Opinion
E075841
05-17-2021
In re S.T. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B.T., Defendant and Appellant.
Matthew I. Thue, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and David Guardado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.Nos. J275029, J275030, J275031 & J275032) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B. Marshall, Judge. Affirmed. Matthew I. Thue, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and David Guardado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
At a postpermanency hearing, the juvenile court changed minors' permanent plan from reunification with defendant and respondent, B.T. (mother), to legal guardianship; the court additionally reduced mother's visitation from once weekly to once monthly. On appeal, mother contends the court abused its discretion in reducing her visitation. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Pursuant to mother's request, we took judicial notice of the nonpublished opinion in mother's appeal of the dispositional hearing. (CFS v. B.T. (In re S.T. et al.) (Sept. 3, 2019, E071919) [nonpub. opn.].) We take much of our early factual background in this case from that opinion.
On February 24, 2018, a social worker responded to a hospital regarding allegations of physical abuse to minor 2 (born 2011). It was reported that mother hit minor 2 with a belt, and he sustained a laceration on his left cheek, a swollen left eye, and redness on his stomach and chest. Minor 2 reported that mother gave him "'owies'" after he failed to complete additional homework mother had given him. Minor 2 said that minor 1 (born 2009) was permitted to punish him by punching or slapping him. (CFS v. B.T., supra, E071919.)
Minor 3 (born 2012) also reported physical abuse by mother of both herself and minor 2. Minor 3 reported that mother engaged in domestic violence in the home, and the home was infested with insects. An officer showed the social worker pictures of the home, which was covered with dog and cat feces, piles of clothes in every room, and turned over mattresses and couches. Officers took mother into custody, and the social worker took the minors into protective custody. (CFS v. B.T., supra, E071919.)
Mother was apparently charged with injury to a child likely to cause great bodily harm or death. (CFS v. B.T., supra, E071919.)
Personnel from plaintiff and respondent, San Bernardino Children and Family Services (CFS), filed juvenile dependency petitions alleging mother had a history of using excessive corporal punishment on minor 2 (a-1), a history of engaging in domestic violence in the presence of minors (b-2), an untreated mental illness (b-3), and that the home was filthy (b-4). On February 28, 2018, the juvenile court detained minors, ordered reunification services for mother, and ordered supervised visitation twice weekly for two hours once mother was released from custody. (CFS v. B.T., supra, E071919.)
A subsequent report reflected minor 1 had several scars, which were consistent with being struck with an implement such as a belt. Minor 4 (born 2013) reported mother hit her and her siblings by hand, belt, and stick. Medical examinations of minors 3 and 4 revealed numerous injuries deemed consistent with physical abuse. (CFS v. B.T., supra, E071919.)
On September 24, 2018, mother's counsel noted: "The Court has four times in this case ordered for in-custody visitation. That has not happened. [¶] . . . [¶] It does not seem the County is willing to facilitate at all the visitation that the Court has ordered, and instead is trying to utilize and misrepresent Mother's letter contact in order to deny her visitation in custody. [¶] We would ask the Court to reiterate its prior orders that minors be allowed to visit Mother while [she is] in custody." Mother's counsel asked for a contested hearing on in-custody visitation. (CFS v. B.T., supra, E071919.)
At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on October 31, 2018, the court found the allegations in the petitions, as amended, true. The court then removed minors from mother's custody, ordered mother reunification services, and ordered visitation with mother once a week for two hours minimum once she was released from custody. (CFS v. B.T., supra, E071919.) Mother filed an appeal contending the court abused its discretion in the dispositional order by delegating to CFS personnel the authority to determine whether any visitation between minors and mother would occur at all. (Ibid.)
At the January 4, 2019, nonappearance review hearing, the social worker noted that on November 28, 2018, minor 1 visited with mother in jail. "The visit went well and the mother was appropriate and loving, saying how much she missed [minor 1]. The visit lasted for 15 minutes based on West Valley Detention Center's jail rules and regulations." On December 13, 2018, minor 2 visited with mother. On December 19, 2018, minor 1 had another visit with mother. On December 20, 2018, minors told the social worker they wanted to see mother, "hug her, and give her drawings and candy."
