subdivision (a). G.T. was placed in a foster home. At the detention hearing on May 12, both parents were present. The court found the evidence established that G.T. was a child described by section 300, subdivision (b), that G.T.’s initial removal was necessary, and that continued care in her parents’ home was contrary to her welfare. The court ordered Mother and Father to receive liberal, supervised visitation, facilitated by the social worker.

In late May, Mother reported to the social worker that she had used drugs again and reported it was “better” that G.T. was with the foster caregiver rather than with her.

In June 2020, Mother enrolled in substance abuse outpatient treatment and in-home parenting education. Mother visited with G.T. twice and was “very attentive and focused” during the visits, but she missed or cancelled all other visits. She admitted to several relapses and reported ongoing conflict with Father and with her own family members that impacted her participation in services and visitation.

In July, the Agency recommended that G.T. be declared a dependent child, that she continue to be placed in out-of-home care, and that the parents receive reunification services. Mother’s substance abuse treatment counselor reported that Mother had not participated in the program for two weeks. G.T.’s foster caregiver expressed concern regarding the parents not showing up to their scheduled visits. A paternal aunt (Maria) who lived in another county and cared for some of Father’s other children volunteered to take placement of G.T. In late July, Mother appeared more than 20 minutes late for a visit, which the visitation center counted as a no-show.

Mother appeared for one 90-minute visit in August; Mother fed and changed the baby and was able to soothe her when she cried. Mother failed to appear for another scheduled visit and cancelled two more. The visitation center closed out Mother’s visitation services for violating their attendance policy, which provided that three cancellations or no-shows would result in the closure of services. Mother reported to the social worker she was not in therapy but claimed she had plans to engage in therapy, substance abuse treatment, and parenting education.

G.T. transitioned to Maria’s home in August. At that time, Mother reported she agreed with the change of placement and described family conflicts she was having, likening her life to “a movie.”

The court set a contested adjudication and disposition hearing for September 18, 2020.[4] At that hearing, the court found that the extent of Mother’s progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement was “minimal.” The court advised the parents that, because the child was under three years of age, they would have six months to participate regularly and make substantive progress in any court-ordered treatment programs or to cooperate or avail themselves of services provided in the case plan, and the failure to do so could result in a termination of efforts to reunify the family after six months. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).) The court also informed the parties that, after the termination of reunification efforts, parental rights could be terminated and the court could select one of the permanent plans listed in section 366.26. The court made true findings on the petition, declared G.T. a dependent child, placed her with Maria, and ordered reunification services for both parents. For Mother, reunification services included “best efforts to locate an inpatient substance abuse [treatment] program” and therapy, including therapy addressing the issue of domestic violence. The court ordered supervised visits and gave the social worker discretion to allow unsupervised and overnight visits.

In March 2021, the Agency filed its six-month review report. The Agency recommended that G.T. continue to reside with Maria, that reunification services be terminated, that the parents’ visits remain supervised, and that the court set a hearing to determine a permanent plan for G.T. (§ 366.26.) The Agency reported that Mother had only limited contact with the Agency during this period. The parents visited with G.T. only six times between September 2020 and March 2021. In December 2020, Mother was dropped from a therapy program she had begun in August for poor attendance. She was living in Tijuana with Father and continued to use methamphetamines. Father was also using methamphetamines. Mother opposed the recommendation to terminate services and wanted Maria to be appointed as the legal guardian only. Meanwhile, G.T. remained placed with Maria, who was willing to adopt her if the parents failed to reunify. The Agency reported that G.T. “seems to be comfortable and safe with the caregiver,” and that G.T. had developed a “great bond” with Maria and her family. The Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) agreed that G.T. was healthy and doing well in Maria’s care and had no unmet needs.

At the six-month review hearing on March 25, 2021, neither parent was present. The trial court found they voluntarily absented themselves from the proceedings. The Agency reported that the parents were “not consistently or regularly visiting the child.” Mother had recently indicated she was still in a relationship with Father and was still using drugs; she reported being discharged from her treatment plan. The court terminated reunification services, finding that both parents were “still deeply in the addiction cycle of their drug usage,” and, despite the Agency’s reasonable efforts, the parents had not attended to or progressed in the offered services.[5] The court continued G.T. as a dependent child and set the case for a permanent placement hearing. (§ 366.26.)

