Filed 4/25/22 In re M.M. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

M.M. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders denying his request to change the court’s previous order terminating reunification services with Mi.M. (minor) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 388),[1] terminating his parental rights as to minor (§ 366.26), and freeing minor for adoption. Father argues the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying his section 388 request in light of the substantial change in his circumstances and resulting ability to safely care for minor. We discern no such abuse. Accordingly, we will affirm.

BACKGROUND

T.M. (mother) gave birth to minor in November 2019. Minor was taken directly from the hospital into protective custody and placed with her half brother Q.B. in a foster home, where she remained at the time of the termination decision.[2] Thus, minor, who was approximately 20 months old at the time of termination in September 2021, had never lived with mother or father, and her only contact with father after she was removed at two days old was supervised visits.

The Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (Department) initiated this case in response to a report that mother had admitted using methamphetamine throughout her pregnancy, had tested positive for methamphetamine on October 23, 2019, and had limited prenatal care throughout that pregnancy. Mother and father had substance abuse issues dating back to 2007 and 2009, respectively. Father admitted to last using methamphetamine on October 12, 2019. Mother and father also had a documented history of domestic violence,[3] which they denied. Mother later admitted to a history of domestic violence with father, explaining the violence only occurred when the couple was using methamphetamine and was not a problem when they were sober.

The Department’s amended section 300 petition alleged minor fell within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under subdivisions (b)(1) and (j). Specifically, it alleged minor was “at substantial risk of serious physical harm, abuse and/or neglect” because of: (1) mother’s and father’s untreated and longstanding substance abuse problems from which they had refused or failed to rehabilitate, including father’s failure to protect minor from mother’s substance abuse (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)); (2) the ongoing history of domestic violence between mother and father as reflected in a sustained petition for minor’s half sibling Q.B. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1)); and (3) the sustained dependency petition concerning minor’s half sibling Q.B., alleging mother’s substance abuse and domestic violence between mother and father (§ 300, subd. (j)).

At the December 6, 2019, combined jurisdiction/disposition hearing, mother and father waived their rights to affirmatively contest these allegations and submitted the matter of jurisdiction and disposition on the reports. The juvenile court sustained the dependency petition, finding all allegations were true. The court further determined minor was a section 300 dependent of the court, that detention was necessary to ensure her safety, and that reunification services would be provided to mother and father.

The Reunification Period (Dec. 2019-Mar. 2021)

Father’s case plan required he: (1) participate in mental health and substance abuse assessments; (2) attend an approved domestic violence program, individual counseling, parenting classes, anger management, and substance abuse treatment; (3) abstain from the use of alcohol and illegal drugs, as demonstrated by testing and treatment; (4) develop and implement a domestic violence relapse prevention plan; and (5) show his ability and willingness to care for minor.

The Department’s February 2020 progress report reflected father was successfully participating in adult dependency drug court through probation and had been sober for 90 days. Father had not yet had a mental health assessment, nor started his “domestic violence education, parenting education, or anger management.” Father and mother visited minor together twice weekly for two hours each visit. Thursday visits with minor’s other half brother, T.B., had to be discontinued because of father’s inappropriate behavior towards T.B.’s grandmother when he screamed across the parking lot in front of the children, “ ‘stay the fuck away from my daughter.’ ”

On June 16, 2020, the Department filed its six-month prepermanency review report (§ 366.21, subd. (e)) recommending the termination of reunification services for both mother and father. Domestic violence continued unabated between them, and both had relapsed into drug use after a period of sobriety at the beginning of the case. For example, on April 27, 2020, mother was physically assaulted by father and had a swollen lip and bleeding scrape on her right elbow. Earlier that day, mother had confided she had moved out of the home she shared with father due to safety concerns and was trying to move into transitional housing to stay away from father. When the Department spoke with mother about this she initially denied any domestic violence and then expressed concern that she would be in “ ‘more trouble’ ” for saying something.

