In re J.S.

Filed 10/9/26 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION* IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO In re J.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E087885 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J303970) v. OPINION M.A., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lynn M. Poncin, Judge. Affirmed. Brent Riggs, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. * Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of “DISCUSSION” sections A and C. 1  Laura Feingold, County Counsel, Joseph R. Barrell, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant and appellant M.A. (Mother) appeals from the findings and orders made at the six-month review hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.21, subdivision (e), continuing the removal of her daughter, J.S. (born February 2021; Minor), from her care and requiring she complete additional reunification services. This is a second appeal in this case. In the first case, In re J.S. (May 6, 2026, E086754) [nonpub. opn.] (J.S.-1),2 Mother appealed from the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, arguing that the jurisdictional findings under section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g) were not supported by substantial evidence. This court reversed the jurisdictional finding involving Mother’s substance abuse in a previous case, but the remaining jurisdictional and dispositional orders were affirmed. While J.S.-1 was still pending in this court, the trial court conducted the six-month review hearing pursuant to section 366.21, subdivision (e). At that hearing, the trial court adopted the findings and orders provided by plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) without objection by Mother except for the requirement of on-demand drug testing and that she had a positive drug test on October 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 Mother filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court on June 12, 2026, (S297049), which was denied on July 22, 2026. 2 28, 2025. The juvenile court ordered that Minor was to remain out of the custody of Mother and Mother was granted six months additional reunification services. On appeal, Mother claims that (1) The order keeping Minor from her should be reversed because CFS did not prove detriment and the section 366.21, subdivision (e), requirements were ignored; (2) The absence of a proof of service of CFS’s report prepared for the section 366.21, subdivision (e), hearing that was to be served on Mother 10 days prior to the six-month review hearing requires reversal; and (3) She received ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on counsel’s representation at a hearing on September 22, 2025, where counsel did not object to a case plan that required substance abuse testing, and by the same counsel who represented her at the six-month review hearing, by failing to present evidence or argument that she should not be subject to substance abuse testing. We confirm the trial court orders made at the six-month review hearing. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. SECTION 300 PETITION3 “The family first came to the attention of plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) in 2022. Minor was removed from Mother’s care on October 22, 2022, due to allegations of general neglect. Minor was detained due to concerns about Mother’s methamphetamine use and failure to provide adequate care. Mother had left Minor in the care of a friend for seven weeks without providing any 3 Sections A, B and C of the “Factual and Procedural History” are drawn directly from J.S.-1. 3 financial assistance. During the dependency, there was an incident of domestic violence involving Mother and a window was broken. Mother was granted reunification services. The father, P.S. (Father) was not granted services as he was only an alleged father.4 Minor was returned to the care of Mother on May 23, 2024, with family maintenance services. The case was dismissed on January 21, 2025. “On March 11, 2025, a report was made to the hotline at CFS that Mother made Minor sleep in the corner and the room was ‘filthy.’ Mother had called Minor ‘Bitch,’ and pulled her hair. It was also reported that Mother used methamphetamine, heroin and ecstasy. On March 19, 2025, another call was made to the hotline that Minor hides food and is hungry. RP also stated that Mother called Minor names, their home was dirty, and Minor wore ill-fitting clothes. Further, RP was concerned that Mother’s boyfriend kept marijuana in the home. “CFS social workers Alvaro and Fonseca made an unannounced visit to Mother’s home on March 19, 2025, which was a hotel room. No one answered the door to the room, but Alvaro left her business card at the door. Mother texted Alvaro later in the day advising that she would not meet with Alvaro without an attorney. “On March 20, 2025, Alvaro requested police officers perform a welfare check; Alvaro and Fonseca accompanied the officer to the hotel. Front desk staff at the hotel informed the officer that Mother and Minor had moved to another room. The officer went to the room but no one answered the door. While waiting at the door, it was 4 “Father was arrested on June 30, 2020, for murder and is incarcerated at the California State prison in Lancaster; he is not a party to this appeal.” 