On May 25, Mother contacted the social worker. She reported that she was pregnant again, which was “a blessing” because “she did not get to enjoy her pregnancy with G.T.” She reported she had separated from Father over a month ago and did not know if he was the father of this baby. She reported that she had used methamphetamines as recently as the day before and reported marijuana use. She supported Maria obtaining legal guardianship of G.T. but did not agree to adoption.

At the end of a supervised visit with G.T. in June 2021, Mother confirmed she was still using drugs. She talked about moving back to Grandmother’s home to be closer to G.T. and stated she would make a slow transition and potentially find a substance abuse treatment program. Between September 2020 and June 2021, Mother visited G.T. six times and stayed with Maria and G.T. in a hotel in San Diego for two days. During that time, Mother fed, dressed and changed G.T.’s diapers. Mother also called Maria for “video visits” with G.T. several times and sent text messages about once or twice a month to ask about G.T.’s wellbeing.

During a visit in July, Mother played with G.T. and fed her snacks. At one point, G.T. approached Maria, laid her head in her lap, called her “Momma,” and reached for her. At the end of the visit, G.T. left with Maria and showed no signs of distress separating from Mother. At a second visit in July, Mother did not have supplies to change G.T.’s diaper but brought crayons and a coloring book and helped G.T. color. G.T. did not exhibit signs of distress when she left the visit.

On July 14, Mother started inpatient substance abuse treatment and reported that day as her sobriety date. Her case manager reported that Mother was very involved in the program, was a self-starter, and was motivated to do what she needed to do to fight for a second chance with G.T.

In August, the Agency filed a section 366.26 report recommending the court terminate Mother’s parental rights and select adoption as G.T.’s permanent plan. The Agency reported that, since June 2021, Mother had been more consistent in visiting and contacting G.T.[6] However, the Agency reported that Mother’s “unstable lifestyle, history of substance abuse, [and] inconsistent contact with G.T. led G.T. to depend on others . . . to meet her physical, emotional and psychological needs. G.T. identifies [Maria] as her primary caretaker and refers to her as ‘momma.’ [Maria] has continuously expressed her interest in providing G.T. with permanency through adoption. G.T. is an integrated member of [Maria’s] family as she is loved and cared for, she is provided with the safety and nurturing that a child needs to thrive with consistency and dedication. [Maria] is willing to maintain contact with not only the birth mother, but with G.T.’s maternal family members. G.T.’s need for permanency outweighs any detriment she may suffer should the mother’s parental rights be terminated.”

Father died unexpectedly in August. After his death, Mother’s case manager observed that Mother was taking her recovery “very serious[ly]” and displayed “huge growth.”

In September 2021, Mother filed a request to modify the court’s September 2020 order placing G.T. with Maria, arguing that she was now in full compliance with her case plan, that her visitation with G.T. had been consistent and positive, that she now had housing, transportation, and a support system, and had made significant progress addressing the issues that brought the family before the juvenile court. Mother requested that G.T. be placed with her under a family maintenance program.

The Agency recommended the court deny Mother’s section 388 petition, terminate parental rights, and order adoption as the best permanent plan. The Agency acknowledged Mother’s significant strides in participating in substance abuse treatment, but the social worker noted that Mother was only 90 days sober, she had yet to live away from the structure and support of her treatment program, and her visits with G.T. remained supervised. The social worker further observed that, prior to July 2021, Mother did not maintain regular contact with G.T., and although G.T. enjoyed Mother’s company, she looked to Maria as her caregiver and parent.[7] The social worker also noted that Mother’s petition did not state where Mother planned to live, how placing G.T. with Mother was in G.T.’s best interest, or how it would improve G.T.’s longterm health and well-being.

