San Bernardino Cnty. Children & Family Servs. v. M.M. (In re D.P.)

• Decision Date: 27 September 2022
• Docket Number: E078599
• Parties: In re D.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. M.M., Defendant and Appellant. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

In re D.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.M., Defendant and Appellant.

E078599

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Second Division

September 27, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County Nos J285456, J285457. Christopher B. Marshall, Judge. Affirmed.

Megan Turkat-Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Joseph R. Barrell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

McKINSTER ACTING P. J.

The juvenile court terminated defendant and appellant, M.M.'s (mother)^[1] parental rights to D.P. (born Mar. 2009) and K.V. (born Oct. 2015) (collectively the children). On appeal, mother contends the court erred in declining to apply the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of her parental rights. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND^[2]

On March 7, 2020, personnel from plaintiff and respondent, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the department), received allegations that mother's eldest daughter, L.B., who was living at mother and father's residence with the children, threatened to break the reporting party's window, tried to force entry into the reporting party's home, and indicated that she had a gun and was going to shoot the reporting party.^[3] It was reported that D.P. was at the home during the incident, where he was residing with mother without a verified guardianship. Responding officers tried to contact mother, but she was not home

Father, who was living in the home, had been the subject of a substantiated sexual abuse allegation as to L.B. in 2018.^[4] Once contacted, mother reported that D.P.'s mother was living in Mexico, to which she had been deported; D.P.'s biological father had disappeared. Mother reported father had moved back into the home two weeks earlier, that she had gone over the rules with him regarding how to treat the children, and that she had no concerns despite the substantiated allegations of sexual abuse against father.

On June 4, 2020, the department took the children into protective custody and placed them with the foster parents. On June 8, 2020, the department filed Welfare and Institutions Code^[5] section 300 petitions as to both children. On June 9, 2020, the court detained the children. The allegations in the petitions, as amended and as pertinent here, alleged domestic violence by parents in front of the children and issues with respect to father's presence in the home after substantiated allegations of sexual abuse against him.

In the jurisdiction and disposition report filed on June 29, 2020, as to D.P.,^[6] the department recommended the court remove him, deny his parents reunification services, and grant mother presumed mother status. Mother "has raised [D.P.], considers him her son, and wants presumed status as a parent." D.P. said that mother was his "'mom, mom'"'; she was the only mother he knew. He said he would like to go back with mother.

Due to Covid-19 restrictions, visitation was limited to telephone and virtual visits, which were supervised by the foster mother. On June 19, 2020, the foster mother reported that during a visit on June 16, mother told D.P. to cry during court so that he would be returned home; mother told D.P. if he did so, she would let him do whatever he wanted, including playing video games all the time. When confronted by the social worker, mother denied the allegation.

In the July 7, 2020, jurisdiction and disposition report as to K.V., the social worker reported that the prior investigation as to father involved him touching L.B.'s thighs and taking naked pictures of her. The foster parents reported that K.V. "has not really asked for her parents." K.V. "has had phone calls with parents but she does not seem interested in phone contact with parents. The child walks away." The foster mother reported that mother told K.V. that if asked, she should say she wants to come home. Mother denied the incident; she said K.V. had a history of lying.

Parents denied any prior sexual impropriety with L.B. Parents reported that father had moved out of the home. At a hearing on July 8, 2020, the court ordered parents not to discuss the case with K.V. In an additional information to the court report filed August 12, 2020, the social worker reported K.V. had "visits with both parents by video. The visits have been going well, with no reported concerns about the parents' interactions with the child."

At the August 12, 2020, jurisdiction and disposition hearing for both children, the court granted mother presumed mother status of D.P. The court found the allegations in the petitions true, removed the children from parents' custody, and ordered reunification services. The court ordered mother not to discuss the case with the children.

In the February 2, 2021, status review report, the social worker reported that "mother has had facetime calls with the children twice a week for one hour each. The facetimes have been scheduled for Monday and Wednesdays." Mother had been consistent in her "visitations whether they are in person or video call. Recently, the visits have been moved to video call yet again."

Mother reported she was no longer in a relationship with father. The social worker recommended parents "demonstrate, through time, that they are capable of safely caring for the children." The social worker wanted "to slowly increase the visitations." She was hopeful that the children would be able to reunify with parents "within the next few months."

At the hearing on February 11, 2021, the court continued mother's reunification services. The court gave the department authority to give mother overnight and weekend visitation with the children.

In the July 9, 2021, status review report, the social worker recommended the court continue mother's reunification services. K.V. had "quickly bonded to the caregiver." The social worker observed the children in their foster home and indicated that "both children appear comfortable." The foster mother "is having all of the children's needs met. [She] is happy to have the children in her home and is willing to continue to care for the children."

Mother began having unsupervised visits with the children at the beginning of March 2021. Mother informed the social worker that she lived alone and never left the children with anyone else. However, on April 6, 2021, D.P. reported that mother had left him at home with L.B. and her boyfriend. The social worker spoke with K.V. who shared that L.B., who was pregnant, and her boyfriend now lived with mother. After two months, mother eventually admitted that L.B. and her boyfriend were living in the home. The social worker was concerned both because mother had been lying to her and that since L.B. and her boyfriend were both adults, "they would need to complete live scans for the department if they would be around the children and be in the home." Since mother did not make L.B. and her boyfriend available, the social worker limited mother's unsupervised visits to four hours.

On June 14, 2021, the foster mother reported that mother stated that the social worker had promised overnight visitation was to begin that weekend. The social worker responded that visits were limited to four hours. When the social worker asked mother about it, mother reported that it was a misunderstanding.

The social worker concluded that mother lacked any benefit from the programs in which she was engaged. Mother had "lied on multiple occasions in regards to who the children are exposed to, as well as trying to manipulate the time approved for her visits. The undersigned does not believe that if the children were returned that the mother would be honest with the undersigned regarding who is in the home and who provides supervision of the children while she is at work. In addition, the undersigned has been notified of how the mother will coach the children. The undersigned would like the mother to be honest with the department and realize how coaching and manipulating effects the children and their safety."

In a July 21, 2021, additional information to the court report, the social worker reported that K.V. confided that during a visit the previous weekend, father had shown up and argued with mother. Father denied the incident. At a hearing on July 21, 2021, minors' counsel requested the court consider terminating mother's services and, pending the contested hearing, require that mother's visitation be supervised.

In an additional information to the court report filed July 29, 2021, the social worker asked parents about the incident reported by K.V. Parents denied the incident; mother said she had not had any contact with father since the case began.

The social worker asked D.P. how he felt in his foster placement; he responded that "he is happier because his foster mother is always home with him to keep him safe and reports he is comfortable." The social worker opined that she did "not believe that the children could be safely returned given the multiple issues regarding coaching and minimizing of issues. In addition, it is concerning at this point moving forward, if the children were to reunify, that they would be coached to not come forward with the Department if there were a safety risk in the home."

At the hearing on July 30, 2021, the department argued "the parents are actively coaching the children, they are lying to the Department. Mother's conjoint therapy has been terrible, and it's been terrible for the children because she is actively trying to manipulate and coach them through those sessions." "Mo...