4 reported to Alvaro that Minor could be heard screaming and possibly being placed in a bathtub. The person heard splashing and complaints from Minor that she was cold. The person also heard Minor say, ‘don’t touch me there,’ and Mother and a male who was present could be heard laughing. The person heard the child crying and screaming every night. “The officer left the location due to the inability to contact Mother. The social workers remained. Mother eventually emerged from the room but refused to speak with them without an attorney present. Minor was observed in the room. She had no visible marks or bruises. “That same day, Alvaro contacted the party who called the hotline to report Mother (RP). RP stated that he had known Mother for four months. He had witnessed Mother use methamphetamine while Minor was present. Mother frequently cursed at Minor and Minor cursed back at Mother. The party took Minor to daycare for Mother. On one occasion, he returned Minor to Mother and Minor begged him not to leave. Minor chased after RP and asked him not to leave. Mother grabbed Minor by the hair and ‘and aggressively ... pushed her back inside the room.’ RP told Mother not to treat Minor like that in his presence and she told him she no longer wanted to see him. A mutual friend of his and Mother told RP that Mother had left Minor strapped in a car seat for seven hours in the hotel room. “A warrant to interview Minor was obtained by CFS; Alvaro and Fonseco met with Minor the afternoon of March 20 at the hotel. Minor did not have any visible marks or bruises. She had dirt on her face, legs and feet. Minor … told the social workers she 5 did not like living with Mother because she was mean, ugly and a scary monster. She reported Mother had previously hit her but she could not recall if it left any mark. Mother also pulled her hair. She spanked her on her buttocks. There was a male living in the home that she only knew as ‘Mr.’ “Minor reported only eating one apple that day and that Mother sometimes would not give her food. When Minor got in trouble, Mother would occasionally buckle her in the car seat. Minor made a drawing of who she wanted to live in her home. She drew a house with her and her friend inside the house. She drew Mother outside the house. When the interview was over, Minor was informed that she would be returning home. Minor did not want to return to the home and asked to leave with the social workers. “CFS obtained a detention warrant for Minor and a police officer served it on mother. Mother was visibly upset and called the social workers ‘child traffickers.’ Mother packed a bag for Minor and asked that Minor be placed with the same caregiver as the previous dependency proceedings, as Minor had liked her. Mother believed that the daycare Minor had been attending had reported Mother and made false accusations because they did not like her. The daycare had made false accusations in the past that Minor had bruises. While being transported, Minor reported she slept on the floor while Mother and her boyfriend slept in the bed. Minor did not want to go back with Mother. CFS placed Minor with Ms. M. “On March 24, 2025, CFS filed a section 300 petition (petition) for Minor, Mother and Father. It was alleged under failure to protect against Mother under section 300, subdivision (b), that (b-1) she had a substance abuse problem and she failed or refused to 6 rehabilitate and the untreated substance abuse placed Minor at substantial risk of physical harm, abuse or neglect; (b-2) Minor was a prior dependent of the San Bernardino County court pursuant to a section 300, subdivision (b) petition related to Mother’s substance abuse; and (b-3) she had used inappropriate discipline toward Minor including but not limited to pulling her hair and pushing her. It was alleged against Father pursuant to section 300, subdivision (g), that he left without provisions for care and support of Minor and was incarcerated making him unable to arrange for the care and custody of Minor. “The detention hearing was conducted on March 25, 2025. The juvenile court found a prima facie showing had been made that Minor came within section 300, subdivision (b).” B. JURISDICTION/DISPOSITION REPORT “CFS filed its jurisdiction/disposition report on May 6, 2025. It was seeking a continuance in order for Minor to be medically evaluated. It was recommending that the allegations in the petition be found true, that Mother be granted reunification services and that Minor be placed outside the home. Father should remain alleged, which would not entitle him to reunification services. CFS also was recommending that visits between Mother and Minor be discontinued as they caused trauma to Minor. Minor remained in the home of Ms. M. “Mother was interviewed on April 8, 2025. During the interview, Mother used profanity and an elevated voice. She identified Father as the biological father of Minor. Father was not at the birth of Minor nor on the birth certificate. Father remained in prison custody. Mother believed RP was ‘Robert,’ and that he was lying. She met 7 Robert and was receiving rides from him for several months but he stopped giving her rides when he found out she had a boyfriend. Robert got mad at her because she ‘ “would not fuck him,” ’ which led to him reporting