From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. M.N. (In re M.N.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Apr 22, 2020
E073938 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2020)

Opinion

E073938

04-22-2020

In re M.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent; v. M.N., SR., Defendant and Appellant.

Konrad Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Anna M. Marchand and Julie Koons Jarvi, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115 (Super.Ct.No. RIJ1600209) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Matthew C. Perantoni, Judge. Affirmed. Konrad Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, James E. Brown, Anna M. Marchand and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent

Father appeals from an order denying his petition to modify a prior court order pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code, section 388, which was heard on the date of the hearing at which his parental rights to his children were permanently severed. Each of three children (Mi.N., Ma.N., and N.N.) were declared dependents shortly after birth in three consecutive years, due to mother's ingestion of amphetamines during each pregnancy, father's marijuana use, and his criminal history. Father's inconsistent compliance with, first, his court-ordered maintenance services, and, later, his reunification services, as well as positive drug tests, subsequent criminal conduct, and refusal to submit to required drug testing, led to termination of services and an order setting a hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the children, pursuant to section 366.26.

We would normally use initials to denote the parties, but in this case, two of the children have the same first initials as father. We therefore refer to the parents as "father" or "mother," and the children as Mi.N., Ma.N. and N.N. Mother is not a party to this appeal.

All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code, unless otherwise indicated.

On the date of the section 366.26, father brought a petition to modify the prior order pursuant to section 388, which was considered at the section 366.26 hearing, where it was denied. The court then terminated parental rights of both parents. Father appealed.

On appeal, father argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying his section 388 petition. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

In March 2016, mother gave birth to Mi.N., who tested positive at birth for in utero exposure to methamphetamines and amphetamines. Mother admitted to daily use of methamphetamines while pregnant. Mi.N. was initially maintained in care of the parents, who had moved in with the paternal grandmother. On March 11, 2016, the Riverside County Department of Children's Services (DPSS) filed a petition in the juvenile court alleging that Mi.N. came within the provisions of section 300, subdivision (b), based on mother's use of drugs and alcohol, her history of being in a violent relationship, father's history of marijuana use, and father's criminal history that included a driving under the influence charge for which a bench warrant had been issued, and a conviction for driving while in possession of marijuana. Confirmatory testing of Mi.N. came back negative for controlled substances, because the parents were in a safe environment, staying with the paternal grandmother, the infant was not immediately taken into custody.

Because mother is not a party to this appeal, facts pertaining to her are offered only for context.

Shortly thereafter, prior to the jurisdiction hearing, the social worker learned that mother had been using Norco, for which she did not have a prescription, and she had been arrested for being intoxicated and making threatening remarks during a verbal altercation with the paternal grandmother. Father had submitted a drug test that came back positive for marijuana and he refused to curtail his use because he needed it to help with his appetite. He had an out-of-date marijuana card. He had been using marijuana since high school. Father's driver's license had been suspended for driving under the influence, but the social worker did not indicate what intoxicant was involved.

DPSS sought to detain the minor due to these changed circumstances and filed an amended petition, adding allegations relating to the domestic violence incident involving the paternal grandmother, the fact mother took Norco without a prescription, that father had tested positive for marijuana. DPSS requested an order detaining the child from her parents. In April 2016, the court detained the child away from mother but placed the child with father on the condition he prevent unauthorized contact between mother and child.

On April 27, 2016, the date of the jurisdiction hearing, a second amended petition was filed, which deleted reference to the bench warrant against the father. Thereafter, the court made true findings on all allegations of the petition, declared the child to be a dependent of the court, placed the child with father so long as he lived with paternal grandmother, and scheduled the disposition hearing. Because both parents denied Indian heritage, the court found that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply.