In the April 26, 2019, status review report, the social worker recommended reunification services for mother be continued. Mother remained incarcerated. The report indicated that on January 15, 2019, the social worker contacted West Valley Detention Center and found that mother had been transferred to the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla: "Due to the distance of the facility, in custody visits were no longer considered appropriate for the children. The mother has consistently been writing letters to the children, and the undersigned has been reading the letters to the children on each visit with them. The children look forward to reading the letters from the mother." Despite being advised they could write letters to mother, minors indicated they always forget to do so. "The children have voiced that they miss their parents and that they look forward to being able to see their mother again."
On April 26, 2019, in the prior appeal (CFS v. B.T., supra, E071919), CFS requested this court take judicial notice of the January 4, 2019 nonappearance review minute order, among other documents, to show that "the judgment should be affirmed, since, on January 16, 2019, the court required CFS to facilitate in-custody visits, and did not merely 'authorize' them." (CFS v. B.T., supra, E071919.) In a May 1, 2019, additional information to the court report, the social worker reported mother had been transferred to the California Institution for Women in Corona. The social worker indicated she would initiate the application procedure to arrange for visitation, though "the process could be quite lengthy."
We denied the request. (In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 413 [Consideration of postjudgment evidence in juvenile dependency appeals is violative of generally applicable rules of appellate procedure.].)
At the May 1, 2019, six-month review hearing, the court continued mother's reunification services. The court ordered supervised visits between minors and mother once weekly for two hours: "[V]isits with mother at the Corona facility as appropriate in conjunction with or following the appropriate rules and regulations of the Corona facility." Mother's counsel noted: "Mother does have an appeal pending for that. I would object to 'as appropriate language' . . . for the record." The court removed the "'as appropriate'" language from the order, "if we make it that the visits with the mother are consistent with the rules and regulations of the Corona facility." Mother's counsel stated: "And that would include, then, following the application process and setting those visits up." The court agreed.
In the status review report filed August 1, 2019, the social worker again recommended mother's reunification services be continued. The social worker reported: "On May 8, 2019, [I] spoke to the mother's CDCR family specialist social worker to get more information on visitation at mother's facility. The social worker had stated that the visits could be scheduled over the phone . . . ." However, the specialist needed minute orders for each minor e-mailed to her before she would order in custody visits: "She stated that it would be for one hour, with restriction of glass, and a maximum of three children." Additionally, the specialist "advised that because mother was getting released on 6/26/19, it may not be possible for a visit to be scheduled before the mother is released."
Mother was released from custody on June 26, 2019. "On June 27, 2019, the children had their first visit with the mother since being taken into care." "[Minor 4] said she did not remember the mother and asked who she was, however, the mother was very engaging, loving, and affectionate with the children during the visit, and they all quickly became comfortable with her. [Minor 1] ran to her mother immediately and was very excited to see her."
Although this was true of minors 3 and 4, a previous report reflected minor 1 had visited mother twice and minor 2 had visited mother once since they were taken into protective custody.
In an August 9, 2019, additional information to the court report, the social worker noted that mother could not successfully reunify with minors within the statutory time frame. The social worker recommended minors remain placed in foster care with a permanent plan of returning to mother's custody. Mother had missed two visits with minors and said she could not keep track of her appointments because she had so much going on between her services for both her parole and with CFS.
In an opinion filed September 3, 2019, we reversed the juvenile court's dispositional order as to visitation. We held that the juvenile court had invalidly delegated authority over visitation to CFS personnel while mother was incarcerated. (CFS v. B.T., supra, E071919.)
That holding is supported by the subsequent history of the case reported here. That history reflects that during mother's 16 months of incarceration, she was only permitted visitation with minor 1 twice, minor 2 once, and not at all with minors 3 and 4. The scarcity, or total lack, of visitation was not supported by a juvenile court finding of detriment. (Christopher D. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 60, 69 [Visitation with an incarcerated parent may only be denied if the court finds visitation would be detrimental to the minor.].) The December 6, 2019, minute orders reflect: "This Court on 11/6/2019 addressed visitation and a visitation order in conformity to the Court of Appeals Order was [sic] implemented."
In an additional information to the court report filed October 2, 2019, the social worker noted that mother had missed visits on August 15 and 24. Otherwise, mother had "been consistent with the rest of the visitation and visits have been positive and appropriate." Mother reported she was staying with her father, the maternal grandfather, some days.
