Filed 12/14/17 In re J.M. CA4/2


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



In re J.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.


SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

K.B.,

Defendant and Appellant.


E067764

(Super.Ct.No. J255625)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge. Dismissed.
Jesse McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Jamila Bayati, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minor.
K.B., the mother of J.M. (hereafter mother), appeals an order terminating her parental rights and freeing J.M. for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) She contends that her due process rights were violated because she was “without question . . . a fit parent” at the time of the section 366.26 hearing and because the minor’s attorney “advis[ed] the social worker to violate clearly established law.” We conclude that appellate review of the “fitness” issue was forfeited by mother’s failure to file a petition for extraordinary writ review, as mandated by section 366.26, subdivision (l) (hereafter § 366.26(l)), following the 18-month review hearing. Mother’s contention concerning the alleged attorney misconduct, which occurred during the 12-month review hearing, could have been addressed by an appeal following that hearing and is also not cognizable in the current appeal. Moreover, the issue was not preserved for appeal in any event.
Because the issues mother raises are not cognizable in the current appeal, we will dismiss it.


FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Introduction
This is a dependency case that was allowed to go on for far too long. The record is long and factually complicated. Although we might otherwise have omitted a detailed recital of the factual and procedural history in light of the fact that we have resolved the legal issues by finding that none of them are cognizable on appeal, we will provide a detailed description, in large part because mother presents herself on appeal as the victim of an inexplicable decision by the trial court to terminate her parental rights despite its acknowledgement that she had completed her case plan. To a great extent, we adopt the factual and procedural history set out in the respondent’s brief filed by San Bernardino Children and Family Services (CFS).
Factual and Procedural History
On July 14, 2014, J.M., then six years old, came to the attention of CFS when it was reported that mother had left him with a friend several weeks earlier when she was arrested for violating probation for a drug-related offense. That friend left J.M. with another friend. A neighbor, Jack Correll, who had provided care for J.M. in the past, drove around the neighborhood until he found J.M. He took J.M. to his home. As of July 14, 2014, he had been caring for J.M. for several weeks. Jack reported that he had taken J.M. to the dentist recently for “extensive” dental work, for which J.M. was grateful—he said he could smile again. Jack said that mother kept insufficient food in the house and rarely fed J.M., and that he had been feeding J.M. regularly. He also reported that J.M. had insufficient clothing and that what he did have was either too large or too small for him.
Mother had a history of substance abuse and was reportedly in custody at that time, as was J.M.’s alleged father.
The social worker asked J.M. what good things he could tell her about his mother. He stated that he did not know. When she asked him what he believed were bad things about his mother, he said that he knew some bad things but did not want to talk about them. J.M. appeared healthy, alert and developmentally on track.
A petition pursuant to section 300 was filed on July 16, 2014, and J.M. was ordered detained and placed in foster care on July 17, 2014. Mother was present at the hearing, and the court ordered reunification services for her. An amended petition was filed on August 6, 2014. It alleged that J.M. was at substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness because mother suffered from chronic substance abuse, she engaged in a relationship marked by domestic violence, and because she had left J.M. with inappropriate people without making provision for his care and had failed to provide for J.M.’s basic needs. The petition alleged that mother had a pattern of this behavior as evidenced by a previous dependency case in Los Angeles County in 1998, and alleged the abuse of J.M.’s older siblings due to neglect related to substance abuse and abandonment. Further, the petition alleged that mother’s whereabouts and willingness and ability to parent were unknown.
Prior to the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, CFS reported that J.M. had been placed in the home of the W.’s as nonrelated extended family members. The W.’s were “family friends” of mother. CFS had contacted the paternal grandmother. She reported that J.M. had lived with her until his first birthday. She was interested in seeing J.M., but did not want to be assessed as a placement for him because she was satisfied with his current placement.
Mother was then living in a sober living facility in Pasadena, and was happy for J.M. to stay with the W.’s while she worked on reunification. She admitted to CFS that she had been using drugs and that she was in “this situation” because of her own choices. She stated that after her two older children were returned to her custody, she had been clean for 11 years. She had worked in offices and as a substance abuse counselor for several years. She stated that prior to her most recent relapse, she had been clean for two years four months. When she was arrested, she believed she would be released in a short time and that the sheriff had left J.M. at home “with the other people who lived there.” She did not deny that the “other people” were drug addicts, but she stated that she was “always” home when J.M. got home from school and in the evenings. She was not homeless when she was incarcerated, but when she was released, she discovered that her landlord had removed her belongings from the apartment and that she no longer had a place to live. She denied any domestic violence in her relationship with the alleged father.
The social worker reported that mother “evidence[d] an understanding of addiction” and took responsibility for the current situation; she was anxious to begin her services. She was working part time with the intention to transition to a “more normal” work schedule.
On September 4, 2014, the court declared J.M. a court dependent and ordered him maintained in his current home. The court found that mother had complied with the services ordered at the detention hearing and that she had made progress in alleviating the underlying reasons for the removal.
On February 5, 2015, the W.’s applied for de facto parent status.
In March 2015, prior to the six-month review hearing, CFS reported that mother was participating in her services and was consistently testing negative for controlled substances, with the exception of one instance after she was given a “Norco” pill following dental treatment, as confirmed by her dentist. She was visiting with J.M. regularly once a week and was working part time for a florist. She continued to reside in a sober living facility. CFS remained concerned that mother would relapse, given her long history of substance abuse.
J.M. had been exhibiting behavioral problems at school and at home. After two recent visits with mother, J.M. had defecated in his pants. Similar incidents had occurred at school. His caregivers reported that after visits, J.M. tended to become “disconnected, sad and angry.” He had sometimes hit himself and kicked things around at home. J.M.’s therapist was working to build his self-esteem and effective coping skills. The therapist had also participated in a couple of mother’s visits with J.M. in order to help alleviate the behavioral issues. Mother responded appropriately to suggestions as to how to improve the visits.
In addition to in-person visits, the court authorized supervised telephone calls. On each scheduled day, the caregivers asked J.M. if he wanted to call his mother. On some occasions, he declined. On one occasion, he hid under the dining room table. The caregivers persuaded him to call his mother, but he seemed “brief and agitated.” On other occasions, he did call her and engaged in conversation with her. J.M. had also had a number of visits with his paternal grandmother. The caregivers reported that the visits were beneficial for J.M.
