In re Jennifer C.

Filed 7/24/07 In re Jennifer C. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, D. Zeke Zeidler, Judge. Affirmed.

Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel and Joanne Nielsen, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________

In this appeal from an order of the juvenile dependency court,^[1] Alicia R., the mother of the minor children Jennifer C. and M. R. (Mother, Jennifer, and M., respectively), challenges the courts final order whereby the respective fathers of the minors were given legal and physical custody of the children, Mother was granted monitored visitation, and jurisdiction over the minors was terminated. Mother contends the dependency court should not have terminated jurisdiction over Jennifer because Mother and Jennifer have not established a positive relationship yet and therefore continued supervision by the court was necessary. Mother also contends the record does not support the courts decision to order that Mothers visits with the minors be supervised. Our review of the record and pertinent law shows Mother has not presented cause to reverse the challenged order.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

1. The Initial Case Plan for Jennifer and M.

The minor children came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) on November 7, 2005, the day after the childrens maternal grandmother (MGM) brought Jennifer to County General Hospital for burns the child sustained. Jennifers left leg had second and third degree burns from thigh to ankle. It was reported that while she and her cousins were playing in the MGMs yard, one of the cousins was playing with matches and rubbing alcohol, and as Jennifer walked by, there was a sudden change in the wind which cause[d] the fire to reach Jennifers pants. The MGM was caring for the children at that time and Mother was at work. A physician from the hospital told the social worker that although the doctors did not suspect child abuse or neglect, they called the child abuse hotline because [M]other . . . did not seem worried. Jennifer (born August 1998) was seven years old at that time and M. (born June 2001) was four.

On December 16, 2005, the Department opened a voluntary family maintenance case whereby the children would remain at home. A voluntary plan was chosen because Mother agreed to participate in general counseling as well as family preservation services, which included in-home counseling once a week and parenting classes. The case plan states Mother had inadequate resources to meet the minors needs and was not utilizing existing available community resources. It also states Mother has a history of being abused as a child, she lacks parenting skills, and does not know how to solve conflicts appropriately. Additionally, the case plan notes that twice in 2002 and once in 2004 the Department received referrals concerning the minors which included allegations of emotional and physical abuse and general neglect by Mother, but all three referrals were closed because the allegations were inconclusive.

Acting within the voluntary case plan, the Departments social worker telephoned Mother three times in January 2006 to schedule a meeting with her but there was no response from Mother. The social worker then made an unannounced visit to the MGMs home on January 31, 2006. The MGM reported that Mother left the minors in her care on December 23, 2005, without making appropriate child care plans for them, and Mother had not called to inquire about them. The MGM also reported that Mother had not attended any of Jennifers doctor appointments, nor had she helped with the childs recovery from her burns. The MGM stated that Mother had finally come by earlier that day (January 31), but had only stopped by because the MGM called Mother at her place of employment and insisted that Mother visit the minors. Further, Mother did not visit with Jennifer, she only visited with M. She visited with him for two hours and then left him in the front yard without notifying anyone that she was leaving.

The MGM requested a letter from the Department stating she has authority to see to Jennifers medical care. Jennifer was receiving physical therapy two to three times a week. The MGM stated that Mother has never been attentive or caring with the minors, and she opined that because she (the MGM) took on the role of a mother for the children, this did not allow Mother to become a parent to them. The MGM stated this caused Jennifer to resent and hate Mother at times.

2. The Dependency Petition and Detention Hearing

Because Mothers whereabouts were unknown, the social worker detained the minors and placed them in the care of the maternal grandparents on February 2, 2006. The next day, Mother contacted the social worker and reported she really had made prior arrangements with the MGM to care for the minors. She stated she moved from the MGMs home and told the MGM she would return for the children once she had her own transportation because it was difficult to take Jennifer to her burn treatment on public transportation. She stated her relationship with the MGM had been difficult for years and so she wanted minimal communications with the MGM, and she did not want the MGM to know her address or telephone number. She stated a belief that the MGM had given false information because the MGM wants to be given custody of the minors. She denied leaving M. unattended in the MGMs front yard, saying that his cousins were with him and so was the MGM.