On November 6, 2019, the juvenile court terminated mother's reunification services. The court then found it would be in minors' best interests for mother to be provided additional services for a maximum period of six months. The court ordered minors to remain in foster care with a permanent plan of returning to mother's custody. The court ordered supervised visits once a week for two hours, with authority for unsupervised overnight and weekend visits.
In the status review report filed May 27, 2020, the social worker recommended the permanent plan continue. The report indicated that on January 2, mother was late to a visit, and she brought her father to the visit. Mother missed two visits in January but "has been overall consistent in her visitations . . . ." The social worker noted that mother "is attentive to the children during visits and prepares activities for them to engage in together. The children are excited to see mother for visits, and they are very affectionate and loving toward one another." Mother began unsupervised visitation on February 24.
On February 27, 2020, a child and family team meeting was held, which the grandfather attended. The social worker "addressed the concern with the mother that he is not an appropriate safety network member, as he has substantiated sexual abuse allegations against the mother from when she was a minor." Mother said she had not invited her father to the meeting. Mother signed a declaration acknowledging that she was not to have her father around minors under any circumstances or it would be cause for termination of visitation. During a majority of the reporting period, mother had stayed with her father. Mother acknowledged that she would not want minors living with him, but "she did not have anyone else in her life who was able to help her with a place to live or to drive her . . . places."
The grandfather had been convicted of felony sexual abuse against mother when she was a minor for which he served time in prison; he is required to register as a sex offender.
The report also indicated that on February 28, 2020, minor 1 had moved in with a relative caregiver, who said she was willing to provide long-term care under a legal guardianship if minors and mother were unable to reunify. Minors 3 and 4 moved in with a different relative caregiver, but they were awaiting approval to move in with the same caregiver as minor 1. The "children expressed their wishes to be able to go home with their mom again and that she is inspiring to them." On or around March 23, due to Covid-19 concerns, minors started visiting mother through video chat or phone calls throughout the week.
Minor 2 was moved into "a higher level of care on March 30, 2020, as recommended by his wraparound team," "due to his aggressive behaviors in school and at home in which he [was] defiant and destroyed property." At the time the court ordered a legal guardianship as the permanent plan, minor 2 was still living separately from his siblings in a group home. "The goal for him would be to stabilize his behavior to get him to a lower level of care."
In an addendum report filed June 4, 2020, the social worker recommended the court change the permanent plan to legal guardianship. On May 4, the social worker assessed mother's apartment as appropriate for overnight and weekend visitation. Minors visited with mother that weekend from Saturday to Monday. The caregiver informed the social worker on May 11, that the grandfather was present at the visit; the caregiver saw him by the pool area when she was picking them up on Monday; she also reported that he had attended a pool party on Saturday, which mother and minors attended.
On May 15, 2020, the social worker spoke with minors by phone. Minor 1 "reported the visit with their mom went [well] and they had a girl's night for Mother's Day." When asked if there was anyone else with them during the visit, she said there was not. She also said she did not remember if she had seen her grandfather. Minor 3 said she did not see him during the visit, but minor 1 could be heard in the background saying, "'Don't say grandpa was there.'" The social worker opined, "It is the undersigned's impression that the children appeared to be coached as the children's stories appeared to be inconsistent . . . ."
Mother initially denied her father was present during the visit. However, when confronted with the caregiver's report, mother said her brother brought her father to her apartment, but he never got out of the car and never had any interaction with minors. Mother said, "'Just because they can't have contact with him, why can't I have contact with him?'" She added, "'I can't help . . . my dad being a big factor in my life. If I have trouble, if I need help, if I need money, he is my go to.'" Mother said the pool party was an adult party with her family and said she left as soon as minors arrived. She also said her father is "her family, and she cannot help it if he shows up somewhere."
The social worker then moved visitation back to supervised and opined: "It appears that the mother has been unable to demonstrate a benefit from services in that she still has poor boundaries and is unable to demonstrate acts of protection by repeatedly letting the grandfather around the children. The mother also struggles with taking accountability for her role in allowing the grandfather access to the children and minimizes the safety risks."
Since moving to supervised visits, mother's phone visitation with minor 2 was inconsistent. Minor 2's therapist reported that when minor 2 would try to call mother, she would either not answer or, if she did answer, she would be distracted during the phone call. The therapist reported that mother repeatedly and inappropriately discussed the reunification and court proceedings with minor 2 and told him he would be coming home soon. When redirected, mother would become upset and said, "'I can talk to my son about whatever the fuck I want.'"