J.M. was performing exceptionally well academically. He was very active, competitive and outgoing. He enjoyed jujitsu, going to church, spending time with family and friends, attending community events and going to movies. He was very interested in dinosaurs and wanted to become a paleontologist. He was injured several times at school, apparently while engaging in sports or play activities. He loved animals and was learning to show empathy toward others. He had a close relationship with his caregivers. However, his caregivers reported misbehavior after visits with his mother. He began individual therapy. His therapist reported that J.M. “exhibit[s] behavioral issues, a fluctuation of emotional outbursts (i.e., loving one day, angry the next) and an overall feeling of powerlessness.”
At the six-month review hearing, the court continued J.M.’s placement and authorized liberalization of visitation with mother to unsupervised, as deemed appropriate by CFS and J.M.’s therapist. The court also granted the de facto parent petition. The hearing was continued to a later date and set contested.
Prior to the continued hearing date, the social worker reported that she had been transporting J.M. to visits for several months. She observed him to be in a positive mood before and after visits. Visits were positive, and J.M. hugged and kissed mother, and called her “mom.” The social worker thought, however, that they might benefit from conjoint counseling. J.M.’s therapist reported that during visits she had attended, she observed mother telling the paternal grandmother in J.M.’s presence that he should visit his “real” family during the holidays; telling J.M. about the relationship she had developed with a little boy living at her residence and showing him pictures of the little boy; showing a lack of concern or boundaries with respect to J.M.’s aggressive behavior, including forcefully throwing beanbags at mother; allowing J.M. to chew and swallow a piece of gum without comment, and giving him another piece of gum, which he also swallowed; asking him, sometimes more than once, to promise to make his weekly phone call; and making future plans with J.M. about what would happen “when” he came to live with her. The therapist also observed a fluctuation of emotion from J.M., including “happy, aggressive, sad, angry, excited, desperate.” After a display of intense emotion by J.M., she recognized that he had defecated in his pants sometime during the visit.
The therapist also observed playful and affectionate interactions and “engagement as well.” However, she believed that the visits had a significant negative impact on J.M.’s behavior and emotional stability, and that overall, he experienced the visits as “traumatic.” She stated that J.M. was seeking consistency and assurance regarding the future. J.M.’s de facto mother, Mrs. W., reported, among other things, that J.M. appeared to be convinced that he would be moving in with mother “soon.”
The social worker reported that J.M.’s misbehavior did not necessarily correlate with visits with mother. Sometimes he was happy and well-behaved before or after a visit, and sometimes he misbehaved on days that did not involve a visit or did not precede or follow a visit. She described him as “intuitive and ambitious” and “considerate of others,” but also “rambunctious, confused and at times rebellious.”
The social worker also reported that mother had nearly completed her case plan. Mother had five parenting sessions left and was attending Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings at least three times a week. She continued to test negative for controlled substances. She had identified several support systems to help her maintain her sobriety, and she had discussed what was working well for her, what was not working well, and her future plans. The social worker recommended continuing reunification services and commencing unsupervised visitation.
At the contested hearing on April 16, 2015, the court ordered continuing reunification services and ordered unsupervised visitation once a week for two hours. The court found that mother had made moderate progress toward alleviating the causes necessitating placement.
On June 17, 2015, the W.’s filed a request, pursuant to section 388, to suspend unsupervised visitation or to allow J.M. to decide whether to visit. They stated that J.M. was suffering “serious emotional meltdowns” because of the unsupervised visits. They stated that they had reported their concerns to the social worker and to J.M.’s attorney. They understood that J.M. had “expressed his fear” of unsupervised visits to his attorney. They attached a letter from J.M.’s daycare concerning his angry outbursts and violent behavior.
CFS opposed the request and asked that J.M. continue to have unsupervised visits, including overnights and weekends. The social worker reported that the unsupervised visits were positive, according to her conversations with J.M. concerning the visits, but that he was conflicted. She noted that J.M. worried about having a bad life and about never seeing “mom and dad,” i.e., the W.’s, again, but he also wanted to live with both “my mom” and the W.’s. He wished that mother “will never take drugs and she’ll never lie again.” He wanted to see “my mom at her house” and “get to see [the de facto parents] a lot.” The social worker opined that J.M. was “torn” between continuing life with the de facto parents and the possibility of reunifying with mother. She reported that J.M. had said that he would like to live with mother permanently but did not want to hurt Mrs. W.’s feelings. He said he felt like he was being “pulled by his limbs.” He then denied that he had ever made such a statement. However, he said that the W.’s “kind of” wanted to adopt him since Mrs. W. “can’t have a baby because she got fixed.”
The social worker disputed the W.’s assertion that J.M. sometimes hurt himself or tried to make himself sick to avoid visits with mother. The social worker had never received any indication from the caregivers, school staff or the therapist that this behavior was occurring. J.M. had told her that he did not try to make himself ill or purposely injure himself but was “very active,” “never stops moving” and had a hard time focusing. He told her that he enjoyed the unsupervised visits and would like to have an overnight visit soon. He told her that he did want to go on a recent visit but felt under emotional distress since the W.’s had been crying before the visit.
On the other hand, J.M. was afraid that mother would “steal” him and that he would never see the W.’s again. He had told his mother about his fears, and she assured him that she was not going to steal him. J.M. said that he felt better after talking to mother about his fears, and that he felt safe with her. The social services aid who drove J.M. to the visit said that J.M was happy and excited to see his mother and that the visit began well. She did not stay for the visit, but reported that when she drove J.M. home after the visit, he said they had had a good visit and wanted to come again.
When the social worker arrived at J.M.’s daycare to take him to the next visit, daycare staff were under the impression that there was a new court order precluding visitation unless J.M. agreed to it. The social worker was concerned that J.M. was being coached to refuse to visit. It appears that the de facto parents were attempting to sabotage visitation because of their desire to adopt J.M. The social worker noted that because J.M. was suffering such distress, CFS was considering seeking permission to change J.M.’s placement.
By the time of the 12-month review hearing, J.M. had been evaluated by a clinical and forensic psychologist, Dr. Kinsman. Dr. Kinsman concluded that J.M. suffered from attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, adjustment disorder, depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, emotional constriction and unresolved anger. He was highly intelligent, testing in the 99th percentile in intellectual and cognitive functioning, and was very articulate. He was also “more introspective than most people, especially at his age.” Dr. Kinsman concluded that J.M. was saddened by his memories of past neglect, which “probably contribute to his agitation.” Dr. Kinsman recommended individual therapy and possibly medication to address these issues. J.M. was already engaged in individual therapy, as well as conjoint therapy with mother.