The report further reflected that on May 15, 2020, during a virtual child and family team meeting set up to address the domestic violence concerns, mother and father continued to deny any such violence. Father became so upset during the meeting that he twice hung up the phone and did not rejoin the meeting following the second hang up. Father steadfastly denied that he was either emotionally or physically abusive to mother, stating they argued like most couples. However, on May 22, 2020, the Department was told by a confidential informant that father had hit mother’s car with his truck in order to prevent her from leaving him.[4] This same day the social worker contacted mother, who admitted having relapsed and refused to say whether father was also using drugs. Father told his probation officer that he had relapsed in April 2020.

As of the writing of the section 366.21, subdivision (e) report, father had been referred for a mental health assessment and individual counseling, but had failed to follow through with these services. While father reported three different times that he was attending domestic violence, parenting education, and anger management classes through probation, father’s probation officer denied that father had attended any such classes with probation. The Department confronted father and then referred him to programs for these services, which father failed to start. Father had been successfully engaged in drug dependency court through probation from October 29, 2019, through March 16, 2020. However, because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the probation office closed, and father’s drug testing was transferred to a private vendor on March 25, 2020. Father did not test with the private vendor until June 2, 2020, when he tested positive for methamphetamine.

Despite these struggles, mother and father regularly attended in-person visitation until such visits were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic on or around March 19, 2020. During these visits the parents were affectionate and appropriate. Video call visitation was later instituted due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the risks associated with it, including minor’s underlying heart problem. Minor had regular contact with her older half sibling Q.B., who was placed in the same confidential foster home and enjoyed helping to feed and hold her. She also visited with another half brother, T.B., as arranged between her foster parent and T.B.’s grandmother, who had custody of him.

Mother’s June 8, 2020, request for a restraining order against father so that she could enter residential treatment was granted by the court on July 17, 2020. Thereafter, rather than holding the section 366.21, subdivision (e) review as scheduled, the court joined minor’s case with that of her half sibling Q.B. and set the cases for a combined, contested section 366.21, subdivision (e) (for minor) and subdivision (f) (for Q.B.) hearing to occur on November 12, 2020.

On October 30, 2020, the Department filed an addendum report, updating the court on mother’s and father’s participation in reunification services, but not changing its recommendation in light of safety concerns associated with the domestic violence and continuing contact between the parents. This addendum reflected mother’s positive pregnancy test and positive drug test for methamphetamine and Ecstasy upon her admission to a residential drug treatment program on June 22, 2020. Mother graduated from this program on September 23, 2020, and moved to a confidential sober living environment where she stayed until October 13, 2020, when she was asked to leave. Mother was allowed to return about a week later. Other individuals participating in this program said mother had been seeing father. Mother denied having any contact with father, but also questioned the need for the restraining order and complained that she should be allowed to coparent with father.

Father failed to drug test as directed in June and part of July 2020. Around August 1, 2020, father completed a drug and alcohol assessment and entered residential drug treatment through the Sacramento Veterans Resource Center. Father was discharged from this program on August 28, 2020, following an undefined disagreement. He resumed participation in drug court and was testing negative. Father had been terminated from anger management classes due to nonparticipation, but requested another referral. Father regularly participated in virtual visits, but after father became aggressive and threatened that he was recording the visits, minor’s foster parents refused to facilitate his visits. Apparently upset that the foster parents were no longer willing to facilitate the visitation, father texted the Department that he was going to contact the police for “ ‘abduction/noncompliance of court order’ ” because he had not had a visit in three weeks.

The Department’s December 10, 2020, progress report noted the resumption of in-person visitation, with mother and father visiting separately. Q.B. did not participate in visits with father because he feared him.

On February 23, 2021, the Department filed a second addendum report updating the court on the parents’ services. Father was still being supervised by probation, who had placed him on house arrest until February 19, 2021.[5] Father continued with his twice weekly, in-person supervised visits with minor. On December 30, 2020, father completed a new substance abuse assessment and was referred for outpatient services through Room for Dads, which would provide him parenting classes. Father was participating in anger management classes and reported his new skills were helping him avoid anger and outbursts. Father had not started any domestic violence counseling services.

After holding the contested, combined section 366.21, subdivisions (e) and (f) hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for both minor and Q.B. and set the matter for a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing. The court recounted mother’s and father’s longstanding struggles with sobriety, including relapses the year before and their hard work to achieve and maintain their sobriety.