At the combined section 388 and section 366.26 hearing in October, the court found Mother made a prima facie showing of changed circumstances warranting a full hearing on Mother’s request to modify. The social worker and Mother both testified. The social worker, who received the case in May 2021 (after the court had terminated reunification services), confirmed that Mother had reengaged with services and visits with G.T. around that time. The social worker acknowledged the great progress Mother had recently made: Mother started an inpatient drug treatment program in July, continued to be fully engaged in the program, and was now 90 days sober. Mother was also participating in a domestic violence recovery program, individual therapy, and had completed numerous parenting classes. The social worker testified that Mother interacted with G.T. appropriately, but G.T. did not recognize Mother as her “mom.” Mother had not had significant contact with G.T., and G.T. had developed more of a connection with her caregiver, and it was her caregiver whom G.T. viewed as her “mom.” The social worker testified that, at the end of visits with Mother, G.T. displayed no distress in separating from her. She further testified that, even assuming G.T. enjoyed the visits with Mother, severing the relationship would not be detrimental to G.T. because G.T. had a stable, secure relationship with her caregiver. G.T. had now lived with her caregiver for more than 14 months of her 19-month life. Mother only had G.T. in her care for 51 days, and since then, had never had an unsupervised or overnight visit. On cross examination, the social worker acknowledged that, because G.T. was under three years of age, the Agency was required to provide only six months of reunification services, and that if the child had been over the age of three, they “may have found [themselves] in a different situation.”

Mother testified that she had been “clean” since July 14. She was pregnant with another child due in January 2022. She wanted G.T. to be transitioned from Maria’s care to hers. She acknowledged her drug addiction was “a long-term issue,” but she was motivated to stay sober because “be[ing] the mother [she] need[s] to be to [her] children” was her “priority.” She had developed a support system to maintain her sobriety. She was living in a residential drug treatment program center and planned to transition to a sober living center where her children could reside with her for a period of three to six months. After that she was “looking into getting housing through [Grandmother].”

Mother acknowledged that, in 2010, she had completed a drug rehabilitation program and was clean for about two years before she relapsed. She also previously experienced a six-year period of sobriety when she went through drug court but then became “complacen[t],” “stopped going to N[.]A[.] meetings,” and relapsed. Mother acknowledged that G.T. was “really attached” to Maria and requested that the court reinstate reunification services with a view toward transitioning G.T. from Maria’s care to hers.

The court applauded Mother’s efforts and found that Mother demonstrated changed circumstances. The court observed that reunification services had been terminated after Mother’s failure to comply for six months and characterized her new sobriety and progress in visitation as “too little too late.” The court recognized this was “a difficult case” but found that G.T. had a stable, bonded relationship with her caregiver, with whom she had spent 14 months of her short life, and it was not in G.T.’s best interest “to transition to a level of uncertainty that the Mother would bring as opposed to the stability that the current caregiver brings . . . .” The court acknowledged that Mother had relapsed from sobriety into drug use in the past and observed that the “roller coaster ride that the people laboring under addictions take is a difficult one where relapses are expected.” The court found Mother’s future demonstrated “a lot of uncertainty” considering “stresses that are right on the horizon as to a newborn and for the first time in some time trying to manage sobriety out of a structured environment . . . into a sober living environment where more real day-to-day stresses will come into play.” The court found it would not be in G.T.’s best interests to change her placement or to reinstate services that were previously terminated. The court observed that there was no evidence that a beneficial parent-child relationship exists, noting that there was a “friendly” and “loving” relationship, but not a parent-child relationship. The court found that G.T. is both generally and specifically adoptable. The court denied Mother’s section 388 petition, terminated her parental rights, found that a permanent plan of adoption is appropriate, and referred G.T. to the Agency for adoptive placement.

DISCUSSION

Under section 388, any person having an interest in a dependent of the juvenile court may petition to change, modify, or set aside a prior order of the court. (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).) The petitioner bears the burden of showing: (1) there has been a change of circumstance or new evidence; and (2) the modification is in the child’s best interests. (Id., subds. (a)(1) & (d); see In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 611 (A.A.).)