In an addendum report filed September 1, 2020, the social worker reported that on June 15, minor 1 called the social worker. She admitted her grandfather was at the pool party. Minor 1 said she initially reported that she did not see him because she thought she was not supposed to see him. Minor 3 said she saw him at the pool party; she greeted him and gave him a hug. Minors 3 and 4 said they did not tell the truth initially because minor 1 told them not to say they had seen their grandfather. Minors said they did not believe mother had seen them interact with their grandfather. Nonetheless, the social worker opined it remained a concern that mother was not providing adequate supervision of minors during visits.
Mother reported she would obtain rides from her father. The social worker reported that on August 5, 2020, mother "became increasingly agitated and her conversation more tangential during the call. The [social worker] asked the mother if she was still taking her psychotropic medication, and she stated, 'I'm not telling you nothing' and hung up after stating, 'I'm not your bitch. You are a shitty ass motherfucking social worker not doing your job.'"
Minor 2's therapist stated they had been having issues with mother being belligerent during phone calls, and she usually ended up harassing staff and not taking redirection. The therapist stated that minor 2 became more aggressive after phone calls with mother, and he had punched a staff member in the back. Minor 2 said he wanted to be able to talk to mother more.
The caregiver was initially open to supervising visitation between mother and minors 1, 3, and 4; however, in early July 2020, she said she was no longer willing to do so due to tension between the caregiver and mother. On July 13, the social worker spoke to mother regarding the possibility of scheduling in-person office visits. Mother said she would not want to do so because she did not want anything she said to be used against her in court.
On July 15, 2020, the social worker suggested visitation take place at the foster family agency office. Mother responded, "'Y'all can have my kids. Stop talking to me. I am ready to just die. I'm not giving you the authority to tell me what to say. I've done everything you told me to do. I'd rather die today than have a supervised visit.'"
On July 18, 2020, a foster family agency worker contacted the social worker; she said that during a phone call with minors 1, 3, and 4, mother told minors she had given up and wanted to tell them "goodbye," as they would not be coming home. She also told minors they would be leaving the caregivers' home because the caregiver was having a baby and wanted to just have her own family. The caregiver ended the call, as the minors were crying and upset. Mother kept calling the caregiver from different numbers and threatened to call the police for a welfare check if the caregiver did not allow minors to talk to her. Mother then showed up at the caregiver's house uninvited the next morning, saying she wanted to apologize. When the social worker asked minor 1 about the incident, she said she "begged" mother "not to give up." Minor 1 also said mother apologized the next week and told minor 1 she was "not going to give up."
Mother admitted having a moment of weakness, but said it was the caregiver's fault because she was unwilling to supervise visits. The social worker asked if mother realized she had hurt minors; mother responded, "'Everything is about what the kids need or what the foster parent needs, but what about what [I] need[]? No one ever asks that.'"
On August 4, 2020, mother complained that she was not getting her phone visits with minors. The caregiver responded that mother did not call at the agreed upon times. The social worker explained that mother needed to call at the agreed upon times due to minors' and the caregiver's schedules. Mother did not understand why she could not call whenever she wanted; she said she did not want a schedule of when she could speak with minors.
Mother later said she wanted in-person visits. The social worker set up an appointment on August 15, 2020, at CFS offices, which went without any issues. "The children were excited to see the mother and were affectionate and loving. The mother brought the children gifts and recorded TikTok videos of the children and played games."
At a hearing on September 1, 2020, minor 1 testified that she did not remember her grandfather being at the pool party. She also stated that she did not tell the social worker he was there: "I told her that I saw him—that I saw him drive by my mom's house, and he came to stop. But then, the last time I saw him was when my mom was asking him to leave." She further said her grandfather never got out of the car. Minor 1 said she told minor 3 not to tell the social worker they had seen their grandfather because she was scared it would prevent her from reunifying with mother. Minor 1 said she likes visiting with mother; she said she feels confused, sad, and disappointed when she does not get to see mother.
The social worker testified that mother had moved out of her father's home and into an appropriate apartment in late April or early May 2020. Mother had completed all her services, and "a permanent plan of return home was appropriate." However, after the minors' first unsupervised weekend visit, and because of mother's relationship with her father, returning minors to mother was "no longer the plan." The social worker was concerned "that the maternal grandfather had contact with the children" during that visit, and the caregiver had also reported that she had seen the grandfather at mother's apartment.