The court then addressed the parents’ history of domestic violence, which included violence committed in front of Q.B., who remained terrified of father. The records before the court showed that father had punched mother to the point she feared she would lose consciousness. On other occasions, he punched mother repeatedly causing extensive bruising, bit her hand until it bled, shoved mother until her nose hit her knees and bled, dragged mother out of a store, threatened to stab her stomach with a knife, threatened to cut off mother’s relative’s head, and threatened to kill mother by shooting her and then to kill the children by stabbing them.

The most recent documented instances of domestic violence from 2020 included father hitting mother’s car to keep her from leaving father and father beating up mother. Mother, while admitting a history of domestic violence, blamed that violence on the couple’s drug use, expressed a desire to reunite with father, and disavowed the need for the restraining order. Father continued to deny any domestic violence in their relationship. Both parents characterized the interactions as arguments typical of couples, which the court noted was “quite troubling.” Evidence showed that mother and father had repeatedly violated the restraining order.

Ultimately, the court concluded mother had failed to benefit from her domestic violence services and lacked insight into the issues that led to the domestic violence. The court did not believe mother would keep the children away from father if they were returned, and father had only made limited progress in his services. Finally, there was not a substantial likelihood that minor would be returned within the next review period.

Permanency Planning and Change Order Requests (Mar. 2021-Sept. 2021)

The section 366.26 permanency planning hearing was scheduled for July 9, 2021. On April 16, 2021, father filed a request to change order (§ 388) seeking the modification of the stay away order to allow peaceful contact so that mother and father could coparent the couple’s infant child, Ma.M. (infant minor). Because no one objected to this request, the court granted the motion.

On June 18, 2021, mother filed a request to change order (§ 388) seeking the return of Q.B. and minor or, in the alternative, the reinstitution of reunification services. The court set the hearing on this motion concurrent with the permanency planning hearing.

The Department filed its selection and implementation report, recommending the termination of parental rights and a permanent plan of adoption for minor and Q.B. Mother and father separately visited minor twice a month, but Q.B. continued to fear father and refused to visit mother because he believed father had been observing those visits from afar. Minor was happy in her placement and was especially close to another young child the de facto parents had adopted and expressed distress when separated from that child. Minor and Q.B. still lived together with the de facto parents, who wanted to adopt them. Q.B. expressed his desire to be adopted by his de facto parents. The Department continued to worry that Q.B. and minor would be in danger if returned to their mother because of the history of substance abuse and domestic violence. The Department doubted mother’s reports regarding the current nature of her relationship with father in light of the new baby born of that relationship and reports of contact from various individuals.

On July 9, 2021, mother and father requested a contested hearing on the combined section 388 request and section 366.26 selection and implementation plan hearing. Father filed a pretrial statement joining mother’s request that Q.B. and minor be returned to her or reunification services be reinstituted. Father also filed a change order request (§ 388) seeking minor’s return to him or that reunification services be reinstituted. Father asserted he had “demonstrated a commitment to addressing any and all issues which ha[d] previously placed the child at risk and otherwise [was] able to be a safe loving parent who meets all the medical, developmental, emotional and educational needs of his child.”

The Department filed an addendum to its selection and implementation report, which indicated the Department had been unable to discuss father with his therapist because father had not executed a release of information. Mother and father still needed to complete coparenting class/therapy. Q.B. maintained his wish that he and minor be adopted by the de facto parents.

On August 27, 2021, the court heard argument concerning mother’s and father’s change order requests and determined the court would take the “cautious approach” and allow an evidentiary hearing.

Mother first offered the testimony of Eliana Clair, the Department social worker assigned to supervise parental visits and who had been supervising visits in the case for a little under a year. The frequency of visits for both mother and father went from twice weekly to once a week, and then twice a month. Mother brought infant minor to visits approximately 60 percent of the time, and minor appeared to enjoy being around the baby, as well as her half brother T.B. when he visited.

