Filed 1/25/18 In re Luis U. CA5



NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re LUIS U. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MIRIAM U.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F075729

(Super. Ct. Nos. 14CEJ300291-3, 14CEJ300291-4)


OPINION

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Brian M. Arax, Judge.
Rebekah S. Sass, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
Mother Miriam U. appeals from a May 25, 2017, juvenile court dependency order temporarily suspending visitation between her and her two youngest children, Luis U. and Kevin M. Mother contends the finding of detriment is not supported by substantial evidence and the corresponding order was therefore an abuse of discretion. We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS
Detention, Jurisdiction and Disposition
A Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition was filed in September 2014, alleging mother placed her children, four-year-old Kevin, five-year-old Luis, seven-year-old Joshua, and 14-year-old Andrea, at risk of harm due to her neglect of and failure to provide for the children. The detention report prepared by the Department of Social Services/Child Welfare Services (department) stated there had been 21 Child Protective Services referrals for the family and there was ongoing concern of medical neglect and chronic lack of follow through; limited food supply for the children, who were begging for food from the neighbors; hygiene and safety issues with the children, who were dirty, unkempt and left unattended; safety issues in the house, as there was no electricity; and concern due to mother’s ongoing substance abuse issues. Mother had another child, Juan, who was in juvenile hall. The children’s father was deceased. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court found the children were described by section 300, subdivisions (b), (c) and (g); continued their out of home placement; and ordered reunification services and unsupervised visits with mother.
Mother’s appeal as to jurisdiction and disposition, case No. F070926, was dismissed May 19, 2015, pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835.
Six-Month Review
The report filed in anticipation of the six-month review hearing July 15, 2015, stated mother had failed to complete her court-ordered reunification services, although she was participating in individual therapy and visitation. She denied current drug use, despite a recent positive test. During the reporting period, mother had four positive drug tests, one negative test, and failed to test on 17 occasions. Mother claimed she was unable to participate in inpatient drug treatment because her oldest son was missing and she wanted to be available to him if he returned. She did not participate in parenting classes.
The children were participating in therapy. Luis and Kevin suffered from food insecurity and aggressive behavior.
Mother’s visits with the children were going well. She interacted with the children appropriately and was affectionate with them. The children were happy around mother and appeared to enjoy the visits.
The juvenile court found mother’s progress was minimal, but continued services.
Twelve-Month Review
The report prepared in anticipation of the 12-month review hearing November 23, 2015, stated Kevin, Luis and an older brother lost their placement because mother located the foster home and demanded to see the children. The department moved the children due to safety concerns. Mother was dropped from her parenting class due to excessive absences. Kevin continued in therapy, to help reduce his aggressive temper tantrums.
The juvenile court found mother had received reasonable reunification services, made minimal progress, and terminated services. A section 366.26 hearing was set.
Section 366.26 Hearing
At the section 366.26 hearing, which was held May 11 and June 9, 2016, dependency was not terminated as to Kevin and Luis and they were placed in a guardianship with their caregivers. While the department thought Luis and Kevin were adoptable, it opined termination of mother’s parental rights would be detrimental to the children because mother had maintained regular visitation and the children benefited from that contact. The older two children were found not to be adoptable and a permanent plan living arrangement was found to be appropriate.
December 8, 2016 Status Review Hearing
The report prepared in anticipation of the December 8, 2016, status review hearing reported that the visits between mother and Luis and Kevin had impacted the children’s behavior. Kevin made an allegation about the guardians in therapy, but later admitted mother told him to lie so he could go back home. Kevin also acted out at school following visits. Luis told his legal guardian that he did not like to visit with mother because she lied to him.
May 25, 2017 Status Review Hearing
The report prepared in anticipation of the May 25, 2017, status review hearing stated that mother “usually” showed up late for visits and missed two visits. Kevin told his social worker he wished to live with his guardians “forever” if he was unable to live with mother. Luis reported being happy with his guardians.
Mother was concerned that the guardians were mistreating Luis and Kevin, as the children informed her that they do not get enough to eat. During visits, she continually tried to probe the children as to concerns they had in the home. Mother told the social worker she suspected Luis and Kevin’s guardians were harming her children.
At the hearing, the department reported that Kevin killed a small baby duckling, a neighbor’s pet, and showed no remorse, which put his placement in jeopardy. His therapist and guardians believed he killed the duckling so that he could return to mother. Counsel for the children requested that the court make a finding of detriment regarding visitation and, at a minimum, order therapeutic supervised visitation.
The juvenile court found mother’s progress to be minimal and stated there was clear and convincing evidence of detriment to visitation between mother and Kevin and Luis. It found that, while the children and mother had a bond, “based upon behaviors of mother and the reactive behaviors of children, I think that bond is negative.” It suspended visitation between mother and Luis and Kevin for 90 days, in order “to get a specific report from the therapist about this, and how the children might react to no visitation and some therapeutic recommendations on visitation .…” Following this time period, the juvenile court would reinstate visitation “in terms of therapeutic, supervised, or something else, or have mom challenge that finding.”
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the finding of detriment is not supported by substantial evidence and that the corresponding order suspending visitation was therefore an abuse of discretion and must be reversed and the matter remanded. We disagree.
Applicable Law and Analysis
Even after the juvenile court terminates reunification services and places children in legal guardianship, it is required to make an order for parental visitation unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the children. (§§ 366.22, subd. (a)(3), 366.26, subd. (c)(4)(C).) “‘Detriment is a familiar standard in child welfare determinations; but, as several courts have acknowledged, the notion of detriment is at best a nebulous standard that depends on the context of the inquiry.… It cannot mean merely that the parent in question is less than ideal.… Rather, the risk of detriment must be substantial, such that [mother’s continued visitation] represents some danger to the child’s physical or emotional well-being.’ [Citation.]” (In re A.J. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 154, 160.)
While a visitation order is reviewed pursuant to a deferential “abuse of discretion” standard (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067), we review the juvenile court’s finding that visitation would be detrimental for substantial evidence. (In re A.J., supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 160; In re Michael R. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 150, 156.) As such, we look for “evidence that is reasonable, credible and of solid value.” (In re Yvonne W. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1401.) “[W]e consider the evidence favorably to the prevailing party and resolve all conflicts in support of the [juvenile] court’s order.” (Ibid.)
We find substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding of detriment. Once a parent’s reunification services are terminated, it is unlikely that a dependent child will be returned to the parent’s custody. That was true in this case, since mother had not made any genuine attempt to complete any of the necessary services to regain custody of her children. For this reason, the focus of the dependency proceedings following termination of reunification services was on helping Kevin and Luis accept their guardianship home as a permanent home. Mother’s conduct during visits, in constantly probing the children to disclose concerns they have about the home and in advising them to make allegations against the legal guardians, emotionally undermined them and put their need for security in jeopardy.
In light of this evidence before the juvenile court, the decision to temporarily suspend visitation so that the court could “get a specific report from the therapist about this, and how the children might react to no visitation and some therapeutic recommendations on visitation,” was clearly not arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd. Instead, it was a wise response, with a reasonable 90-day time limit, and a scheduled return date set in court on August 24, 2017, to revisit the issue. We find no abuse of discretion on the part of the juvenile court.
DISPOSITION
The May 25, 2017, visitation order is affirmed.


FRANSON, J.
WE CONCUR:



LEVY, Acting P.J.



DETJEN, J.