On August 6, 2015, mother was scheduled to visit J.M., but J.M. repeatedly refused to visit her. An unsupervised visit was held the following week, and when J.M. saw mother, he ran and hugged her. The social worker stated that it was clear that J.M. experienced confusion and mixed loyalties between mother and the W.’s, so it was critical for J.M. and mother to attend conjoint counseling.
On August 21, 2015, the court vacated the section 388 petition hearing, and set a contested 12-month review hearing trial, as J.M.’s attorney objected to CFS’s recommendations. The court stated that the review hearing would obviate the need for a section 388 hearing.
In a declaration filed in the juvenile court, J.M. stated that he was seven years old and had lived with the W.’s for a whole year. After a while, he had asked if he could call them “mom” and “dad,” and they agreed. He also asked Mrs. W. if she could call him “son.” J.M. knew that his mother “was in jail for doing drugs.” When he asked others how long he can stay with the W.’s, “they always tell me it is up to the judge.” J.M. stated that he worried about his case, and that the W.’s have him call his attorney to talk about it. He said he loved his mother, but knew she could not take care of him. He stated that he had a “bad life” when he lived with her. J.M. said, “I do not feel safe with her” and “[m]y mom did drugs and a lot of other bad things.” He did not have anything to eat or drink, and was not going to school. He stated, “My mom has a very bad temper. My mom would hit me with a belt or something else when she was mad at me. Sometimes I would run to our neighbor Jack’s house to get away . . . and sometimes to ask Jack for food when I was hungry.” Mother fought with everyone, including her older son, which scared J.M. Mother yelled at the landlord when they had no money to live there. Their windows were “busted” from fights, and his belongings were stolen. The police took mother and his brother to jail for doing drugs. J.M. evidently felt that the social worker, Ann Munninger, was not on his “team” and only wanted to help his mother. In a recent visit, mother had told him, “you are coming home soon.” J.M. told her, “no I wasn’t,” and she said, “yes, you are!” Mother further asked, “You don’t want to stay with them [the W.’s] DO YOU?” J.M. yelled, “IT IS UP TO THE JUDGE!”
J.M. worried that his mother really had not stopped doing drugs, and still did really bad things. He felt better because she passed drug tests, “but am still afraid.” J.M. did not want to hurt her feelings, but he worried she would “steal” him and he would not see the W.’s again. Mother asked him to save his money so he could help her get a house, so he asked the W.’s if he could give his mother the jar of money they had saved to go to Knott’s Berry Farm. J.M. admitted that his visits with mother made him scared and sick, and that he would try to hurt himself. Ms. Munninger forced him to go to a visit even though he was crying. Mr. W. also told him he had to go. J.M. stated that once they were supposed to go to a water park. He prepared for that excursion, but instead, he and mother just walked around Redlands for four hours. During another visit, they had no money for water or food, and he was “so hungry and thirsty and didn’t feel very good.” He told their conjoint therapist he had “bathroom accidents” because his mother told him he was going to go live with her, which scared him.
J.M.’s individual therapist, Valerie Traynham, stated in her August 20, 2015 report that when she asked J.M. to describe his fear that his mother would “steal” him and leave him alone to fend for himself, he rolled back and forth on the floor in a ball repeating, “I don’t know.” J.M. felt he was being forced to visit his mother. When asked how that made him feel, he angrily destroyed a block tower he had built, and said, “I feel broken.”
On August 31, 2015, the court and attorneys examined J.M. in chambers to address visitation and J.M.’s placement before the pending 12-month review hearing trial. J.M. liked living with the W.’s. They had lots of pets. He had his own bedroom, and “there is no fighting,” only occasional fighting about work. He liked seeing mother but they just walked around during visits. He did not like her transitional living quarters, residing with people he did not know. Thinking about living there made him sad and angry. He said, “She used to hurt me,” “[s]he used to spank me and stuff,” and “I’m just fearful of my mom.”
J.M. and mother were in therapy and were “actually bonding a little now.” However, there were other bad or scary things he recalled about residing with mother. His brother and friends would drink, and they broke out the windows in their house. “And I had to go to Jack’s house all the time.”
When J.M. was told that mother had been testing clean, this exchange took place:
“[J.M.:] Well, I really don’t believe that . . . . I believe you, but it’s just I don’t believe that she’s stopped doing drugs. [¶] . . . [¶] [S]he’s actually been using them since she was fifteen, actually.
“Q: Uh-huh.
“[J.M.:] [S]he’s actually forty now.
“Q: Right.
“[J.M.:] So that’s fifteen to forty.
“Q: Uh-huh. Twenty-five years —
“[J.M.:] And that’s been a long time that she’s been using drugs.”
Regarding his paternal grandmother, he said that she’s “pretty much the only person in my family that didn’t do drugs” and “my mom . . . kept me away from her for so long.” His grandmother was the one who had given him his little pink bear, something he apparently treasured.
After the parties argued their positions, the court authorized eight-hour weekly unsupervised visits with mother and weekly supervised visits with the W’s. The court ordered wraparound services for J.M. and temporarily removed J.M. from the W.’s, ordering him maintained with his paternal grandmother pending the trial.
Despite J.M.’s fears of being returned to mother, the social worker continued to recommend J.M.’s return to her. Mother and J.M. continued to engage in conjoint therapy. The W.’s visited J.M. weekly for two hours. The social worker had concerns about the polarization among the parties, and recommended J.M.’s return to mother to alleviate J.M.’s distress and confusion.
The conjoint therapist, Megan Tinnin, completed seven sessions with mother and J.M., focusing on, among other things, concerns, worries, fears, and building trust. J.M. referred to the W.’s as “Mom” and “Dad.” At first, J.M. stated that he was afraid of mother and afraid of having a bad life when he got home, living in a room with mother among a group of strangers. He worried that mother was using drugs and did not tell him; that was why he was acting out in school. J.M. was visibly anxious. Ms. Tinnin asked if he wanted to talk without his mother present, and he agreed. When mother left, he cried uncontrollably, saying his mother “is going to be so sad.” He told his lawyer he “hated his mother and didn’t want to live with her.” Ms. Tinnin worried that J.M.’s somatic symptoms resulted from his feeling the need to choose between mother and the W.’s. She saw his anxiety escalate. He became fidgety, and his speech was rapid and loud.
Ms. Traynham’s October 6, 2015 report indicated that in five sessions during September and October 2015, she had discussed J.M.’s fear of visits with mother. When asked if he still feared them, on September 8, 2015, J.M. responded, “OF COURSE,” but said that his visits were better with Ms. Tinnin there. He recalled mother hitting him with a spoon and a belt, something he had apparently never reported before. He said one visit with mother was “horrible” because they did not have any water. He said he was afraid of the dark. He said he had two secrets he could not talk about. He said he was angry every day. The W.’s gave him a good life, but he also wanted to live with mother, because “she’s my mom, but I would be unhappy if I lived with her.” He said, “I just want to cry.” He stated that he did not have a good relationship with his mother, but then said that they “share a strong bond.”