Clair supervised father visiting with minor. Father had missed at least five visits during the reporting period because of conflicts with doctor’s appointments and class. When he did visit, father interacted appropriately with minor reading her books and playing with her. Minor appeared happy during these visits and transitioned easily at the end of visits with the exception of one day where it had been particularly hot and minor calmed down once placed in her car seat. Clair had heard minor say “Dada” during a visit.[6]

Joseph Thompson was the social worker assigned to the informal services case for infant minor. Thompson was not aware of the details surrounding the history of domestic violence, but did have mother attending domestic violence counseling and individual counseling. Mother still needed to complete coparenting counseling. His bimonthly home visits with mother and infant minor had gone well.

Thompson confirmed infant minor was father’s child and that they shared custody, but infant minor lived primarily with mother because she was breastfeeding. Father had engaged in unspecified domestic violence services predating Thompson’s involvement with the case, and was also doing individual counseling and drug testing. Thompson had never seen infant minor in father’s care, but was not aware of any concerns. Thompson had not discussed the level and type of historical domestic violence incidents that had occurred with father. Thompson believed it was in infant minor’s best interests to remain in his parents’ care.

Mother testified, reiterating her request that Q.B. and minor be returned to her. Since the termination of her reunification services, mother had graduated from outpatient drug treatment, regularly tested negative for drugs, continued her Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous groups at least once a week, had been clean for almost 14 months, had been caring for her infant son, and had not let father see the son until she was told that was okay. Mother had been working with the domestic violence counselor and now recognized the domestic violence in her relationship with father was unhealthy. She explained that she was focusing on coparenting with father, but could not predict the future. Over the past month, she had had frequent contact with father concerning infant minor, and father had expressed remorse for his past conduct. She denied any domestic violence had occurred since March. Mother agreed that Q.B. and minor loved each other very much and were strongly bonded and testified she would maintain their contact if only minor were returned to her.

Father testified that he had changed and it was now in minor’s best interests to be returned to him. He had been sober for over 13 months and had completed all steps of recovery. Father also suffered from bipolar disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder, for which he took medication. Father further completed counseling to address domestic violence and trauma from his past, including the impact domestic violence can have on children. Prior to that, father had attended domestic violence classes. Father agreed there had been domestic violence in his relationship with mother and admitted there had been domestic violence in 2020 while minor’s dependency case was ongoing, but denied any domestic violence incidents had occurred following his completion of domestic violence counseling. Father also admitted he had lied to the court regarding his contacts with mother at the previous trial. Father denied that after he had completed anger management in March of 2021, he threatened to kill his children and their caretakers if he lost them. He further denied flipping off the de facto mother on April 26, 2021. Contrary to the social worker’s testimony, father stated that minor would cry or shut down emotionally at the end of visits. He cared for infant minor a few times a week and had recently cared for him overnight for the first time. Father was committed to maintaining minor’s contact with Q.B. should she be placed in his care, acknowledging that minor had lived with the de facto parents and Q.B. her whole life.

In rebuttal, the minors’ counsel presented the testimony of the de facto parents K.S. and F.S. Father had made inappropriate gestures towards K.S. on two different occasions, the second of which occurred when father beeped his horn to get her attention, yelled something she could not hear, and then flipped her off. K.S. recognized father from his tattoos that she had previously seen on video visits. K.S. also suspected that father had come to her home within the past six months on a motorcycle and revved his engine at 11:00 p.m., but could not prove it was him. Father had recorded video visits with minor without permission, causing the cessation of video visits.

K.S. further testified that she had cared for minor since she was two days old, that minor was nearly 20 months old, and that minor called her “Mommy” and F.S. “Dada.” Minor began calling her “Mommy” when she was about eight or nine months old. The couple was willing and wanted to adopt her and Q.B., who had a close sibling relationship. Both minor and Q.B. would be negatively impacted if they were not together. K.S. was committed to allowing visits with mother and infant minor providing mother stayed clean. K.S. was also committed to allowing visits with father if he were clean and acted “civil.” If parental rights were terminated, K.S. was still committed to continuing minor and Q.B.’s visits with T.B.

F.S. testified that he was the primary person to care for minor at home, and she had been slow to crawl, eat cut up food, and walk, but that they have worked with her to develop her milestones, and she had progressed. Minor mimicked her foster sister who was three years old, and they loved to sing together. The couple had adopted that child and also cared for her brother who was nine months old and had been with the family since he was one day old. F.S. reiterated the couple’s commitment to adopting minor and Q.B.