her to CFS. Mother also stated that CFS employed people who are stupid and that want to take children. Mother denied any substance abuse since 2023. She denied any marijuana in her residence. She had never used heroin but admitted to using methamphetamine, marijuana and drinking alcohol in the past. “She had completed a six-month substance abuse program during the prior dependency proceedings. Mother stated that Minor slept on a mat with bedding at the hotel since there was only one bed in the room. Mother slept with her boyfriend in the bed. When asked the boyfriend’s name, Mother responded, ‘ “none of your business.” ’ She had been with her boyfriend for several months and had left Minor alone with her boyfriend when she went to the store. “Mother reported strapping Minor in her car seat for timeouts; she would leave her there for 20 minutes. She would let Minor out once she stopped screaming and when Minor can verbally state why she had been placed in the car seat. Minor would scream and yell when she did not get her way. Mother denied that she ever pulled Minor’s hair. Minor would splash around in the bath and played a game on Mother’s phone that said ‘ “don’t touch me.” ’ Mother had threatened Minor that she would call the police on her if she was not behaving. Mother stated that Minor was a ‘ “monster,” ’ and that Minor also referred to her as a monster. Mother admitted that Minor makes her angry and that she could not get her to do anything. She was at her ‘wits end.’ 8  “Mother described one day that Minor was ‘ “evil all day.” ’ After Minor fell asleep, she told her friend that Minor was a Bitch. Mother thought there was something wrong with Minor. Mother believed that Minor was saying these things in order to be placed with Ms. M, who had a swimming pool and could afford to take Minor places. Mother stated that Minor’s return to Ms. M was ‘planned and executed’ and that a ‘bad kid was given her way; she is terrible.’ “Mother denied that Minor was dirty and claimed she had spent thousands on clothes for Minor. The day CFS came to get Minor, Minor had just eaten chicken nuggets and a cookie. She had food on her face, not dirt. Minor had been taught by someone to always say that she was hungry when she was around people. Mother had cut back on snacks for Minor ‘ “so she’s not a cow.” ’ The social worker asked Mother what should happen moving forward. She responded, ‘ “give me my kid and fuck off.” ’ She had already done two years of ‘jumping through hoops’ for CFS. “Minor was interviewed on April 9, 2025. She was happy living with Ms. M. Minor had a small red mark on her hand the size of a pen mark and she stated someone hit her in the hand with a hammer but it was not clear who had hit her. She also had a mark on her nose but said it was from hitting her nose on the couch. It was hard to understand Minor as she spoke fast and did not enunciate well. “Mother and Minor had their first visit on April 9, 2025. Minor went into the visitation room and saw Mother. She told Mother, ‘ “I don’t want you.” ’ Minor started crying, ran out of the room and tried to leave the building. Mother believed that Minor had been ‘coached’ into acting this way around her. The social worker attempted to 9 restart the visit but Mother complained that Minor was being coached. She also complained that the accusations against her were coming from a man with whom she refused to have sex. She accused the social workers of colluding to take children for money. Mother did not express that she understood Minor’s view or feelings. The visit was ended. “Minor was brought to speak with the social workers on April 16, 2025. She appeared sad and wanted to be with Ms. M. The social worker mentioned a visit with Mother and Minor responded ‘ “No!” ’ The social worker explained that she would supervise the visit, but Minor appeared to start to crying. The social worker walked Minor to the room for the visit with Mother. Minor immediately said, ‘ “No I don’t want to see you mom.” ’ She tried to exit the room but the door was locked. Minor was let out of the room and asked to see Ms. M. Minor refused to return to the room for a visit with Mother. Mother was advised that Minor did not want to see her and Mother stated that Minor was being manipulated. Mother was informed that Minor was being sent to therapy to determine why she was having this reaction to Mother. Mother gave the social worker a present for Minor and said, ‘ “here take her crap.” ’ “On April 22, 2025, a social worker attempted to supervise a visit between Minor and Mother. Minor started crying. Mother was not there yet, and Minor calmed down by playing with her toys. When Mother arrived, Minor again told Mother that she did not want to see her and ran out of the visitation room. Minor tried to run out of the building. Mother said, ‘ “now that is ridiculous.” ’ The social worker was able to hold Minor in her arms and bring her back to the visitation room. While the social worker held her, 10 Mother said, ‘ “you are being silly” ’ to Minor in a harsh tone. Minor was crying and coughing and began to spit up. The social worker walked Minor to the trash can and Minor threw up. The social worker terminated the visit and returned Minor to Ms. M. Mother told the social worker that ‘ “this is what [Minor] does when she doesn’t get what she