On October 7, 2015, the court confirmed the 12-month review hearing set for October 14, 2015, and ordered J.M. maintained with his paternal grandmother. An addendum report, filed in October 2015, indicated that J.M. was now making a popping noise with his neck, indicating his increased anxiety.
The 12-month review hearing commenced on October 14, 2015; it was held on several dates and concluded on December 1, 2015. The court admitted CFS reports into evidence, as well as J.M.’s declaration (described above). The following is a summary of the testimony at the 12-month review hearing:
Dr. Kinsman testified about his observations and conclusions during his assessment of J.M., previously summarized above. He discussed his review of therapy and school reports which suggested a troubling shift in J.M.’s behavior and personality in recent weeks. J.M.’s encopresis indicated anxiety and stress. Dr. Kinsman noted that J.M. had obsessive/compulsive tendencies and was obsessive about trying to control his anxiety. He testified that structure was especially important to a child who had experienced trauma earlier in life. In the past, J.M. was uncomfortable and insecure; he felt safer now, but his behavior, including biting his nails to bloody nubs, repeatedly popping his neck and displaying a nervous tic, showed that he was anxious about the outcome of his case. Dr. Kinsman said that J.M. “feels threatened at this point by a peaceful existence that he’s come to be dependent on and feel safe in and is now being threatened and doesn’t know what’s next. [¶] His only experience in the past has been more chaotic and less secure. Less safe for him.”
Dr. Kinsman suggested that J.M. experienced more stress since being placed with his paternal grandmother, in that he felt that he lacked the security he experienced while placed with the W.’s. Dr. Kinsman was concerned about J.M.’s proposed return to mother. Dr. Kinsman found it significant that J.M. was apparently more distressed as time went by, even though he could see that mother was not using drugs and was not hurting him. J.M. “wants to have some control over this. And I believe that he’s caught in between the situation he wants to please everybody.” It appeared to Dr. Kinsman that J.M. did best when placed with the W.’s.
Ms. Traynham also testified that she had seen J.M. for more than a year, in probably more than 50 sessions. In the beginning, J.M. had mostly anger, which progressed to anxiety. By January to maybe June, he was essentially “okay,” but in June, he had a great deal of anxiety which was worsening. Recently, he had developed tics and head bobs; he cracked his neck, whistled, bit his nails until he bled, and threw things. That conduct was all new. In the last five weeks, he had definitely verbalized not being happy. He told her that he wanted to live with the W.’s and that he feared the prospect of residing with mother. He was afraid he would not see the W.’s anymore and that mother would physically abuse him.
Ms. Traynham testified that over the past five weeks, J.M.’s confidence had slowly deteriorated. She had observed more urgency and aggression in J.M. in the last five weeks because of his anxiety about whether he would live with the W.’s or with mother. J.M. reported that during unsupervised visits in the last several months, mother had forced him to “talk about things” and had imposed the idea that they had a strong bond. J.M. would not tell his therapist what else was said. However, he seemed distressed that his mother forced him to talk, and said he wanted to cry. He wanted to hold his breath so he could die. After mother forced J.M. to tell her things, J.M. became more withdrawn and stated he hated himself. He was worse than when they began therapy. He now had constant tics. He was also apparently very angry that his contact with Jack was cut off. Ms. Traynham never felt J.M.’s disclosures were the product of coaching. She said that his body language when he made his disclosures spoke for itself.
Ms. Munninger testified as to her reasons for recommending returning J.M. to mother’s custody. These included mother’s negative drug tests and her attendance at 12-step meetings, therapy and a parenting course. She believed that the conjoint counseling was going well. She had observed the interaction between mother and J.M. and felt it was in J.M.’s best interest to be with mother, and that he desired to be with her. Ms. Munninger did not correlate J.M.’s adverse behaviors with mother’s visits.
After Ms. Munninger’s testimony, the matter was trailed to another date. Mother requested overnight visits. J.M.’s attorney objected. However, the court permitted unsupervised weekend visits, provided that Ms. Munninger checked on J.M. to ensure that he was all right.
On October 21, 2015, J.M.’s attorney, Dane Burcham, filed a motion to remove Ms. Munninger from the case, suggesting that she had lost objectivity and was unable to advocate for J.M. Ms. Burcham stated that early in the dependency, Ms. Munninger had developed a personal friendship with Mrs. W. Once CFS changed visits to unsupervised, she and Mrs. W. had become hostile to one another. J.M. stated that Ms. Munninger did not care anymore; she had abandoned his “team.” Ms. Burcham also asserted that Ms. Munninger had “targeted” J.M.’s paternal grandmother, increasing J.M.’s anxiety, and she felt that Ms. Munninger worked against individuals involved in the case, including J.M.
A declaration by Mrs. W., attached to Ms. Burcham’s motion, claimed that Ms. Munninger had failed to include in her reports evidence of the detriment J.M. had suffered as a result of the unsupervised visits with mother. Reports from school officials, emails from Mrs. W. and photos of J.M.’s injuries, attached to Mrs. W.’s declaration, were presented to support that claim. Mrs. W. stated that she and her husband had obtained de facto parent status and hired an attorney after Mrs. W.’s relationship with Ms. Munninger had become strained. She thought that mother was still abusing drugs because of the positive test for “Norco,” when mother claimed she was only taking penicillin. Ms. Munninger requested proof, which took more than two months to receive. Mother finally provided it, but privacy laws prohibited further inquiry.
A declaration by J.M.’s paternal grandmother was also attached to Ms. Burcham’s motion. She stated that during a visit at her home, J.M. showed mother his bedroom. Mother became enraged when she saw that J.M. had pictures of the W.’s on his walls. The grandmother explained to mother that J.M. had decorated his room and that she was welcome to bring her pictures for him to put up. The grandmother stated that Ms. Munninger had asked her to supervise the W.’s visits, because Ms. Munninger “loathed” Mrs. W.
On October 21, 2015, the court continued the in-progress 12-month review hearing trial to November 19, 2015, to allow the parties to review the motion for a different social worker. The court ordered a psychiatric evaluation for J.M. and authorized wraparound services for him.