On September 2, 2021, the court heard closing arguments of the parties, with father arguing that the escape mechanism inherent in this context should be invoked to reinstitute reunification services based upon the changes in father’s honesty and addressing of the domestic violence situation. The Department disagreed, noting there had not been great change, but that the court did not need to decide that issue because it was not in minor or Q.B.’s best interests to return to or have additional reunification services with either parent. The minors’ counsel argued that mother’s and father’s section 388 requests should be denied because the requests were not in the minors’ best interests.

At the September 17, 2021, hearing, the juvenile court issued its decision. The court accepted that mother had showed changed circumstances and that, at least from father’s perspective, circumstances had changed. The court denied both section 388 change order requests on the basis that neither mother nor father had established that returning the minors or reinstituting reunification services would be in the minors’ best interests. The court adopted the Department’s proposed orders and findings, terminated mother’s and father’s parental rights as to minor and set adoption as her permanent plan. The court similarly terminated mother’s rights as to Q.B. and set adoption as his permanent plan. Father timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Section 388 permits modification of a dependency order if a change of circumstance or new evidence is shown and if the proposed modification is in the best interests of the child. (In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 526.) “Even after the focus has shifted from reunification, the scheme provides a means for the court to address a legitimate change of circumstances while protecting the child’s need for prompt resolution of his [or her] custody status.” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) The petitioning party has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 48.)

The best interests of the child are of paramount consideration when a modification petition is brought after termination of reunification services. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) In assessing the best interests of the child at this juncture, the juvenile court looks not to the parent’s interests in reunification but to the needs of the child for permanence and stability. (In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 309.) “[W]hen a child has been placed in foster care because of parental neglect or incapacity, after an extended period of foster care, it is within the court’s discretion to decide that a child’s interest in stability has come to outweigh the natural parent’s interest in the care, custody and companionship of the child.” (In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 419.)

A modification petition “is addressed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court and its decision will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion.” (In re Jasmon O., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 415.) “ ‘ “When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.” ’ ” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 319.) Accordingly, “t is rare that the denial of a section 388 motion merits reversal as an abuse of discretion . . . .” ([i]In re Kimberly F., supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 522.) We discern no abuse of discretion here.

In determining a section 388 motion, factors to consider include: “(1) the seriousness of the problem which led to the dependency, and the reason for any continuation of that problem; (2) the strength of relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent and caretakers; and (3) the degree to which the problem may be easily removed or ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has been.” (In re Kimberly F., supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 532.)

The Problems That Led to the Dependency (Factors 1 & 3)

In Kimberly F., dependency was based on an unsanitary house, a problem the parent had resolved. (In re Kimberly F., supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at pp. 521-522, 532.) Here, dependency was based on more serious and intractable problems, the parents’ longstanding substance abuse, serious domestic violence between mother and father, and the resulting dependency matter of minor’s half sibling, Q.B. (See In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 686 [no abuse of discretion in denying § 388 petition where the parent established 372-day period of sobriety]; In re I.B. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 133, 156-157 [noting complicated and cyclical nature of domestic abuse].) While the parents had made progress with maintaining their sobriety following a relapse towards the beginning of the case, they had not similarly redressed the domestic violence that had occurred between them. The instances of domestic violence were well documented and serious, including numerous injuries to mother, threats to kill mother and her children, and a threat to behead one of mother’s relatives.

Further, the parents refused to accept the seriousness of their domestic violence. During the reunification services period, father steadfastly denied he had been either physically or emotionally abusive with mother, instead stating they had arguments like normal couples. Moreover, mother and father repeatedly violated a restraining order put in place so that mother could attend a confidential residential treatment program. Mother disavowed the need for that restraining order and expressed a desire to coparent with father. It was this refusal to gain insight into the domestic violence and plan to safely address it that caused the court to conclude that reunification services should be terminated.