During the interim leading up to the disposition hearing, the parents' situation deteriorated. In May 2016, father tested positive for marijuana, although he had not shown proof that he had a medical marijuana card to the social worker. Additionally, the paternal grandmother revealed that the parents had left Mi.N. with her and had found an apartment into which they intended to move. In fact, it was revealed that despite the fact the child had been placed with the father, the grandmother was the primary caretaker of the baby, with father rarely seeing his child due to his work schedule. Their apartment had fallen through, and both parents had been staying at a motel since her release from inpatient drug treatment. When the social worker reminded father of his need to submit a drug test, father became defensive and refused to test. On May 25, 2016, mother tested positive for methamphetamines, just days after being discharged from her inpatient drug program.

On June 3, 2016, DPSS filed a subsequent petition pursuant to section 342, alleging that the child could no longer be maintained in father's care because father has been living with mother, who was still using methamphetamine, in violation of the order that he live with the paternal grandmother, and he refused to submit to court ordered drug tests. On June 6, 2016, the child was detained in foster care. At a combined hearing on June 27, 2016, the court made a true finding on the subsequent petition, removed custody from both parents, placed the child in foster care and ordered the parents to participate in reunification services.

During the initial reporting period, the family seemed to be making progress: father was working swing shift for a security company, the couple lived in a guest house, and mother was six months pregnant with the couple's second child. However, father had difficulty attending court ordered Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) meetings due to his unpredictable work schedule. The parents wanted to move back to the paternal grandmother's home, and she agreed.

In August 2016, mother's compliance with the outpatient substance abuse program became uneven, and by September 2016, mother tested positive for methamphetamine. It was recommended that mother re-enter an inpatient program due to her pregnancy. Mother entered an inpatient program in September 2016, but left in October 2016, claiming there was too much chaos. Father was compliant with his substance abuse program. However, due to a funding issue, father had difficulty affording the program. In October 2016, the child was placed with the paternal grandmother. In December 2016, father completed his outpatient substance abuse program.

However, prior to the December 27, 2016 review hearing, mother tested positive for methamphetamine again. The review hearing was continued and set as a contested hearing. In January 2017, the social worker submitted an addendum to the six-month review report, recommending that services be terminated for mother but continued for father. The review hearing took place on January 18, 2017, at which time the court terminated services for mother, but extended services for father. The court also ordered that Mi.N. remain placed with her paternal grandmother, but liberalized father's visits and authorized father to live with the paternal grandmother, under a family maintenance plan, provided father remains in his mother's home.

Mother continued to abuse controlled substances and tested positive for methamphetamines during her pregnancy, giving birth to Ma.N. in February 2017. However, both mother and infant tested negative at the baby's birth. A new dependency petition was filed as to the newborn, pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), alleging mother's unresolved substance abuse, including methamphetamine, marijuana and alcohol, father's failure to protect, and the fact that the parents had an open case involving Mi.N., for which mother's services had been terminated. The sibling allegation pursuant to section 300, subdivision (j) alleged that the minor's sibling had been abused or neglected and there was a risk that this child would suffer similar harm.

In the detention report, the father indicated that although he had been given the opportunity to have custody of Mi.N. with family maintenance services, because it would have meant leaving mother, he had chosen to say with mother, who was pregnant with the second child and would have been homeless. He was not willing to leave mother alone, even it meant the newborn Ma.N. could not remain in their care. He denied knowing about mother's drug use, and mother denied that her methamphetamine use posed a risk for Ma.N. because she was in an outpatient program.

On March 6, 2017, the parents denied the petition and the court detained Ma.N. from both parents. The court ordered an assessment of the paternal grandmother's home for placement of the child.

In the report prepared for the jurisdiction hearing, the social worker recommended that services be denied as to mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), but recommended services for father, based on his lack of knowledge that mother was abusing drugs, as well as a recommendation that Ma.N. be returned to father under a family maintenance plan upon completion of his court ordered services and upon moving into the home of his mother, the paternal grandmother.