Mother also stated her oldest child, Alfonso R. (born June 1996), resides with his father, Raul S., in South Carolina, pursuant to a mutual arrangement between herself and the father. Raul S. was reported to also be M.s father, and Mother stated she was making plans for M. to join his father in South Carolina. The social worker contacted Raul S. that same day. Raul S. stated he was not aware that the minors were in the sole care of the MGM. He stated he has weekly communication with M. and he provides $300 each month for child support. He opined that the minors are well cared for by the MGM but stated he would like custody of his children. He stated Mother asked him in December to come to Los Angeles and take M. home with him to South Carolina but finances were preventing him from doing that until April 2006. However, he stated he would be present for the detention hearing. The whereabouts of the man reported to be Jennifers father, Florencio C., were unknown at that time.

On February 7, the Department filed a juvenile dependency petition. The sustained petition alleges Mother left the children in the care of the childrens maternal grandparents for extended periods of time without making a formal, ongoing plan for their care or providing consistently for the childrens financial and medical needs. Mothers conduct and omissions place the children at substantial risk of harm.

When Jennifer was interviewed by the social worker, the child stated she wanted to live with the MGM and did not want to go live with Mother, whom she referred to as Alicia. Jennifer appeared to be afraid to speak with the social worker and when asked why she was afraid, she replied that Mother told her the social workers were going to take me away. She stood very close to the MGM and placed her arms around the MGMs waist. The MGM stated she did not want to fight for the children, she simply did not want them to be separated with the boys living in South Carolina and Jennifer living without them. She stated Jennifer loves her brothers and was very sad when Alfonso went to live with his father. The Department recommended to the dependency court that visits between Mother and Jennifer be monitored and that Jennifer and M. be detained with the MGM.

At the detention hearing held February 7, 2006, Mother, Florencio C. and Raul S. all appeared. The court found that Raul S. is M.s presumed father and Florencio C. is Jennifers presumed father. The presumed fathers, who are not alleged in the petition to be offending parents, submitted to the courts jurisdiction but Mother denied the petition. M. was ordered released to Raul S. to South Carolina, and Jennifer was detained with the maternal grandparents (hereinafter, grandparents). Family reunification services were ordered for Jennifer, Mother and Florencio C., and family maintenance services for M. and Raul S. The court ordered monitored visits between Jennifer and her parents and unmonitored visits between Mother and M., with the Department given discretion to allow overnight visits between Jennifer and her father.

A jurisdiction and disposition hearing and pretrial resolution conference were set for March 14 but rescheduled to April 10. In a two page information for court officer filed by the Department prior to April 10, the Department stated Jennifer was receiving psychological services at her school to address the separation issues that arose after M. was released to live with his presumed father, Raul S. She was reported to also be depressed about the injuries to her leg but was recovering from that depression. She was having telephone contact with M., and the grandparents reported that M. always cries when he calls them and he tells them he wants to come home to them. The grandparents stated M. has never been separated from them or from Jennifer. The court directed the Department to address the possibility of (1) terminating the case as to M. with a custody order, and (2) releasing Jennifer to her father with arrangements made for Jennifer to live with the grandparents during the week. The Department was ordered to provide Mother with no/low cost referrals for programs.

3. The Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearing

The case social worker interviewed Jennifer, Mother, the grandparents, the presumed fathers and two other social workers to prepare the Departments report for the April 10 pretrial resolution conference/jurisdiction-disposition hearing. The interviews show there is long term friction between Mother and the MGM. The children have always lived with the grandparents and the grandparents have essentially raised them. They have also provided the minors with their clothes, food and housing, although the childrens fathers have also provided the grandparents with money for the minors. Father Raul S. stated Mother has never provided him with child support for Alfonso and M.

Since Jennifer was born, Mother has also lived with the grandparents, but it was common for Mother to leave the grandparents home for days or weeks at a time. She permanently left the grandparents home in late December 2006.