The social worker further testified that minors had initially denied having contact with their grandfather, and mother said her father did not have any contact with minors. Minors later contacted the social worker and told her they did see their grandfather during the pool party and at mother's apartment. Mother had not acknowledged the safety risk posed by her father. The social worker was still concerned about the relationship between mother and her father because despite multiple conversations about not having him around the minors, it still occurred.
The social worker said the caregiver became unwilling to supervise visits due to a strained relationship with mother and due to the caregiver's high-risk pregnancy. Mother then refused supervised in-person visitation. Minor 2 became frustrated with phone visits with mother because mother became distracted. Mother believed she should be able to call minors any time she wanted. Mother said she was giving up. She told the social worker she wanted to die. The caregiver was originally willing to become minors' guardian; however, she "recently stated she doesn't think she'll be able to do it because of having to arrange visitation with the mother."
The social worker stated that once in-person visitation started with minors 1, 3, and 4, the visits went well, and minors were excited to see mother. Minors and mother were very loving and affectionate with one another. Mother usually brought them gifts, and minors were "very protective" of mother. "They all love their mom a lot."
Mother testified that she had moved into her father's home in November 2019, when she was released from prison, because it was the only place she had to live. On January 2, 2020, she admitted her father drove her to a visit with minors, and she signed a declaration in February 2020 saying she would not allow contact between minors and her father. She said she had moved into her own place in April 2020, and her father had been there twice, uninvited.
When asked about the pool party, mother said there were over 200 people there; she was unaware her father was there. She said the caregiver brought minors to the pool party to drop them off and, had mother known her father was there, she would not have allowed minors to interact with him. Mother said, "I repeatedly tried to explain . . . that my father has never been a part of my life. He's never been a factor in my life." "My kids have never been around my dad." "I just don't understand why he's an issue in court."
Mother denied ever being belligerent or harassing staff during monitored phone calls with minor 2. She admitted saying she would rather die than have supervised visitation. Mother admitted telling minor 1, "I lost, . . . there was no point to going to court because I lost, and . . . I was going to lose, and . . . they were not going to come home or stay with family, and I didn't know what to do."
Mother testified that she was released from prison on June 24, 2019, and by the end of January 2020, she had completed all of her services. She also said that her visits with minors were "always good and exciting, fresh. Every visit, I'll think of what the thing is about the visit, and I'll bring toys or snacks or—depending on what we're going to do, gifts."
Mother's attorney argued that "if the Court is unwilling to return the [minors] back to Mother's care, the Court should order unsupervised visitation with authority for overnights and weekend visitation . . . ." The court opined, "Mother has not benefitted from her services" and called into question the credibility of mother's testimony. "The Court notes that the children were originally detained on February 24, 2018. We're now in September . . . 2020."
"[T]he Court further notes that its concern, also, is with Mother's anger issues; that she has indicated that at times, she feels her head's going to explode. She explained on the stand that that's just when she talks to the social worker. But the Court, from other context [sic] of the disagreements she has with the group home, with respect to parameters of visits—of things that are not appropriate to discuss—that Mother quickly escalates. She still has anger issues."
The court terminated mother's services and ordered the long-term plan changed to foster care with a permanent plan of legal guardianship. The court ordered visitation to occur a "minimum of one time a month for two hours with the authority to increase it as to frequency and duration" and added "[a]uthority to go to unsupervised."
II. DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by reducing her visitation from once weekly to once monthly. CFS maintains the court acted within its discretion, in part, due to mother's continued relationship with her father. We hold that the juvenile court acted within its discretion in reducing mother's visitation.
At a postpermanency planning review hearing, the court "may modify visitation orders . . . as the child's needs require." (In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1002 [sibling visitation]; see, e.g., In re Kelly D. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 433, 438 ["[V]isitation is a proper issue to address at the hearing."].) While Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.3 does not specify a legal standard to guide the juvenile court in undertaking its review, as a general proposition, "the Legislature has mandated that the juvenile courts consider 'the best interests of the minors in all deliberations.'" (In re J.C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 984, 992-993.)