wants. She starts to cry and throw a fit.” ’ Mother accused CFS of kidnapping children. Mother called the social worker who escorted her out of the building ‘ “a piece of shit.” ’ “CFS recommended reunification services for Mother. CFS was concerned that Mother talked poorly about Minor to social workers. They were also concerned about Mother’s substance abuse. “Mother had three negative tests in the prior six months and had two no-show tests. Mother strapped Minor in her car seat for 20 minutes to discipline her. CFS was concerned that Mother had not learned from the prior services offered to her as this was inappropriate discipline. Mother blamed CFS for the removal of Minor. She talked negatively to Minor, which could have an emotional impact on Minor. Mother was staying in hotels and oftentimes her boyfriend slept in the room with her and Minor. Mother would not disclose the name of her boyfriend. CFS also recommended that visits between Minor and Mother be suspended as at each visit Minor became emotionally distraught and tried to run away. 11  “CFS attempted to conduct a forensic interview with Minor on April 29, 2025. She was not cooperative and the interview was ended. Minor was still placed with Ms. M, who had taken care of Minor for almost her entire life. Minor was very attached to Ms. M. “At a hearing held on March 24, 2025, the juvenile court ordered a paternity test for Father. Mother’s visits with Minor were suspended but the juvenile court did not declare the visits were detrimental. CFS was to encourage Minor to resume visits. Minor was referred to therapy. The matter was continued. “An addendum report was submitted on June 20, 2025, by CFS. Minor still did not want to visit with Mother. Mother sent a letter to Minor but it had to be edited to remove items that were inappropriate. This included that Mother wrote that it made her sad that Minor ‘ “left the way you did and that you throw a fit when I try to visit with you.” ’ Mother also advised Minor that she could be nice and visit with Mother but still stay with Ms. M. The matter was again continued. “An additional report was filed on July 17, 2025. Paternity testing showed Father was the father of Minor. It was recommended that Father be found a biological father and that no reunification services be provided. Mother had been random drug testing in May, June and July and all tests were negative. Mother agreed to participate in reunification services including parenting classes and individual counseling. The forensic interview of Minor was not completed as Minor got upset in the interview and asked to be returned to Ms. M, who was present with her at the interview. The interview did not start again as it was determined it was traumatizing Minor. On June 29, 2025, 12 Minor requested a visit with Mother. A visit was held on July 10, 2025. Minor hugged Mother at the visit and advised her that she wanted to come home to Mother. Mother was appropriate during the visit and seemed surprised how Minor was interacting with her. CFS recommended that the allegations in the petition be found true and that Mother be granted reunification services. Minor should be removed from Mother’s custody as there was clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial danger to Minor’s physical health and emotional well-being if Minor was returned home. “A further addendum report was filed on August 8, 2025. A visit between Mother and Minor occurred on July 24, 2025. During the visit, Mother told Minor that ‘bad ladies’ took Minor away from her. Mother insisted that the ‘bad ladies’ were going to go to jail for what they had done. Mother also changed Minor into a black shirt advising her that she did not like the colorful clothes she was wearing. Minor was ‘restless and bored’ during the visits and asked to go home several times. Minor did ask when she could go home to Mother. Mother continued to have negative drug tests. The matter was again continued several times for a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing.” C. JURISDICTION/DISPOSITION HEARING “The contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing was conducted on August 14, 2025. Father waived his right to be transported for the hearing. CFS submitted on its reports and there was no objection by Mother’s counsel. No evidence was presented by Mother. 13  “Mother’s counsel argued that there was no substantial evidence of the allegations in the petition. As for the b-1 allegation, substance abuse, there was only one party who reported that Mother was using methamphetamine, heroin and ecstasy. This was not sufficient to support the allegation. Mother had tested negative for controlled substances since May 2025. As for the b-2 allegation, Minor previously was a dependent of the court due to Mother’s substance abuse. The prior history could not be used to prove jurisdiction especially for a parent who reunified. It could not be used to prove that Minor fell under section 300, subdivision (b). “Mother’s counsel also argued that the b-3 allegation should be found not true. It alleged that Mother used inappropriate discipline toward the child, including but not limited to, pulling her hair and pushing her. This came from a single reporting party. Minor was interviewed and ‘did not corroborate exactly’ what RP had stated. Minor had no marks or bruises. Minor refused to participate in a forensic interview. CFS’s reports focused on the quality of visits and not the inappropriate discipline. Mother’s counsel requested that the petition be dismissed and Minor be returned to Mother’s care. “Minor’s counsel agreed with Mother that there was no current evidence of substance abuse. Further, the b-2 allegation was connected to the b-1 allegation. Minor’s counsel believed that the b-3 allegation was supported by the evidence and referred to the interview of Minor in the detention report. She described Mother as being mean and drew a picture with Mother outside her home. Minor did not want to live with Mother because she was mean, ugly and a scary monster. Further, Minor had reported that Mother spanked her on the bottom. 