The MGM stated Mother has never wanted to care for the minors. The MGM is the one who takes Jennifer to her medical appointments for burn treatment and therapy because Mother did not want the responsibility. The MGM stated Mother never missed a day of work after Jennifers injury. Mother admitted that the MGM is the one who assumed full responsibility in that area. Mother stated the MGM only takes Jennifer because she (Mother) does not have her own transportation and when she obtains a car she will do that for Jennifer. Mother acknowledged she had not made an effort to accompany the MGM and Jennifer to the medical appointments, but she justified it by saying that if she were to be in the same car with the MGM they would argue. The social worker concluded that Mother had not made an effort to set aside her differences with the MGM so that she could give support to Jennifer, and that Mother has a pattern of making excuses to avoid her responsibilities to her children, including blaming the social workers for her own failure to comply with the voluntary family maintenance plan. Mother stated she did not comply with it because none of the social workers she spoke with would give her a list of classes and therapists.^[2]

Mother was described by Jennifers father as someone who does not take anything seriously, and the social worker noted that during her interview with Mother, Mother did appear somewhat light hearted about the allegations against her. Mother was also described as irresponsible and selfish.

Mother stated Jennifer refuses to let Mother help her with her baths. Jennifer stated she does not want Mother to take her to her medical appointments. The social worker opined that Mothers inconsistent parenting left Jennifer with bitter feelings towards Mother. Jennifer stated that she has stopped wetting the bed since Mother left the grandparents home.

The case social worker opined that although Mother and the MGM have a strained relationship, Mother depends on the MGM to care for the minors and Mother appears to have become accustomed to the MGM taking responsibility for them just as she was content to have M.s presumed father take responsibility for their other child, Alfonso, without contributing anything financially to his support.

Mother stated she wants to have custody of the minors and wants them to have no contact with the maternal grandparents and the maternal family. Jennifers father stated he wants full custody but that the minor should not be completely removed from the MGMs care because the minor needs the MGM, and so Jennifer should live with him on the weekends. He was visiting Jennifer regularly. M.s father stated he will take full responsibility for M. but wants Mother to assist him with child support. Jennifer stated she wants to continue living with the MGM and she wants her brothers to return to that home. The MGM stated the minors should live with her because they have been growing up with her. Jennifer was reported to still have difficulty dealing with the separation from her siblings and the scars on her legs, and M. was reported to miss Jennifer but to be mentally and emotionally stable.

At the April 10, 2006 pretrial resolution conference, Mother, Jennifer, Jennifers father, and the grandparents appeared. Mother asserted Jennifers father drinks excessively, is not responsible and has outstanding warrants, and the Department was ordered to investigate those charges. The court ordered Jennifer released to her father with the requirement that the minor stay with the grandparents during the week. The case was continued to May 3 for mediation.

4. The May 3, 2006 Mediation

The Departments report for the May 3 mediation states that in investigating Mothers claims regarding Jennifers father, the social worker found no outstanding warrants and determined he does not drink to a degree that would interfere with his ability to provide appropriate care for Jennifer. Father indicated he would submit to an alcohol/drug test and had even indicated previously that he would provide ongoing testing. He stated he would provide copies of the money orders he uses to provide support for his sons who live with his ex-wife, and added that he sees to it that all of Jennifers needs are met.

At the May 3 mediation, the parties agreed the petition would be amended by specific interlineations and Mother agreed to plead no contest to the petition as amended. Regarding disposition, the parties agreed that a home of parent (Father) order could be made for Jennifer with the minor to reside with the grandparents during the week. Mother requested a disposition contest regarding her own contacts with Jennifer, and regarding a restraining order issue concerning Jennifers fathers girlfriend. Regarding M., the parties agreed to a home of parent (Father) order.

The court declared M. a dependent of the court and made the abovementioned home of parent order the permanent plan for him, taking custody from Mother. Disposition as to Jennifer was continued to May 24 for a contested hearing. The court ordered a case plan for Mother of parenting classes, individual counseling, and monitored visitation.

The case was continued to May 24 for a contested hearing as to Jennifer. A six‑month section 364 home of parent review hearing was set for November 1.