“The purpose of the California dependency system is to protect children from harm and to preserve families when safe for the child. (§ 300.2; [citation].) The focus during the reunification period is to preserve the family whenever possible. [Citation.] Until services are terminated, family reunification is the goal and the parent is entitled to every presumption in favor of returning the child to parental custody. (§§ 366.21, 366.22; [citation].)” (Tracy J. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1423.) However, “[a]fter reunification services are terminated, the focus is to provide the child with a safe, permanent home.” (Ibid.; see In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527 (J.C.), citing In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 [“Once reunification services are ordered terminated, the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability.”].) Yet “[e]ven after the focus has shifted from reunification, the scheme provides a means for the court to address a legitimate change of circumstances while protecting the child’s need for prompt resolution of his custody status.” (Ibid. [construing sections 366.36 and 388]. A court “hearing a motion for change of placement at this stage of the proceedings must recognize this shift of focus in determining the ultimate question before it, that is, the best interests of the child.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 (Stephanie M.).)

A petition under section 388 “is addressed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court, and its decision will not be overturned on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” (A.A., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 612.) In ruling on such a petition, the court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case. (In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 189.)

On the record before us, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s section 388 petition. Mother did not file her section 388 petition until September 2021, six months after reunification services had been terminated. By this point, G.T.’s need for permanency and stability was the paramount concern. (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at

pp. 317–318.) Mother’s arguments focus on her recent sobriety, her stable living arrangement and the availability of services at her recovery center, her blossoming relationship with G.T., and the potential for G.T. to someday have a sibling relationship with Mother’s expected child. The juvenile court acknowledged Mother’s recent progress, applauded her for it, and found that Mother had demonstrated changed circumstances. However, the court was concerned that the change in circumstances had occurred only recently, that Mother’s relationship with G.T., while “friendly” and “loving,” was not a maternal relationship, and that Mother’s recent sobriety, which had not yet been tested outside a structured environment, would soon face challenges including changing environments and the stresses of having to care for a newborn. While Mother had begun to visit more consistently with G.T., she still had not participated in unsupervised or overnight visits. Meanwhile, G.T. had developed a loving, stable, and bonded relationship with Maria, the caregiver with whom G.T. had lived for 14 of her 19 months. The trial court’s findings are supported by substantial evidence (J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 530 [substantial evidence standard of review is applicable to the factual components of a juvenile court’s determination]), and under these circumstances, it was reasonable for the court to conclude that it was not in G.T.’s best interests to transition her from the stability she had developed with her caregiver into an uncertain environment.[8]

Mother’s arguments are unavailing. She contends the court applied “a rigid and mechanical best interest determination” and relied too heavily on G.T.’s age and the corresponding six-month limitation on reunification services. (§§ 388, subds. (a)(1) & (d); 361.5, subd. (a)(1)(B).) Mother argues that her relationship with G.T. was positive and was continuing to improve and her request for reunification services was not disruptive because she was not seeking immediate placement of the child with her, but requested a transition to allow G.T. to adjust. We are not persuaded. “[A]fter reunification efforts have terminated, the court’s focus shifts from family reunification toward promoting the child’s needs for permanency and stability.” (J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 527.) The court referenced the six-month window for reunification services generally applicable to children G.T.’s age, but the court also acknowledged its authority to modify its prior orders if it was in the child’s best interest to do so. (See A.A., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 611.) The court declined to do so here because, after thoughtfully considering all the circumstances, it found that G.T.’s best interests were served by the strong bond and stability she had developed with her caregiver. The court’s conclusion here was reasonable based on the circumstances and demonstrates that the court properly recognized the shift in focus after the reunification period from reunifying the family to “the best interests of the child.” (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.)

Even if we consider the factors set forth in In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 530–532 (Kimberly F.), as Mother encourages us to do, we would not come to a contrary conclusion.[9] In Kimberly F., the court stated that a nonexhaustive list of relevant considerations in deciding a section 388 petition include “(1) [t]he seriousness of the problem which led to the dependency, and the reason for any continuation of that problem; (2) the strength of relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent and caretakers; and (3) the degree to which the problem may be easily removed or ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has been.” (Id., at p. 532.) These factors do not weigh in Mother’s favor. Mother admitted she had struggled with addiction for nearly two decades, had previously relapsed even after significantly longer periods of sobriety than the 90-day period she had recently achieved, and she had not had an opportunity to test her sobriety living outside a sober living center. Mother had only recently begun visiting G.T. with any consistency and their relationship, while “friendly” and “loving,” was not a maternal one. G.T.’s bond with her caretaker was far stronger than any bond with Mother. It was undisputed that G.T. had a “great bond” and a stable relationship with Maria and had lived with Maria for 14 of her 19 months. G.T. showed no distress in separating from Mother but called Maria “momma” and ran to her at the end of her visits with Mother. Removing G.T. from Maria to place her with Mother would undermine—not promote—the permanency and stability G.T. had developed with Maria.