14  “Counsel for CFS noted that Mother had been testing clean and that it submitted to the juvenile court on the b-1 and b-2 allegations. The b-3 allegation was supported by ample evidence. RP and Minor both reported that Mother had pulled Minor’s hair. The relationship between Mother and Minor was ‘extremely problematic.’ Minor had described Mother as mean, ugly and a scary monster. Mother also declared that Minor was a monster. Minor had refused to attend visits with Mother. CFS submitted on the section 300, subdivision (g), allegation. “The juvenile court found the b-1 allegation not true and struck it from the petition. It found that the b-2, b-3 and the g-4 allegations were true. “As for disposition, Mother’s counsel requested family maintenance. Mother’s counsel argued that the most recent report from CFS showed a ‘huge change’ in Minor’s attitude toward Mother. Minor was visiting with Mother and asked to be returned to her care. Mother was being cooperative with CFS. Minor could be returned with orders to Mother not to use corporal punishment or strap Minor in her car seat to discipline her. Minor’s counsel believed that removal of Minor from Mother’s care was necessary and that reunification services be granted to Mother. Minor’s counsel was concerned about the relationship between Minor and Mother, including Mother describing Minor as evil all day and calling her a ‘ “bitch.” ’ Minor’s counsel was also concerned about the unnamed boyfriend living with Mother. CFS’s counsel added that it was concerned that four-year-old Minor would not be able to speak candidly about what was happening with Mother if placed on family maintenance. Though there was progress with Minor wanting to visit with Mother, it was only recent and further time was needed. CFS emphasized 15 that the concern was Minor’s emotional well-being and that there was a risk of substantial harm to her well-being if returned to Mother. “The juvenile court found that there was not any reasonable means to ensure the physical and emotional safety of Minor if she was returned to Mother at that time. The juvenile court ordered reunification services for Mother, and Minor would remain detained from Mother and Father. Visits between Mother and Minor would continue each week and could be liberalized to unsupervised and overnight visits by CFS if appropriate. “Mother filed an appeal from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction and disposition orders.” D. PRIOR APPEAL In J.S.-1, Mother claimed there was no substantial evidence presented to support the jurisdiction findings under (b)(2), the prior substance abuse; (b)(3), inappropriate discipline of Minor; and (g), Father left Minor with no provisions for her care. This court reversed the jurisdiction finding alleged under (b)(2) but found that the (b)(3) finding supported jurisdiction. (J.S.-1 18-27.) Mother provided no argument that the disposition order placing Minor with Ms. M was improper and made no objection to the adopted reunification services. (J.S.-1 27.) 16  E. CASE PLANS AND FINDINGS5 Attached to the additional information provided to the court on July 17, 2025, was the findings that were to be adopted by the juvenile court.6 In those findings, it was included that there was a substantial danger to the physical health and safety of Minor if she was returned home to the care of Mother. It also informed that at the end of the 12 months of reunification services, if Minor was not returned home, reunification services may be terminated and a hearing set for removal. The case plan was also included. It included in the danger statement that CFS was concerned about Mother inappropriately disciplining Minor, and her substance abuse history. She was to engage in parenting education, individual therapy, a 12-step program and substance abuse testing. The substance abuse testing included, “The parent to submit to random drug testing. The test results will come back NEGATIVE as an indication that the parent is no longer using drugs. If the parent tests positive during random drug testing or fails to test; they will attend weekly meetings and complete a certificate substance abuse program to address issues of drug usage and learning to abstain.” It was signed by social worker Bryana Mayne and her supervisor on July 15, 2025. At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing held on August 14, 2025, Mother was present along with counsel Cynthia Morales of “Juvenile Court Attorneys” (JCA). There 5 The remaining facts are drawn from clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts in this case, and the clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts from case No. E086754. 