5. The May 24 Contest

The Department submitted a two-page information for court officer for the May 24 hearing. The report states the social worker met with Jennifers father and his fianc, their child, and the fiancs two children. Their home was clean and spacious and the children appeared healthy and happy. Jennifer had been having weekend overnight visits there since April 10 without incident or concern. All of the minors in the home are girls and Jennifer was reported to have a fun time at the visits and to be building a relationship with her half-sisters. The fianc admitted to a past 11-year drug addiction but indicated that the support of Jennifers father, coupled with jail time, drug counseling, random drug testing and a 12-step substance abuse program had combined to keep her sober for two years and she rebuilt her relationship with her mother and brothers. The social worker opined that the fiancs substance abuse was no longer an issue and observed that the fiancs children were never removed from her care. The social worker recommended that the home of parent/weekdays with grandparents order for Jennifer remain in place.

Regarding contacts between Mother and Jennifer, the social worker monitored an initial visit on April 12 in a park, and since then, Jennifer had reacted negatively about visiting Mother and refused to participate in the visits. The minor was reported to blame Mother for her brothers not living with her any longer. The MGM reported that on the days the social worker spoke to Jennifer about visiting Mother, Jennifer wet the bed in the evening. The social worker recommended that a qualified therapist address the visitation issues with Jennifer and the minor not be forced to visit with Mother. The MGM had already initiated an intake process at a hospital for individual counseling for Jennifer and the first session was scheduled for June 19.

The court declared Jennifer a dependent child of the court, custody was taken from Mother, and the court made a home of parent order for Jennifers father. Family maintenance services for the father were ordered. Reunification services for Mother at the courts discretion were also ordered. Mother was ordered to attend Department approved programs of parent education and individual counseling to address case issues. Individual counseling for Jennifer, and conjoint counseling with Mother and Father when recommended, were also ordered. Jennifers step-mother was to have unmonitored visits. Mothers visits were ordered to be monitored visits at a Department office at least weekly, plus weekly visits in a therapeutic setting, with the Department given discretion to liberalize the visits.

The court set a six-month section 364 home of parent review hearing for Jennifer on November 1, the same day as M.s review hearing.

6. The Section 364 Review of the Home of Parent Orders

The Departments report for the six-month review hearing of the fathers respective home of parent orders and the section 366.21, subdivision (e) six-month post‑disposition review hearing for Mother includes a letter from Mothers counselor, dated October 26, 2006. The letter states Mother attended 17 individual counseling sessions and needed seven more to complete her counseling program. She had not yet enrolled in a parenting class.

Jennifer was enrolled in counseling. According to a letter from her therapist, the minor attended four sessions with the MGM and three with her father, and [i]ndividual sessions and conjoint sessions with grandmother and father are scheduled to continue on an alternating basis every two weeks. The therapist found that conjoint sessions between Jennifer and Mother would not be appropriate because the minor repeatedly insisted she did not want to speak to Mother or have monitored visits with her. The primary diagnosis for Jennifer was Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct and a secondary diagnosis of Nocturnal Enuresis.

Jennifer continued to reside with the maternal grandparents and to have overnight weekend visits with her father when she wanted to visit with him, and the social worker found the grandparents home provided the minor with a safe, nurturing environment. Jennifer told the social worker she wants to remain with the MGM. The father stated he would assist the grandparents financially for Jennifer. The MGM reported that Father is considerate and understanding when Jennifer does not want to visit him on a weekend, that Father and his girlfriend care for the minor well when she is in their home, and that Jennifer likes Fathers girlfriend. Jennifer was having telephone contacts with her brothers in South Carolina but she told the social worker that she was not able to speak with them on a regular basis. She continued to have difficulty with being separated from them.

Since the last court date, Jennifer had monitored visits with Mother on August 2 and 9, and the MGM reported the minor urinated in bed when she visited Mother. Two more visits had been scheduled but neither Mother nor Jennifer came for those visits. (Prior to the two visits in August, Mother and Jennifer had monitored visits on April 12 and 25.) The MGM reported that Jennifer had not urinated in bed since she ceased having visits with Mother. The minor continued to refuse to visit Mother or have telephone contact with her. Jennifer agreed that she would inform her therapist or the social worker when she is ready to have visits with Mother.