At the jurisdiction hearing on April 12, 2017, DPSS struck language asserting that father knew of mother's drug use during pregnancy, and the parents each waived their trial rights, submitting on the petition. The court made true findings on the remaining allegations and declared Ma.N. a dependent of the court. Custody of Ma.N. was returned to father, subject to a Family Maintenance plan, and he was ordered to participate in those services. As to mother, the court removed custody and denied reunification services for mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10).

On July 7, 2017, the social worker submitted a 12-month status review report as to Mi.N., recommending continued services for father and supervised visits for mother. Father was still employed at this point, but his hours had been reduced to 16 hours per week. Mother experienced health complications and hemorrhaging following the birth of Ma.N. She had declined a transfusion due to her beliefs, and had been unable to visit with her children as often as before, due to her poor health. At the 12-month review hearing for Mi.N., the court found the extent of father's progress was adequate and ordered that Mi.N. remain in his care under the family maintenance plan.

The two children remained in father's care, living in the home of the paternal grandmother pending the section 364 family maintenance status review as to Ma.N. In its report for that review, the social worker noted that father was still employed and that mother continued to struggle to maintain sobriety. On September 13, 2017, mother reported that relationship with father had ended. In the meantime, father had missed two drug tests in August 2017, although a drug test performed on his saliva was negative in September 2017. At the section 364 review hearing, the court continued Ma.N. in father's care pursuant to the family maintenance plan.

However, on December 20, 2017, DPSS filed a supplemental petition pursuant to section 387 as to both children. The petition alleged that the prior disposition had been ineffective because father had failed to comply with court ordered drug testing, had not met the children's medical needs, had not attended to Mi.N.'s nutritional needs, resulting in her being underweight, had left the children in the care of the paternal grandmother, who kept the children restrained in a car seat and playpen for the majority of the time. The children were detained.

The report filed in connection with the petition indicated that in November 2017, the social worker and a public health nurse had visited the paternal grandmother's home to check on the children, leading to the discovery that Mi.N. was underweight and Ma.N. was not up to date on her immunizations. On multiple occasions, the social worker and public health nurse had separately found the children restrained in either a car seat or highchair, or in a playpen, in the living room.

While the social worker and the nurse were present on November 14, 2017, father showed up; when the social worker requested that father submit a drug test, he refused. Approximately two weeks later, father failed to show up for a urine drug screen. About two weeks later, the public health nurse went to the home and requested that father submit to an oral (saliva) drug test; although father consented, there were no results, rendering the test invalid. A second test yielded the same results. On December 14, 2017, while the public health nurse made a home visit, she again requested that father submit to a saliva drug test, but he locked himself in the bathroom for approximately ten minutes. When he came out, he agreed to submit a test, but again there were no results on two consecutive attempted tests.

Some websites advise persons who might test positive for drugs to use mouthwash 15 minutes before submitting a sample (https://salivafacts.blogspot.com/2014/08/mouth-swab-drug-test-what-to-expect.html as of April 22, 2020). --------

On December 21, 2017, father denied the allegations of the section 387 petition. The court ordered both children detained from his care and ordered father to submit to alcohol or drug testing, attend parenting classes, as well as substance abuse counseling, pending the jurisdictional hearing on the supplemental petition. In the jurisdictional report for the 387 petition DPSS recommended a more restrictive placement for both children. The department recommended reunification services for father, but no services for mother. The children were placed in a foster family agency home.

As for the allegation pertaining to the health of the children, the social worker recommended no finding on that count because at subsequent medical examination, both children were found to be in good health, on target, and up to date on immunizations. Father was ordered to submit to a hair follicle test, but the technician was unable to obtain any hair samples to test.

At the jurisdiction hearing on the supplemental petition, DPSS introduced the results of a drug test submitted by father which was positive for amphetamines, methamphetamines, and cannabinoids. The court made a true finding as to the allegation relating to father's compliance with court ordered drug testing. The court removed custody of Mi.N. and Ma.N. from the parents and placed them out-of-home. The court ordered reunification services for father, ordered him to participate, but denied services to mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(10) and (b)(13).