6 We provide this additional information regarding the adoption of the case plan at the jurisdiction/disposition hearing as it was not an issue in the appeal in case No. E086754. 17 was no objection to the submission of all of the reports from CFS. Morales argued as to disposition that Minor should be returned to Mother’s care under family maintenance, which would include random drug testing. If Minor was not returned to Mother’s care, Morales requested that no 12-step program be required and that random drug testing be removed. Morales stated, “Mother could [be] placed on on-demand and that if the social worker believes Mother is under the influence or any reasonable suspicion[n], she can be asked to drug test.” The juvenile court ordered that Minor remain out of Mother’s custody. It adopted the proposed orders and findings attached to the July 17, 2025, report. The juvenile court advised the parties that if reunification services failed, parental rights may be terminated. The juvenile court struck the 12-step program. It ordered, “The Court will also order for the testing to change to on demand. However, the agency has the authority to convert it back if and when there’s any reasonable suspicion and evidence to support to reinstate randomized colored testing.” CFS sent the parties the case plan it drafted based on the orders of the juvenile court at the hearing on August 14, 2025. In the case plan, CFS stated that it was concerned about Mother inappropriately disciplining Minor and was concerned for Mother’s substance abuse history. It only included the reunification services of parenting education and individual therapy. The case plan was signed by Mayne and her supervisor on August 26, 2025, but not by Mother. Minor’s counsel filed an “Objection/Response to Packet” (all caps. and boldface omitted) on September 4, 2025, on the ground that the case plan was incomplete. It should include on-demand drug testing for Mother. A hearing on the objection was 18 requested for September 22, 2025. On September 17, 2025, CFS provided additional information to the juvenile court. It informed the court that an updated case plan was being submitted, which would include on-demand substance abuse testing for Mother. Any suspicion that Mother was actively using illegal substances would result in a change to random testing. The 12-step program was removed. The updated case plan was signed by Mayne and her supervisor. An amended case plan was attached to the additional information provided to the court. It added “Substance Abuse Testing,” which provided “The parent to submit to on- demand drug testing. The test results will come back NEGATIVE as an indication that the parent is no longer using drugs. If the parent tests positive during random drug testing or fails to test; they will attend weekly meetings and complete a certificate substance abuse program to address issues of drug usage and learning to abstain. CFS has authority to change to random drug testing if there is reasonable suspicion that [Mother] is using substances.” A hearing was held on September 22, 2025, on the objection to the case plan filed by Minor’s counsel (September 2025 hearing). Mother was represented by Destiney Henderson as a special appearance for JCA. Mother was not present in court. The trial court noted Minor’s counsel’s objection to the case plan and confirmed that the minute order from the August 14, 2025, hearing included an on-demand drug testing component to be included in the case plan. Henderson had no comment on the change. The juvenile court found, “I’ll have the minute order reflect that the updated case plan attached to the 19 6.7 report for today’s date is Mother’s case plan going forward and Mother[ is] ordered to participate in services.” F. SECTION 366.21, SUBDIVISION (E), REPORT A status review report for the six-month review hearing was filed by CFS on February 3, 2026. There is no proof of service included in the record to show that it was served on Mother or Mother’s counsel prior to the hearing. CFS recommended that Minor remain in out-of-home placement with Ms. M, and family reunification services continue to be provided to Mother. On September 25, 2025, Mother had allegedly committed a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code section 475, subdivision (a), “forgery relating to a check, bond, bank bill, note or money order not exceeding $950.” The criminal court case was scheduled for a hearing on May 9, 2026. During the reporting period, Mother stayed in contact with CFS. Mother had stable employment and housing as she was financially able to pay for a hotel. Mother was considering applying for an apartment. She had a live-in boyfriend. Her employer allowed her to visit with Minor and complete her case-plan services. Mother continued to report that Minor was wrongfully removed from her care. She insisted it was a “plot” between CFS and her unknown male acquaintance who wanted to get back at her because she would not “fuck him.” Mother also reported filing an appeal and that she suspected Minor would be returned to her care. When confronted with the fact that Minor was removed for inappropriate discipline, Mother responded, “They can call it abuse; it’s all bullshit.” 