M. continued to reside with his father in Greenville, South Carolina. The Department made a request to Child Protection Services in that state to make a courtesy home visit to obtain the status of the fathers care and supervision. The father reported to the Departments social worker that such a visit had been made and the Greenville social worker told him everything was fine and a written report to the Department would be provided. Father stated M. was not displaying any behavioral or emotional problems, was a happy child, and appeared to be adjusting well to his home in South Carolina. Mother reported to the social worker that she had not visited with M. because of his living in South Carolina but she was maintaining telephone contact with him.

The parties had differing views as to whether the case should be closed. Jennifers father stated it should be closed and he would continue to have Jennifer stay with the grandparents. M.s father stated he thought the case was already closed for M., and he thought it should be closed since he is providing for the minor. Mother stated she did not want the case to be closed. The social worker opined that M.s and Jennifers respective fathers were caring for them in a manner that promotes their welfare and the courts jurisdiction over the minors should be terminated with an order giving the fathers sole physical custody, joint legal custody, and an appropriate visitation arrangement. The MGM stated she would like for M. to be in her care.

At the November 1 hearing, Mothers attorney informed the court Mother wanted a contest. The court set the matter for November 9 for a trial setting conference. The Department was directed to set up a telephone visitation schedule for Jennifer and M. Mothers attorney asked the court to set a visitation schedule for Mother because Mother had not had visits with Jennifer for over a month. The Department was directed to set up the schedule.

7. November 9, 2006 Trial Setting Conference

According to an information for court officer, a monitored visitation schedule was set up for Mother to see Jennifer on Wednesday afternoons. No therapeutic visitation had been arranged because of the minors therapists earlier decision that such visits should not take place while Jennifer continued to be resistant to seeing Mother. However, the social worker left a message for the therapist stating the social worker needed to discuss that issue. A letter from People in Progress states Mother enrolled in a parenting class there on October 17 and as of November 8 had completed two of the required 12 sessions. She was reported to be open and honest in both the group and individual sessions and to have an accepting attitude. A November 7 letter from Mothers counselor states Mother had attended another counseling session since the counselors previous (October 26) report to the Department and thus needed six more sessions to complete the counseling program.

At the November 9 trial setting conference, the court noted the Department was recommending that jurisdiction over both Jennifer and M. be terminated with a custody order. Mothers attorney indicated Mother was requesting further reunification services. The court set the contested hearing for December 12, ordered that Mothers visits with Jennifer are to take place at a Department office, and ordered a supplemental report from Jennifers therapist regarding whether contact between Mother and Jennifer would be detrimental.

8. The December 12, 2006 Review Hearing

a. Letter from Jennifers Therapist

The Departments report for the December 12 hearing includes a letter from Jennifers therapist in which the therapist stated that in Jennifers therapy sessions, the minor repeatedly asserted she did not want visitation with Mother because Mother used to hit her, Mother took away my brothers, and Im afraid of her. The therapist added that Jennifer was visibly upset whenever she spoke of visiting Mother. She would hug the MGM, shake her head no, and frown. The MGM reported to the therapist that Jennifer had enuretic episodes, cried, and stated she did not want to see Mother whenever she was told she would be visiting with Mother. The therapist concluded that at this time, it is not clinically indicated for Jennifer to have conjoint sessions with mother.

b. Mothers Testimony

Regarding M., Mother testified she was in favor of the court terminating its jurisdiction over him, and while her relationship with his father is such that she did not believe she and the father needed an order for the minor, if the court were going to make such an order, she believed it should be shared custody so that she and the father could decide whether M. should live with her or him.