On November 5, 2015, CFS filed an ex parte motion requesting a hearing and asking the court to suspend mother’s visits, which had proved to be detrimental to J.M. J.M.’s individual and conjoint therapists had concerns about J.M.’s mental health; J.M. developed a tic and had made statements he would rather die than visit his mother. The court set a special hearing for November 6, 2015, to address the motion.
Prior to the hearing, CFS reported that J.M.’s therapist and the conjoint therapist both stated that J.M.’s mental health had declined when unsupervised/overnight visits with mother began in mid-October. J.M. feared that mother could not take care of him, and both therapists recommended suspension of visits and conjoint therapy to stabilize J.M. and to minimize his current symptoms.
In Ms. Tinnin’s October 18, 2015 report, she stated that mother appeared to be substituting her obsession with getting J.M. back for her addiction. She was concerned that mother was focusing on reunifying with J.M. rather than creating a plan to deal with her addiction in the long term. She confronted mother about how she planned to cope with J.M.’s return, once she had no court dates, attorney meetings, and social services activity dictating her schedule. Mother planned to stay at the halfway house until June, find an apartment, and obtain work, but had no concrete plan to avoid relapsing.
Ms. Tinnin reported that she had discussed the situation with J.M.’s individual therapist, Ms. Traynham. She reported that “[J.M.’s] declining mental state is a huge concern to both therapists . . . . [J.M.] continues to make statements about wanting to die, not being able to control his anger, feeling emotional and anxious, and ‘angry no one is listening to him.’ [J.M.’s] anxious behaviors are getting worse. [J.M.] makes a popping noise with his neck constantly, wolf whistles and states he can’t control it, licks his fingers and dots his forehead with his own spit, and is getting in trouble in school for angry outbursts in the classroom. When [J.M.] is asked about this behavior, he states he is ‘angry and can’t control it.’ . . . [J.M.] is worsening and will reach a point where he will develop a tic disorder, or another neurocognitive, anxiety disorder, that he will have for the rest of his life.”
According to Ms. Traynham’s October 27, 2015 report, J.M. had recently stated, “I am afraid to tell my mom that I don’t want to live with her, I want to live with [the W.’s].” He then stated, “I want to die, I wish I was dead” four times, and “if I was dead, there would be no more stress . . . . [N]o one would have to worry about me anymore.” When asked what he looked forward to, he said visiting with the W.’s, Jack, and Mrs. W.’s parents. When asked to rate his excitement, on a scale of 1 to 10, he said “the highest infinity” number. He then exclaimed, “You know what? I get to move back to [the W.’s] in four weeks.” J.M. was under immense stress, and was trying to empower himself. J.M. also stated he “hates himself.” J.M. had been expressing “some alarming thoughts and behaviors.”
In the past month, Ms. Traynham witnessed a serious decline in J.M.’s mental state. On October 13, 2015, J.M. was exceedingly agitated. He stated that the kids at school hated him, as did his teacher; he could not do anything right. He said he hated himself like he did in the beginning. He continually stated he was “horrible” at everything. In response to these reports, CFS advised the paternal grandmother to take J.M. to a behavioral health clinic to have J.M. assessed for potential self harm.
At the November 6, 2015 hearing, counsel for CFS informed the court that because Ms. Munninger was out of the country, the case was now assigned to social worker Cynthia Crawshaw. The court confirmed the in-progress trial, set for November 19, 2015, authorized CFS to release dependency records so Dr. Kinsman could reassess J.M., and suspended mother’s visits.
Ms. Crawshaw’s November 19, 2015 report recommended termination of mother’s reunification services, suspension of visits, J.M.’s return to the W.’s, and the setting of a section 366.26 hearing. Ms. Crawshaw interviewed J.M., his paternal grandmother, the W.’s, mother, and therapists Ms. Traynham and Ms. Tinnin. She met J.M. at his grandmother’s home. J.M. briefly spoke about a pending visit with his mother. When Ms. Crawshaw informed him that the court had suspended the visit, J.M. seemed relieved rather than disappointed. When asked how things were going, he replied, “Great,” as it was the longest he had been with his grandmother. He spoke about fighting with others at school. His grandmother stated that he thrived on structure and consistency. Ms. Crawshaw asked J.M. how his visits were going, and J.M. stated he loved seeing the W.’s. He did not mention mother. It was clear in hearing J.M. talk about the W.’s and their extended family that “he has already adopted them into his heart.” J.M. said when he was “really stressed,” the W.’s had only hugs for him. He also hugged the bear his grandmother had given him. When asked if the W.’s said anything about his mother, J.M. stated, “They don’t say bad things about my mom.” He said that he wanted to live with mother, but he wanted to live with the W.’s more; he also indicated he wanted to live with mother, his grandmother, and the W.’s, in a giant mansion with a pool. J.M. admitted that he had recently felt like killing himself by holding his breath; if he died, no one would have to worry.
Ms. Crawshaw spoke with the W.’s, who presented as friendly, very caring, and forthright. J.M. would soon be eight years old. They had known him since he was five. J.M. was placed with the W.’s on August 11, 2014. When J.M. first arrived, he was not disciplined; he lacked structure, and did not know anything about a parent’s and a child’s role in the home. The W.’s described J.M. as a very loving boy, a genius, who had behavioral issues at school and problems socializing; he could be aggressive with other children. Jujitsu had helped J.M.
The W.’s told the social worker that they loved J.M. and were interested in adopting him. They would continue with his therapy and wraparound services, and would have him participate in daycare and the summer program at their church. The teachers there were loving and patient, which benefitted J.M. Ms. Crawshaw supervised a two-hour visit with the W.’s and Mrs. W.’s parents. As soon as J.M. saw the W.’s, he ran up to them, gave them big hugs, and had “the brightest smile” on his face. They enjoyed lunch and playing games. When they said goodbye, they exchanged “I love you’s.” J.M.’s paternal grandmother reported that afterward, J.M. felt good and slept well.
On November 9, 2015, Ms. Crawshaw spoke with mother, who was concerned about the suspension of her visits. Her attorney had told her that J.M. was suicidal. Ms. Crawshaw explained J.M. was doing better, and mother blamed the paternal grandmother and the W.’s for J.M.’s distress. She was anxious, did not listen, and portrayed herself as the victim. She failed to acknowledge J.M.’s emotional issues. Mother had completed a host of services, and Ms. Crawshaw asked how she felt she had benefited from them. Mother could not understand why she was being asked such questions. Mother suggested that Jack and the W.’s had planted ideas in J.M.’s head about his bad life with mother. She did not believe that J.M. could hold such beliefs on his own. Instead of attributing his fears of return to her care to her previous neglect, she insisted that the W.’s had frustrated her reunification. Moreover, despite her long history of drug abuse and relapses, mother had ceased attending 12-step meetings, claiming she was too isolated.