20  As for Mother’s progress in her case plan, she had completed the ordered eight individual therapy sessions on October 31, 2025. The therapist recommended that Mother participate in additional sessions. Mother began parenting education on August 8, 2025. Mother missed four consecutive parenting classes and was dropped from the program on October 15, 2025. CFS submitted a new referral for parenting classes. Mother began the new program on November 10, 2025. Mother did not like the instructor and thought “they were ‘idiots.’ ” Mother did report learning skills in the class that she thought would work with Minor. Mother had to complete two more parenting classes. Mother completed some of her on-demand drug testing. On October 28, 2025, she had a positive result; she was a no-show on January 5, 2026, and January 27, 2026. The positive test on October 28, 2025, was for amphetamines. Mother stated she was a no- show for two tests due to lack of transportation and she was unable to leave her job. Mother had been consistent in the supervised weekly visits with Minor; it was reported that the visits were appropriate. CFS reported that the prognosis of returning Minor home to Mother was “guarded.” Mother should continue reunification services. Mother had not completed her case plan. Mother had not shown she benefited from services based on her continuing to claim that Minor should have never been removed from her care. She still believed that there was a conspiracy against her. Mother minimized the reasons Minor was removed from her care. Mother had not mitigated CFS’s concerns regarding Minor’s safety. If reunification failed, the plan was adoption by Ms. M. 21  In the findings, it was recommended that the juvenile court find by a preponderance of the evidence that it continued to be detrimental to Minor to be placed in Mother’s custody and that it was in Minor’s best interest to remain out of Mother’s custody. The juvenile court should find by clear and convincing evidence that Mother had been provided with reasonable services. Mother was actively involved in her case plan but the extent of progress made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement of Minor with her was insufficient. CFS had complied with the case plan by making reasonable efforts to return Minor to Mother’s care. The date upon which Minor may be placed back with Mother or another option was May 22, 2026. A case plan was submitted that included services including parenting education, individual therapy and substance abuse testing, which remained on-demand testing. The harm statement was as follows: “It was reported that Mother is using illegal substances while caring for child, verbally abusing child, unable to properly care for child, and keeping substances near child which may cause serious harm to child.” The danger statement was as follows: “CFS is worried that if mother continues to use substances while caring for child it may cause serious physical harm, trauma and or death to child.” The laboratory tests were provided. G. SECTION 366.21, SUBDIVISION (E), HEARING The six-month review hearing was conducted on February 17, 2026. Mother was present along with her attorney, Henderson. The juvenile court accepted the section 366.21, subdivision (e), report into evidence without objection from Mother. The 22 juvenile court then inquired if there were any comments on behalf of Mother. Henderson stated, “I’m submitting, your Honor.” Counsel for CFS advised the juvenile court that it had been previously ordered that if Mother had a positive or failed to test from an on-demand test, CFS could return to random testing. Further, Mother also would have to complete an outpatient program. CFS had not immediately transitioned to random testing. However, CFS informed the juvenile court it intended to transition Mother back to random testing. If she failed to test or had a positive test, she would have to complete an outpatient program. Henderson responded, “I would just place an objection for random testing. Although the report states as such, the mother is disputing her positive test of 10/28. [¶] When the test came back positive there was no confirmation test done, and therefore the mother is disputing that and believes it to be a false positive at this time, so she is objecting to random testing.” The juvenile court responded that in the 6.7 report submitted by CFS for the September 2025 hearing, it advised it was requesting that on-demand testing be automatically changed to random testing if there was “any suspicion that mother is actively using substances.” The trial court noted that Mother was a no-show on two occasions. The positive test was being disputed by Mother. The excuse for failing to complete the on-demand tests was transportation and she was unable to leave her job. The juvenile court ruled, “Over Mother’s counsel’s objection, the Court will note the authority to transition mother to random drug testing and that if she fails to test or tests positive, mother to complete an outpatient substance abuse program.” 23  The findings in the case plan were accepted by the juvenile court. Mother was ordered to participate in the case plan. The juvenile court did add that CFS had the authority to increase frequency, duration and delegate supervision of visits b