Leading up to and following the termination of services, father completed two sets of domestic violence counseling, but still appeared to have issues with his temper. Evidence presented at the hearing showed that father had made inappropriate gestures at de facto parent K.S. after completion of his first set of domestic violence therapy and over halfway through his second course. It was also suspected that he had revved his motorcycle at 11:00 p.m. outside the de facto parents’ home within six months of the change order hearing, and had previously recorded video visits without permission and then threatened to use them in litigation. During the change order trial, father initially testified that the domestic violence had occurred before minor was conceived, but later conceded some domestic violence had occurred during 2020, while minor’s dependency case was ongoing. Father denied any domestic violence had occurred since his completion of counseling, but also admitted that he had lied to the court regarding his contacts with mother during the previous trial.

Moreover, although they were living separately at the time of the modification hearing, mother and father were committed to coparenting minor’s infant brother, and there was no evidence they had done anything to permanentize their separation. Nor had the parents been forthcoming about the extent of their domestic violence with infant minor’s social worker, Joseph Thompson, who admitted that he had not discussed those details with the parents, nor had he requested a residence check to see if there had been any recent calls for assistance at the parents’ residences, and had not yet received the results of the background check he requested. Based on this record, there were, at a minimum, lingering risks of domestic violence.

The Strength of the Bonds Between Minor and Her Parents Versus Her De Facto Parents (Factor 2)

Minor, then approximately 20 months old, was bonded to her de facto parents, who had cared for her since she was two days old, and whom she called “Mommy” and “Dada.” At the home, minor lived with her half brother Q.B. and two more young children, at least one of which the de facto parents had adopted. Q.B. enjoyed playing with minor and reading to her. Minor also enjoyed singing and playing with her three-year-old foster sister and was troubled when separated from her. The de facto parents were committed to adopting minor and Q.B. They also agreed to continue visits between minor and her half brother T.B., as well as with mother, infant minor, and father, providing parents stayed clean and father was civil.

Minor originally visited with her father twice a week, but those visits had been reduced to once a week and then twice a month. Minor was happy with father when she visited,[7] and father interacted appropriately with her, for example, reading books and playing with her. However, contrary to father’s arguments, minor transitioned well at the end of visits and only once did the social worker observe her cry at the end of a visit on a hot day, and minor calmed down once placed in her car seat. Further, while that social worker observed minor call father “Dada,” testimony showed that minor often used that word indiscriminately when speaking with people.

In reviewing the facts of the case in favor of the court’s decision, it is not our place to reweigh the credibility of these witnesses. (In re Casey D., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 52.) On this record, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in implicitly determining that father had not rebutted the presumption in favor of foster care with a permanent plan of adoption. (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 317-318.) In light of the lingering danger of domestic violence between the parents and minor’s strong bond to the de facto parents, her foster siblings, and her half brother Q.B., we conclude substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s decision denying the change order requests. (See In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 464-465 [the mother had not rebutted presumption despite her services where minor was placed two days after birth with foster parents who were also in the process of adopting an older sibling].)

Although the parent and child share an interest in reunification up until the termination of reunification services, once those services end, “ ‘[C]hildren have a fundamental independent interest in belonging to a family unit [citation], and they have compelling rights to be protected from abuse and neglect and to have a placement that is stable, permanent, and that allows the caretaker to make a full emotional commitment to the child.’ (In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 306.) Adoption gives a child the best chance at a full emotional commitment from a responsible caretaker. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.)” (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527; id. at pp. 526-528 [the mother’s completion of services did not necessitate conclusion that reunification with mother would be in the child’s best interests].)

Father’s challenge to the termination of his parental rights is premised upon alleged error in failing to grant his change order request. Because we have determined the juvenile court did not err in denying the change order requests, we reject father’s challenge to the termination of parental rights.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

/s/

HOCH, J.

We concur:

/s/

MAURO, Acting P. J.

/s/

KRAUSE, J.

[1] Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

[2] Minor’s foster parents were granted de facto parent status on December 11, 2020, and later were identified as prospective adoptive parents.

[3] This history went back to at least November 7, 2018, and continued while mother was receiving services in relation to her son Q.B.

[4] Mother later confirmed this incident had occurred.

[5] His probation term was scheduled to end in approximately five years.

[6] De facto parent K.S. later testified that minor “says Dada a lot to anybody she is talking to. That’s her word.”

[7] Father had missed at least five visits during the reporting period because of conflicts due to doctor appointments and classes.