Mother also argues that the burden of proof is modest, and she was only required to show by a preponderance of evidence a change of circumstances and that the requested modification is in the child’s best interests. (§ 388, subds. (a)(1) & (d); Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317 [the burden of proof is on the moving party to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are changed circumstances or new evidence and that the requested change would be in the child’s best interest].) The trial court applied the appropriate burden of proof here and found Mother met her burden to establish a change of circumstances, but found Mother failed to establish the requested change was in G.T.’s best interest. The trial court considered the relevant factors and reasonably concluded that modifying prior orders to reinstate reunification services was not in the best interests of the child. We find no abuse of discretion on this record. (A.A., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 612; In re Zachary G., (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 808 [affirming denial of § 388 petition; no showing mother was immediately ready for custody or it was in child’s best interests to be removed from only home he ever knew, to return to parent still at risk of regression].)

Finally, we reject Mother’s contention that the court erred when it “seemed to ignore the sibling relationship, and the numerous benefits to G.T. of having a relationship with her newborn sister.” Although Mother was pregnant at the time of the hearing, the child had not been born, and no sibling relationship existed. Mother cites no authority that a juvenile court must consider a prospective relationship with an unborn sibling when considering a section 388 petition. (C.f. In re Isaiah S. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 428, 437–438 [“Factors for the court to consider [in applying the sibling relationship exception to termination of parental rights under section 366.36] include the nature and extent of the sibling relationship, whether the siblings were raised in the same home, whether they share a close bond and whether continued contact is in the child’s best interests, as compared to the benefits of adoption.”].)

After properly exercising its discretion in denying Mother’s section 388 motion, the juvenile court found that G.T. is both generally and specifically adoptable. The court terminated Mother’s parental rights, found that a permanent plan of adoption is appropriate, and referred G.T. to the Agency for adoptive placement. (See In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 630 [if a court determines a child is likely to be adopted and parents’ reunification services have been terminated, “then the court shall terminate parental rights to allow for adoption”].) We find no error on this record.

DISPOSITION

The orders are affirmed.

McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, J.

DATO, J.

[1] Unspecified statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

[2] San Diego County Child Welfare Services is a branch of the county’s Health and Human Services Agency. For ease of reference, we refer to them interchangeably as “Agency.”

[3] Mother reported her intention was to stop using while she was pregnant, but believed if she stopped taking drugs too suddenly, “the baby could get seizures.”

[4] A jurisdiction and disposition hearing was initially set for June 1, 2020; however it was repeatedly continued due to court closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

[5] The court found that the extent of progress Mother made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement was “none.”

[6] In contrast, Father’s last visit with G.T. had been in June 2021.

[7] The social worker described Mother’s most recent visit with G.T., which “went exceptionally well,” and was “filled with playing, laughter and a lot of interaction,” but at the end of the visit, when G.T. saw Maria, she ran to her “and did not show any signs of distress after leaving the visit with [Mother].”

[8] Mother contests the juvenile court’s characterization of her future as “uncertain.” At the time of the hearing, Mother had been sober for 90 days, and Mother acknowledged that she had previously relapsed after periods of sobriety. She was living in a residential drug treatment program center and planned to transition to a sober living center where she could live for a period of three to six months with her children. After that she was “looking into getting housing through [Grandmother],” with whom she was living after G.T. was born, and where she was previously unable to maintain her sobriety. In addition, she would soon be caring for a newborn. Mother’s testimony supported the trial court’s finding that Mother’s future was “uncertain.”

[9] In J.C., the court declined to apply the Kimberly F. factors, finding “they do not take into account the Supreme Court’s analysis in Stephanie M., applicable after reunification efforts have been terminated.” (J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 527.)