Regarding Jennifer, Mother testified that in the last six months, Jennifer came to more than 75% of her visits with Mother but not more than 85%. When Jennifer did not appear for scheduled visits, no one called Mother to cancel them. Mother stated that in addition to visits with Jennifer, she was also having telephone contacts with her and those were generally 30 minutes long and occurred two to three times a week. She tells Jennifer during each call that she loves her and Jennifer tells her the same thing back. Mother stated Jennifer has told her that she is angry with Mother because Jennifers siblings do not live with her anymore, and sometimes during their visits Jennifers body language tells her that the minor does not want to be having the visit. Mother stated she is willing to participate in conjoint counseling with Jennifer and would appreciate the court ordering six weeks of conjoint counseling to see if it could result in Jennifer being less angry with Mother, and if after six weeks Jennifer was still so angry, Mother would understand that it would be in the minors best interest for the court to make a family law order for Jennifer. Asked why the Department filed the dependency petition, Mother stated it was because others made false reports, and because of Jennifers burn, but it was not because she had been a bad Mother.

Mothers attorney argued to the court that it should issue an order giving Mother legal and physical custody, with primary custody to Jennifers father. The attorney also argued there was evidence that Jennifer tells Mother she loves her and so the court should also order Jennifer into conjoint counseling with Mother so that Jennifer can have professional help to deal with her anger issues against Mother and press on with her life . The attorney added that if it is left up to Jennifers father, Mother will never be able to see Jennifer.

c. The Courts Decision

Addressing Mothers presentation, the court stated Mother was still in denial about what caused this case to be filed and the risk she posed to the minors, and thus had not progressed despite the counseling she had received, and moreover, therapists agree that children should not be in conjoint counseling with a parent until the parent has begun to deal with his or her issues.

The court terminated Mothers family reunification services, found that Jennifer and M. are no longer at risk, terminated its jurisdiction over them, and made custody orders for the minors. For Jennifer, the court granted legal and physical custody to her father and supervised visitation to Mother by a mutually approved monitor, with Jennifers father encouraged to facilitate sibling contact. For M., the court granted his father legal and physical custody and ordered that Mother have visits to be supervised by an agreed-upon monitor.

Mother filed a timely notice of appeal from the courts December 12 order as to both of the minors.

CONTENTIONS ON APPEAL

Mother contends the trial court abused its discretion when it terminated jurisdiction over Jennifer. Mother argues further jurisdiction is necessary because she and Jennifer need to be in conjoint therapy under the juvenile courts supervision so that their relationship can be repaired but the minors therapist has not started such therapy because Jennifer indicated she did not want to have contact with Mother. Mother also contends the record does not support the courts order that her visits with the minors need to be supervised. She asserts the record shows she made substantial progress and therefore supervision is not necessary.

DISCUSSION

1. The Nature of the Juvenile Courts December 12, 2006 Order That
Provided for Custody and Visitation of the Minors and Terminated
Jurisdiction Over Them

Up until the time that dependency jurisdiction over minor children is terminated, custody of the minor is determined by the juvenile court, not the family court. ( 304; In re Jennifer R. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 704, 711.) When the dependency court decides that termination of jurisdiction over a dependent minor is warranted and the court makes a custody or visitation order for the child, section 362.4 provides that if there is a family court proceeding involving the minor, then the dependency courts custody and visitation order shall be filed in the family court case at the time the dependency court terminates its jurisdiction, and such order shall become a part thereof. If there is no family court proceeding regarding the minor, the dependency court may direct that its custody and visitation order be used as a basis for opening a file in the superior court of the county in which the parent, who has been given custody, resides. ( 362.4.) Here, the juvenile courts order for Jennifer contains that directive.

The order terminating jurisdiction is a final judgment of the dependency court ( 302, subd. (d)) and is referred to as an exit order. (In re John W. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 961, 970.) The trial court is permitted to include collateral orders in its exit order if such collateral orders are reasonably related to the custody and visitation order, such as requiring a parent to engage in counseling as a condition of the parent having visitation with a minor. (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 203-204.)^[3]

2. The Validity of the Courts Exit Order

The parties in the instant case agree that custody orders are reviewed for abuse of the trial courts discretion. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318.) They also agree that section 361.2 gives a dependency court jurisdiction to place a minor with the parent with whom the minor was not living when the minor came to the attention of the child protective agency, that is, the parent with whom the child was not residing at the time that the events or conditions arose that brought the child within the provisions of Section 300. Indeed, such placement is required if that other parent desires to assume custody of the minor, unless the court determines that such placement would be detrimental to the safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. ( 361.2, subd. (a).)