In June 2018, mother gave birth to a baby who tested positive for methamphetamines, resulting in a third petition pertaining to infant N.N. The petition alleged the baby was a person described by section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), due to mother's unresolved chronic abuse of methamphetamines, her transient lifestyle, father's criminal history, which now included a robbery charge filed in February 2018, and the open cases involving the other children involving substance abuse, as well as the allegation pursuant to section 300, subdivision (j) relating to the fact the minor siblings had been abused or neglected placing N.N. at risk of similar harm. The minor was detained from both parents.

In the report prepared for the jurisdiction hearing as to N.N., DPSS recommended that the minor be placed in foster care, and that the court deny reunification services as to both parents because mother's prior services were terminated for a sibling and because father was merely an alleged father with respect to N.N. Mother did not realize she was pregnant until her seventh month, and admitted she had been using methamphetamines during her pregnancy. In the hospital after the baby's birth, mother had to be reminded to take care of her baby.

Father was not present at the birth of this child and had not made himself available to discuss paternity. Father was currently unemployed and was on pain medication following an incident in which he was jumped and assaulted by seven men in May 2018. Father had also been arrested in February for robbery.

Prior to the jurisdiction hearing respecting N.N., DPSS filed a Family Reunification Status Review report in July 2018. That report revealed that father had started substance abuse outpatient services May 17, 2018. He submitted one drug test which produced negative results, but he was not in compliance with random substance abuse testing, having missed three tests in as many weeks, and he was unemployed. He completed Safe Care Parenting, but his engagement in the program was considered low.

In August 2018, DPSS submitted an addendum to its reunification status review report to provide the court with the results of blood testing of Ma.N., and continued to recommend termination of father's reunification services as to Mi.N. and Ma.N. Although Ma.N.'s bloodwork was normal, a scan of her head showed an abnormality of her thyroid. Mi.N. was receiving services from Inland Regional Center to address communication delays and fine motor skills.

The addendum noted father continued to miss court ordered drug tests. He was unemployed, lacked a driver's license, which would prevent him from taking the children to medical appointments, was not making efforts on his drug treatment program, and was not visiting regularly.

In an addendum report prepared for N.N.'s jurisdiction hearing, DPSS noted that DNA testing had been done but that the results were not yet available to confirm paternity of N.N.

On August 1, 2018, the court conducted the family reunification status review hearing as to Mi.N. and Ma.N., as well as the jurisdiction/disposition hearing as to N.N. As to the status review hearings for the older children, father produced evidence that he had participated in MFI Recovery Services since May 2018, where he participated regularly. The court found father had made moderate progress in his court-ordered program, continued his services, and ordered him to drug test.

As for the jurisdictional hearing respecting N.N., DPSS introduced DNA test results showing that father was the biological father of N.N. Father waived his trial rights and submitted on the petition, while mother objected to the recommendations of the social worker but offered no affirmative evidence. The court made true findings on the allegations of the petition, declared N.N. to be a dependent child, and removed N.N. from the custody of both parents. The court declared that father was a presumed father, ordered reunification services to be provided for the father, but denied such services to mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10).

On December 26, 2018, DPSS submitted a 12-month review report for the two older children, Mi.N. and Ma.N., recommending that father's reunification services be terminated and that a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 be set. Father was homeless and unemployed, while mother's whereabouts were unknown. Father's compliance with drug testing was sporadic: he had missed five tests since the August 2018 hearing, and had submitted tests twice, with negative results.

The social worker reported that father only attended one court-ordered therapy session since the date of the hearing. However, a letter from MFI Recovery, attached to the report, indicated he began participation in the program in May, and as of October 17, 2018, he had attended group sessions three times per week, as well as individual counseling. Although father missed a few visits, overall, he visited regularly and interacted with the children, including N.N., who had been placed in the same foster home as his two older siblings on June 4, 2018. The social worker concluded the prognosis for his reunification with the children was poor because he had not been attending the court ordered outpatient recovery program on a consistent basis.