Ms. Tinnin stated that mother “may look good on paper but she has not benefited from the services given to her.” Ms. Tinnin reported that she had been unable to help mother identify contributing factors causing her addiction or how she would remain sober. Mother responded, “I don’t know.” Mother was also unable to address J.M.’s anger and fear of returning to her. In a session on October 29, 2015, J.M. had stated that he did not want to talk to his mother or Ms. Tinnin because “no one is listening anyways.” He just wanted to go home to the W.’s. Mother replied, “that’s okay, but just because that’s what you want, doesn’t mean it is going to happen.” J.M. then shut down.
J.M. then talked about a phone call he said he had had with his lawyer. His lawyer had told him do not worry, he was going home with the W.’s, and he “will get a puppy.” The therapist asked when the call took place. J.M. said, “right now, are you not hearing me? I talked to her on the phone right here.” J.M. went from crying to smiling when describing the “phone call.” Ms. Tinnin was very concerned that J.M. might be permanently affected by the emotional turmoil engendered by his unresolved situation. She said that J.M. had stopped talking about his future and had stopped talking about “age-appropriate delusions,” such as “I’m going to build a tree house to live in when I am 9 in my backyard,” and had begun having dissociative delusions, such as the fantasy phone call with his lawyer saying he was going home to the W.’s. She concluded that J.M. should not attend conjoint therapy any longer.
Ms. Crawshaw concluded that it was not a matter of if mother would relapse, but of when she would do so. Mother had abused substances since her teens, was 48 years old, and had repeatedly relapsed. She had not benefited from services by addressing her underlying mental health issues. J.M. had lacked a stable home from birth to detention in the dependency case, which led to his ambivalent attachment to mother. He had significant mental health issues and needed a stable home where he knew he would have food, an education, and a family who would keep him safe and nurture him. He needed to be free of worry about when mother would relapse, sell drugs, or bring home the wrong people. His return to the W.’s would likely resolve his suicidal ideations. Any visits with mother should be done only in a therapeutic setting.
At the in-progress hearing on November 19, 2015, mother’s attorney argued that visitation should resume. The court found mother’s visits with J.M. detrimental, but authorized resumption of visits if the therapist deemed them safe. The court also authorized a day-long Thanksgiving visit with the W.’s at the paternal grandmother’s home, supervised by the grandmother, but ordered the W.’s not to discuss the case. The court also set an in-progress hearing for December 1 and 17, 2015.
Ms. Crawshaw’s November 24, 2015 report stated that J.M. was excited about his Thanksgiving visit. Ms. Traynham had reported that J.M. was calmer and more receptive since he had ceased visiting mother. On November 23, 2015, the social worker had reminded J.M. that the court had approved visits with mother, and J.M. replied, “No! I don’t want the visits with my mom!”
On December 1, 2015, at the in-progress 12-month review hearing, the parties came to a resolution on the case, which entailed the court extending reunification services beyond the 18-month deadline, based on exceptional circumstances. The court accepted the stipulation. It found that custody by mother remained detrimental, ordered J.M. maintained with the paternal grandmother, and set a section 366.22 hearing for June 1, 2016. The court also ordered supervised visits for mother to occur at least weekly for two hours, and supervised visits with the W.’s to occur at least twice monthly for four hours. Mother’s case plan included wraparound services with J.M., conjoint therapy, general counseling, substance abuse testing, a 12-step program, and to continue to work with her parent partner. It also required her to show her ability to nurture and support J.M and to understand J.M.’s feelings and provide him emotional support.
Ms. Crawshaw’s June 1, 2016 report recommended termination of reunification services, J.M.’s return to the W.’s and the setting of a section 366.26 hearing. The report noted mother’s progress in services, but also stated that J.M. continued to have rage and pain associated with her neglect during his early life. He had begun to reveal more about the suffering he endured in her care. He recalled having to hide food and water when he was five years old, but his brother and the brother’s friends found his food and ate it. Mother was gone for three days and no one watched him. J.M. had only bread and mayonnaise to eat. Mother evidently lied about taking drugs and told J.M. it was medicine. Recently, he saw a woman on TV mention drugs, and he then “vented” for the entire day about mother’s drug abuse and how she had sold his things (“Jack gave me a new shirt and she sold it.”) and messed up his life. He talked about “Timmy” having a gun, and on one occasion placing him in an oven. On another occasion, J.M. drank bleach out of a can. Mother had him drink water, but did not take him to the hospital.
J.M. had his heart set on returning to the W.’s and being adopted by them. Mother did not have stable housing or a job, which were circumstances J.M. associated with his earlier traumas, such as hunger, a deprived life, and insecurity. J.M. had learned coping skills in therapy, but he did not implement them. Since December 2015, there had only been four or five personal contacts between J.M. and mother. J.M. could not be coaxed to attend more, despite CFS’s best efforts to get him to do so.
Mother had recently obtained a cashiering job, but was residing with a friend. Ms. Crawshaw had helped her search for low income housing, without success. Mother attended services, but she again focused on the dependency rather than her addiction, viewed herself as the victim, and blamed others for J.M.’s fears of return to her care.
J.M. received intensive therapeutic intervention to alleviate his stress. A therapist with the wraparound service provider diagnosed J.M. as having posttramatic stress disorder. The wraparound team worked on developing J.M.’s coping mechanisms, encouraging him to use a punching bag, scream into a pillow, hold his stuffed animal, and talk to others. Despite their efforts to resolve or at least alleviate J.M.’s fears and traumas, the service providers had little success. He was still very angry and emotionally distraught with respect to his mother and generally did not want to see her. He deferred visits to later dates, provided a litany of excuses, and demonstrated anger, hurt, anxiety, and defiance. When asked to visit, he yelled, “No!” or “Not today!” He also stated that he missed the W.’s, his house, his dogs, his room, and his bike; he enjoyed visits with the W.’s, their parents, and Jack.
Nonetheless, to foster reunification, Ms. Crawshaw continually tried to coax J.M. to visit mother, but the situation was complicated, as forced visits ran the risk of further alienating J.M. from mother. J.M. had nightmares, and in his dreams, the W.’s comforted him. He felt more bonded to the W.’s than to mother, and wanted “the court to stop bugging me” about visits. J.M. continued to say that he did not feel safe with mother. His school performance and behavior reflected his ongoing anguish. His teacher noted that J.M. worried about visits with mother and that his grades had dropped. J.M. felt that mother “guilted” him, and he never wanted to see her again.