"[D]ependency law affords the juvenile court great discretion in deciding issues relating to parent-child visitation." (In re S.H. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557.) We review a juvenile court's visitation order solely for abuse of discretion. (In re Emmanuel R. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 452, 456.) This standard warrants "a very high degree of deference" to the juvenile court's decision. (In re J.N. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 450, 459.) The appropriate test is whether the court "'"exceeded the bounds of reason. 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. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)
Although mother's continued association with her father supported a requirement for supervised visitation, we agree with mother that alone it did not necessarily warrant a reduction in the frequency of visits. Nonetheless, minors' best interests in having some stability after nearly 31 months in multiple placements supported the court's order reducing visitation on other grounds.
At the time of the order, minors 1, 3, and 4 had been living with their caregiver for almost six months. A rational inference of the evidence is that with a reduced responsibility for dealing with visitation between mother and minors, the caregiver might once again be willing to become their legal guardian. At the very least, a reduction in such visitation might prevent the need to find another placement for them. This is especially true if mother could learn to temper her anger issues, which were well supported by the record.
Here, the caregiver initially said she was willing to provide long-term care for minors 1, 3, and 4 under a legal guardianship, if minors and mother were unable to reunify. After mother regressed to supervised visitation, the caregiver was initially open to supervising the visits; however, she later declined to do so due to tension between them. Only recently had the caregiver stated she did not think she would be able to become minors' legal guardian "because of having to arrange visitation with the mother."
Among the likely issues causing tension between mother and the caregiver was mother's repeated calls to the caregiver from different numbers and threats if the caregiver did not allow minors to talk to her. Mother showed up at the caregiver's house uninvited and blamed the caregiver because she was unwilling to supervise visits.
The caregiver reported that mother failed to call at the arranged time for phone visits. Mother did not understand why she could not call whenever she wanted; she said she did not want a schedule for when she could speak with minors. Thus, reducing visitation might reduce the tensions between mother and the caregiver such that the latter might once again be willing to become the legal guardian for minors 1, 3, and 4 or at least maintain their placement with her.
Moreover, visitation with mother was causing minors emotional problems. Mother told minors 1, 3, and 4 she had given up and wanted to tell them "goodbye," as they would not be coming home. She said minors would be leaving the caregiver's home because the caregiver was having a baby and wanted to just have her own family. The caregiver ended the call, as the minors were crying and upset. Minor 1 said she begged mother not to give up.
Likewise, mother's phone visitation with minor 2 had become inconsistent. Minor 2's therapist reported that minor 2 would try to call mother; mother would either not answer or, if she did answer, would be distracted during the phone call. The therapist reported that mother repeatedly and inappropriately discussed the reunification and court proceedings with minor 2 and told him he would be coming home soon. When redirected, mother would become upset and said, "'I can talk to my son about whatever the fuck I want.'" Minor 2's therapist stated they had been having issues with mother being belligerent during phone calls as she usually ended up harassing staff and not taking redirection. The therapist stated that minor 2 became more aggressive after phone calls, and he had punched a staff member in the back. Mother had a lot of difficulty putting minors' needs ahead of her own: "'Everything is about what the kids need or what the foster parent needs, but what about what [I] need[]? No one ever asks that.'" Thus, maintaining the prior schedule of visitation was not in minors' best interests.
Furthermore, mother herself had become an obstacle to visitation. The social worker spoke to mother regarding the possibility of scheduling in-person office visits. Mother said she would not want to do so because she did not want anything she said to be used against her in court. The social worker later suggested visitation take place at the foster family agency office. Mother responded, "'Y'all can have my kids. Stop talking to me. I am ready to just die. I'm not giving you the authority to tell me what to say. I've done everything you told me to do. I'd rather die today than have a supervised visit.'" The court's finding that mother engaged in "disagreements" with those supervising visits regarding the "parameters of visits—of things that are not appropriate to discuss," which "quickly escalate[]" due to her "anger issues" finds ample support in the record. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to maintain visitation at the prior frequency when mother herself alienated those willing to supervise visitation and refused two separate offers of in-person visitation. Thus, the court acted within its discretion in reducing visitation.
Finally, we observe that the court granted CFS personnel the authority to increase visitation as to frequency and duration and even "to go to unsupervised." Thus, the court's order allowed for increased visitation if mother began to put minors' best interests ahead of her own.
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. FIELDS
J.