The contested 12-month review hearing was held on January 23, 2019. The court found father's progress was minimal and that it was unlikely the children would be returned within six months, so reunification services were terminated. The court then set the matter for a hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the children and reduced the frequency of father's visitation to one time per month.

On January 30, 2019, DPSS submitted its report for the 6-month review hearing for N.N., recommending that father's reunification services be terminated and his case referred for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26, citing the same circumstances presented in support of the recommendation vis-à-vis the older siblings. However, in addition to the information about the counseling sessions attended and missed, as well as the number of drug tests he had failed to submit, this report reflected that father had been discharged from MFI Recovery on November 29, 2018. On February 14, 2019, the court adopted the recommendations of the social worker, terminated services as to N.N., and ordered a section 366.26 hearing.

On May 13, 2019, DPSS submitted its report for the section 366.26 hearing as to Mi.N. and Ma.N. The report recommended that the court adopt a permanent plan of adoption, but requested 120 days in which to identify a prospective adoptive family. Mi.N. was no longer eligible for services through the Inland Regional Center, where she received services for speech development and improvement of cognitive skills. Ma.N. continued to have problems with an abnormal thyroid and had difficulty with communication skills.

The children were placed in the same home, but the caretakers were not interested in adopting the children. The paternal grandmother had been considered for permanent placement but there were concerns about her ability to be protective of the children and it was suspected that father was living with her because he had used his mother's address on a document. An exemption would be required in order to consider adoptive placement with the paternal grandmother.

The Department had also identified a prospective adoptive family, who were visiting with the children, willing to adopt all three children, and were aware of their developmental issues, but the children had not yet been placed in the home. DPSS was exploring other adoptive placement options. The court granted the continuance of the section 366.26 hearing and authorized DPSS to use media coverage, place the children on adoption websites, and to attend adoption matching events. Ma.N. and Mi.N. were placed with the identified prospective adoptive family on May 13, 2019, so DPSS applied for authorization to move N.N. into the same home. The court granted authority to place N.N. in the adoptive home, where his siblings were placed, on June 14, 2019.

On September 3, 2019, DPSS submitted an addendum to its section 366.26 report recommending termination of parental rights and adoption by the prospective adoptive family. The adoption assessment revealed the prospective adoptive parents were committed to meeting the needs of the children, all of whom had special needs.

On September 23, 2019, father filed separate Requests to Change Court Order (Form JV-180, petition pursuant to section 388) as to each child, seeking to modify the prior orders terminating services as to each child, and referring their cases for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. In support of his petitions, father asserted he had almost completed a substance abuse program, has attended AA/NA meetings, had submitted negative drug tests, completed parenting education, visited with his children, and now has suitable housing. Attached to the petition, father enclosed his certificate of completion of parenting education dated April 24, 2018, as well as a letter from his substance abuse program indicating he had enrolled in that program in June 2019, and a certificate of completion of a substance abuse program in January 2017.

At the hearing on father's petitions, father testified that he enrolled in the substance abuse program in June 2019, for which he submitted drug tests but did not offer any evidence of those drug tests. He had a job interview scheduled for the following Thursday, and he currently lived with his mother now that her relative adoption application had been denied. He completed two parenting courses in 2017 and 2018 respectively.

At the section 366.26 hearing, the court denied father's section 388 petition, concluding that father's circumstances were changing, but not changed, and proceeded to terminate parental rights, finding there was no evidence that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the children.

On October 17, 2019, father appealed.

DISCUSSION

Father argues that the juvenile court erred in denying his modification petition. He argues the record firmly establishes that his circumstances had changed between the time family reunification services were terminated in January 2019, to the time of the hearing on the section 388 petition in September 2019. We disagree.