Here, Jennifer and M. were removed from Mothers custody and when their respective fathers indicated a desire to assume custody of them, the court placed the minors with their fathers. Specifically, the juvenile court proceeded under options granted to it by subdivision (b) of section 361.2 when it (1) released the minors to their fathers, (2) retained jurisdiction to provide Mother with family reunification services and provide the fathers with family maintenance services, (3) conducted periodic reviews, and then (4) determined that the children should be placed in the legal and physical custody of their fathers and that supervised visitation should be provided to Mother. At the hearing at which the custody and visitation orders were made and dependency court jurisdiction was terminated, the court stated that releasing the minors to their fathers had resolved the situation that brought the children into the dependency system and the children were no longer at risk.

It is true that the court noted that Mother had complied with her case plan but the court qualified that observation by saying she had complied with the plan in terms of being in programs. The thrust of the comment was that just being in the programs was not sufficient. Noting that Mother testified that the only reason the kids are out of her care is because [people said] things that are not true, the court stated Mother was still in denial about what risk she even posed to the children, which means shes made zero progress in all of the counseling she has done.

Mother was described by Jennifers father as being someone who does not take anything seriously. A doctor at the hospital where Jennifer was taken for her burns told the social worker that the doctors there contacted the child abuse hotline not because they suspected overt child abuse or neglect, but because Mother did not seem to be worried about her daughter. In its written custody and visitation exit orders for the minors, the court stated that Mothers visits with the children were to be monitored because Mother had not made substantial progress in her individual therapy and parenting classes. We observe that by the time of the hearing at which jurisdiction was terminated, Mother had yet to complete her counseling. Moreover, she had not enrolled in a parenting class until October 17 and as of November 8 had completed only two of the required 12 sessions of that program.

Under section 361.2, subdivision (b), the trial court was exercising its discretion by ordering reunification services to Mother in February when it placed M. with his father, and ordering that such services be continued when it placed Jennifer with her father in April. (In re Nada R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1179.) Indeed, under the discretion granted to it by subdivision (b) of section 361.2, the trial court could have transferred physical and legal custody to the fathers as soon as the court determined such transfer would not be detrimental to the well-being of the minors. Having given Mother an opportunity to transform her relationship with Jennifer into a positive one and to reunite with the children, and having seen Mother not take that opportunity seriously, there was no abuse of discretion when the court terminated the reunification services in December, granted legal and physical custody to the fathers, and terminated dependency court jurisdiction.

We reject Mothers contention that the court should have retained jurisdiction so that she could repair her relationship with Jennifer. Mothers lack of a parental-type interest in the childrens needs was what caused the children to be brought into the dependency system. But [w]hen deciding whether to terminate jurisdiction, the court must determine whether there is a need for continued supervision, not whether the conditions that justified taking jurisdiction in the first place still exist. (In re Janee W. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1451.) Here, because the children were living safely with their fathers, supervision was no longer required even though Mothers relationship with Jennifer was still problematic.

DISPOSITION

The final order of the juvenile court from which Mother has appealed is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CROSKEY, J.

We Concur:

KLEIN, P. J.

KITCHING, J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.

^[1] Juvenile court dependency proceedings are brought under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 et seq. All references herein to statutes are to that code unless otherwise indicated.

^[2] The jurisdiction-disposition report states Mother was born in January 1977. Mother reported that she graduated from high school in 1995, attended a junior college for three years, and has a position as a general manager for Papa Johns Pizza.

^[3] Section 362.4 provides that orders issued under its provisions shall continue until modified or terminated by a subsequent order of the superior court. Thus, the dependency courts custody and visitation provisions for Maximiliano and Jennifer in its exit order are subject to being modified in family court. (In re Jennifer R., supra, 14 Cal.App.4th at p. 712.) However, as noted in In re Marriage of David and Martha M. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 96, 101, section 302, subdivision (d) specifically states that a family court shall not modify custody and visitation orders issued by the juvenile court in its final judgment/exit order unless the court finds that there has been a significant change of circumstances since the juvenile court issued the order and modification of the order is in the best interests of the child.