On July 14, 2016, J.M. was sworn in for the section 366.22 trial. He was then eight and a half years old. J.M. testified that he did not want to visit mother because he was afraid she would take him away from the W’s. He did not have a good relationship with mother because “she never did take good care of me, and she was irresponsible, and she’s lied a lot more times than I ever imagined.” She had left him alone with people who were “really mean.”
J.M. testified that being “bonded” meant one could trust someone and love them. He did not feel bonded with his mother. If the judge made him go home with her, he would not feel very good. His mother was not trustworthy, and “I don’t love her as much as I do [the W.’s].” He felt bonded with the W.’s “[b]ecause they love me. And they’re trustworthy, and they protect me.” He acknowledged that people can change. He knew that mother had stopped taking drugs and smoking as much, “But I wouldn’t say she’s completely a better person.” J.M. would be “overjoyed” to be placed with the W.’s. The W.’s told him if he wanted to visit his mother, they would make it happen. If the court returned him to mother, “I would cry half to death. I’d run straight to [the W.’s] and give them a big hug for a real long time.” When asked what mother could do to make him feel safer, J.M. stated she could get “a really good job.”
After argument by counsel for all parties, the court found that reasonable services had been offered and that mother had complied with her case plan, but that returning J.M. to mother’s care would be detrimental to him. J.M. needed stability, and returning him to mother would emotionally damage him “to such an extent that I don’t know that he can come back from it.” The court placed J.M. with the W.’s, terminated services, ordered mother’s supervised visits to occur at least once monthly for one hour, and set a section 366.26 hearing for November 14, 2016.
On July 21, 2016, mother filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition, pursuant to section 366.26(l). No writ petition was filed, however.
The court held a section 366.26 hearing on December 14, 2016. The attorneys for each parent objected to termination of parental rights, but presented no affirmative evidence. The court asked Ms. Burcham to confirm the court’s “strong belief” that J.M. wished to be adopted. Ms. Burcham had met with J.M. the prior evening, and confirmed that J.M., “more than anything” wanted the adoption. The court considered the CFS reports, which included a favorable assessment of the W.’s as adoptive parents, and considered J.M.’s wishes, consistent with J.M.’s age. The court found J.M. adoptable, and found adoption to be the appropriate plan. The court terminated parental rights.
On February 9, 2017, mother filed a notice of appeal challenging the termination of her parental rights.


LEGAL ANALYSIS
1.
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS BASED ON DETRIMENT TO THE CHILD DID NOT VIOLATE MOTHER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS
A parent’s interest in the companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children is a fundamental liberty interest. (Santosky v. Kramer (1982) 455 U.S. 745, 748.) Mother contends that terminating her parental rights violated her due process right to parent her child because “without question,” she was a fit parent at the time of the section 366.26 hearing as a matter of law because she had complied with her case plan and “had fully addressed the safety issues that led to the child’s removal.”
Mother bases these contentions on the state of the evidence at the 18-month review hearing (§ 366.22), at which the trial court terminated her reunification services and set a hearing on termination of parental rights. She acknowledges that review of the juvenile court’s findings at the 18-month review hearing would normally be foreclosed from review in the current appeal because she did not file a writ petition following the review hearing. (§ 366.26(l).) However, she contends that, as a matter of due process, we should excuse her failure to do so and address the merits of her contentions.
The forfeiture rule (often called the waiver rule), which precludes raising on appeal a challenge to any order entered in a prior hearing, as to which the time to appeal has expired, applies in all dependency cases “unless due process forbids it.” (In re Janee J. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 198 206-208 (Janee J.).) The rule, embodied in


section 395 and in section 366.26(l), promotes the “dominant concerns of finality and reasonable expedition” in dependency matters. (Janee J., at p. 207.) With respect to “setting order[s],” i.e., orders setting a section 366.26 hearing, the rule also promotes the predominant interest of the child, at the late stages of the dependency, “preventing a sabotage of the process and preserving the legislative scheme of restricting appeals of final-stage termination orders.” (Ibid.) Section 366.26(l) precludes review of any issues decided at the setting hearing by any means other than a timely petition for extraordinary writ relief. (§ 366.26(l)(1), (l)(2).)
In general, the forfeiture rule should be waived if two conditions are met. First, there must be “some defect that fundamentally undermined the statutory scheme so that the parent would have been kept from availing himself or herself of the protections afforded by the scheme as a whole.” (Janee J., supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 208.) Lack of notice of writ review rights is one example of such a defect. (Id. at pp. 208-209, citing In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716, 722-724.) Second, the defects “must go beyond mere errors that might have been held reversible had they been properly and timely reviewed.” (Janee J., at p. 209.) Here, the issues mother raises do not amount to defects going beyond errors that could have been addressed in a timely writ petition.
Preliminarily, we note that although mother uses the terms “fit,” “fitness,” and “unfit” to describe the findings the court made or should have made, she acknowledges that California’s dependency scheme “no longer uses the term ‘parental unfitness,’ but instead requires the juvenile court [to] make a finding that awarding custody of a dependent child to the parent would be detrimental to the child.” (In re P.A. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1197, 1211.) She also acknowledges that a finding that returning a child to the parent’s custody would be detrimental “generally equates to a finding of parental unfitness.” She cites In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 423; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 224, fn. 3; and In re P.A., at page 1211.
This is supported by Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242. There, the California Supreme Court reviewed a contention that California’s dependency scheme is unconstitutional because it does not require a finding of parental unfitness, at the time of termination of parental rights, by clear and convincing evidence. In determining that the dependency scheme satisfies due process, the court did not distinguish between unfitness and detriment to the child, using those terms interchangeably and apparently viewing them as equivalent. The court held that termination of parental rights under California’s dependency scheme comports with due process because prior to the section 366.26 hearing, “there have been multiple specific findings of parental unfitness.” (Cynthia D., at p. 253.) The court went on to say, “Except for a temporary period [i.e., prior to the detention hearing], the grounds for initial removal of the child from parental custody have been established under a clear and convincing standard (see § 361, subd. (b)); in addition, there have been a series of hearings involving ongoing reunification efforts and, at each hearing, there was a statutory presumption that the child should be returned to the custody of the parent. (§§ 366.21, subds. (e), (f), 366.22, subd. (a).) Only if, over this entire period of time, the state continually has established that a return of custody to the parent would be detrimental to the child is the section 366.26 stage even reached.” (Cynthia D., at p. 253, italics added.) Accordingly, a finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that return of the child to the parent would be detrimental to the child satisfies due process, and a finding of parental unfitness is either subsumed within the detriment finding or is simply irrelevant.