A juvenile court order may be changed, modified or set aside under section 388 if the petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) new evidence or changed circumstances exist, and (2) the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 316-317.) The parent bears the burden to show both a legitimate change of circumstances and that undoing the prior order would be in the best interest of the child. (In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 529 (Kimberly F.).)

"Generally, the petitioner must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the child's welfare requires the modification sought." (In re B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1228.) In evaluating whether the petitioner has met the burden to show changed circumstances, the trial court should consider: "(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 petition is addressed to the sound discretion of the juvenile court, and its decision will not be overturned on appeal in the absence of a clear abuse of discretion. (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318; In re S.J. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 953, 959.) In addition, "after reunification services have terminated, a parent's petition for either an order returning custody or reopening reunification efforts must establish how such a change will advance the child's need for permanency and stability." (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527.)

Here, father has not established that his circumstances had materially changed. Substance abuse is considered one of the most serious problems affecting a person's ability to parent, and a problem that is not easily ameliorated. (See In re Ernesto R. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 219, 225, citing In re Marcelo B. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 635.) Father appeared to make good faith efforts at the beginning of the proceedings, completing parenting training and an outpatient substance abuse program in 2017 and 2018. But by 2018, father was resistant to services and drug testing, leading to the termination of his reunification services as to Mi.N. and Ma.N. in January 2019.

The following month, father was homeless, had not submitted court ordered drug testing, and was not visiting the children regularly, resulting in the termination of his services respecting N.N., and the setting of a section 366.26 hearing as to that child, as well. His modification petition reveals that he had only recently enrolled in a substance abuse program in June 2019 and he testified he had not yet completed it. His other certificates related to parenting training and a substance abuse program that predated the order terminating his services. These circumstances demonstrate father had not met the Kimberly F. criteria for changed circumstances. (In re Kimberly F., supra, 56 Cal.App.4th at p. 532.)

Like many parents involved in the dependency system, father only became seriously engaged in services at the eleventh hour, several months after the order setting the section 366.26 hearing. Under similar circumstances, a parent who shows they are in the early stages of recovery is deemed to have demonstrated "changing" but not "changed circumstances." (See, e.g., In re Ernesto R , supra, 230 Cal.App.4th at pp. 221-223 [recent completion of drug treatment program did not show changed circumstances given parent's long history of substance abuse]; In re C.J.W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1081 [affirming denial of a section 388 petition when parents' efforts at drug rehabilitation were only three months old at the time of the section 366.26 hearing]; In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47-48 [affirming the denial of a section 388 petition where mother had an extensive history of drug use, had been drug free for only a few months, and had not completed her treatment program]; In re Mary G. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 184, 205-206 [mother's very recent treatment for drug abuse and bipolar disorder did not establish even a prima facie case of changing circumstances].)

Likewise, father's recent initiation of treatment and counseling was, as the court acknowledged, admirable, but his assertion that he was able to provide for his children had not been established. He was unemployed, had no independent housing, and, for the entire life of this case, father had not shown proof of a driver's license or car insurance, which were essential to meet the children's many medical needs because his mother did not drive. Most significantly, father has not demonstrated the ability to maintain a clean and sober lifestyle for an extended period and had not established how the proposed modification would advance the child's need for permanency and stability. (In re J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 527.)

It has long been observed "that childhood is brief." (In re A.L. (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 628, 645, quoting In re Debra M. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1038.) It "does not wait for the parent to become adequate." (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 310.) Father's eleventh-hour efforts reflected circumstances that were changing, but not changed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition to modify the order terminating services and scheduling the hearing pursuant to section 366.26.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J. We concur: McKINSTER

J. MILLER

J.


Summaries of

Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. M.N. (In re M.N.)

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO
Apr 22, 2020
E073938 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2020)
Case details for

Riverside Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. M.N. (In re M.N.)

Case Details

Full title:In re M.N., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. RIVERSIDE COUNTY…

Court:COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

Date published: Apr 22, 2020

Citations

E073938 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2020)