We now turn to mother’s contention that she was a fit parent at the time of the section 366.26 hearing (or that returning J.M. to her custody would not be detrimental to him) as a matter of law because she had complied with her case plan and had “fully addressed the safety issues that led to the child’s removal.”
It is well established that returning a child to a parent can be detrimental to the child even if the parent has fully complied with her case plan. (Constance K. v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 689, 704-709; Blanca P. v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1738, 1748-1750; In re Brian R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 904, 912-915.) Accordingly, at the 12- or 18-month review hearing, even if the parent has completed his or her case plan, the court “can consider, among other things: whether changing custody will be detrimental because severing a positive loving relationship with the foster family will cause serious, long-term emotional harm [citations]; properly supported psychological evaluations which indicate return to a parent would be detrimental to a minor [citations]; whether the natural parent maintains relationships with persons whose presence will be detrimental to the ward [citation]; instability in terms of management of a home [citation]; difficulties a minor has in dealing with others such as stepparents [citations]; limited awareness by a parent of the emotional and physical needs of a child [citation]; failure of a minor to have lived with the natural parent for long periods of time [citation]; and the manner in which the parent has conducted himself or herself in relation to a minor in the past. [Citations.]” (Constance K., at pp. 704-705.)
Mother relies on In re P.C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 98 in support of her contention that a finding of unfitness, as opposed to a finding of detriment, is required prior to termination of parental rights. That is not, however, what In re P.C. stands for. In that case, the children were removed from their mother because of domestic violence, physical abuse of one child, and leaving the children with a caretaker without providing a means of support or authorization for medical care and without telling the caretaker her whereabouts or the time of her return. (Id. at p. 100.) The mother had been homeless for about three weeks at the time she left the children. (Ibid.) By the time of the permanency hearing, the mother had fully complied with her case plan. (Id. at p. 105.) However, she lacked suitable and stable housing for the children. (Ibid.) The only reason she was unable to do so was her poverty—despite the fact that she was working, she was unable to afford housing other than in group living situations which were not suitable for the children. (Id. at pp. 99-100, 102, 105-106.) The Court of Appeal held that inability to afford housing, in and of itself, cannot be the basis for terminating parental rights. Moreover, the social services agency had failed to provide the mother with adequate assistance in obtaining low-income housing. (Id. at p. 106.) The court reversed the order terminating the mother’s parental rights and remanded the matter “with directions to conduct a hearing to address whether legally sufficient grounds independent of mother’s poverty and lack of stable, suitable housing currently exist such that it would be detrimental to place the children in mother’s care.” (Id. at p. 107.) Thus, the holding of the case is not that a parent who is “fit” at the time of a termination hearing is entitled to the return of his or her children. Rather, it is that detriment independent of a parent’s poverty and inability to obtain suitable housing is required before parental rights may be terminated. (Id. at pp. 107-108.)
Moreover, contrary to mother’s assertion, the court did not find that she had “done everything” that had been asked of her and had remedied any safety concerns that existed when the dependency petition was filed but then inexplicably terminate reunification services and set the section 366.26 hearing. Rather, the court found that despite mother’s best efforts, which it fully acknowledged, and despite the fact that J.M. would not be at risk of physical harm from mother, returning J.M. to her was inimical to his best interest: “I think if I return him to his mother, that will emotionally damage him to such an extent that I don’t know that he can come back from it.” The court relied on the therapists’ reports and on its own observation of J.M.’s emotional state while he was testifying at the review hearing to reach this conclusion. The court also stated that mother had a share in the responsibility for the damage that had been done to J.M. As our recitation of facts in this opinion demonstrates, these conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.
It is beyond question that this issue does not “go beyond” ordinary error that could have been addressed in a writ petition following the section 366.22 hearing, as required by section 366.26(l). Nor is it a defect that prevented mother from availing herself of the protections afforded by the dependency scheme as a whole. Accordingly, there is no justification for waiving that requirement. (Janee J., supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 208-209.)
Mother also contends that the termination of her parental rights violated her due process rights because the court itself brought about the emotional harm J.M. suffered by placing him with the W.’s. She contends that the W.’s were neither nonrelated extended family members nor certified foster parents, and that they exerted improper influence over J.M. and caused J.M. anxiety because he did not want to hurt them or hurt his mother. She contends that the conduct of the W.’s was largely responsible for causing J.M. to become emotionally fragile. She contends that a juvenile court may not “exploit” damage it has caused to a dependent minor by using it as a basis for terminating parental rights of a parent who has fully complied with her case plan. This is also not the type of defect described by Janee J., supra, 74 Cal.App.4th 198. Rather, this is an ordinary type of error that could have been effectively reviewed on appeal from earlier orders or in a petition for writ review following the 18-month review hearing. (Janee J., supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at pp. 208-209.) Accordingly, we decline to waive the forfeiture rule in order to provide belated review of this contention.


2.
MOTHER’S CONTENTIONS CONCERNING ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT ARE NOT COGNIZABLE IN THIS APPEAL
Mother also contends that her right to due process was violated because J.M.’s attorney persuaded the social worker to allow J.M. to veto visits with her, in violation of the court’s visitation order. She contends that she should be allowed to raise the issue at this juncture because she did not have an earlier opportunity to do so. She claims that because the minor’s attorney did not file a motion for change of visitation, the alleged misconduct occurred “separate and apart from any judicial proceedings” from which she could have appealed.
We disagree. Minor’s counsel’s discussions with the social worker, asking her not to pressure J.M. to visit if he did not want to, were addressed in testimony at the 12-month review hearing in October 2015. Later, during the same hearing, the court ordered suspension of visitation between mother and J.M., based on reports that J.M.’s mental health was deteriorating. Mother objected to the suspension. Later, also during the pendency of the 12-month review hearing, the parties stipulated to giving mother an additional six months of services. J.M.’s attorney stated that J.M. was still declining visits, but explained how she and the social worker intended to address the issue to encourage visits without putting pressure on him. Mother did not object or seek any further order to compel J.M. to visit. Because she agreed to the order the court entered and raised no objection to any aspect of it, including the visitation order, she waived any review. (In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882, 886.) This includes any contention that minor’s counsel attempted to subvert the prior visitation order. Had the court not rectified the visitation issue to mother’s satisfaction, she could have raised that contention in a timely appeal from the order entered in November 2015. (§ 395, subd. (a)(1).) Accordingly, she cannot now complain that she had no earlier opportunity to seek review.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER
J.
We concur:



RAMIREZ
P. J.



MILLER
J.