In re K.C. CA2/2

Filed 11/13/26 In re K.C. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO In re K.C., A Person Coming B347990, B351638 Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY (Los Angeles County DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN Super. Ct. No. AND FAMILY SERVICES, 24CCJP03440) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.H., Defendant and Appellant. APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Natalie Nardecchia, Judge. Affirmed. Emery El Habiby, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.  Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Jacklyn K. Louie, Assistant County Counsel, and Sarah Vesecky, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ______________________________ Appellant S.H. (mother) appeals the juvenile court’s findings that Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) provided reasonable reunification services after mother’s daughter, K.C., was removed from her physical custody. We affirm. BACKGROUND I. Statutory Framework “When a child has been removed from a parent’s custody, the court ordinarily must order child welfare services designed to facilitate the reunification of the family.” (Michael G. v. Superior Court (2023) 14 Cal.5th 609, 624 (Michael G.).) The juvenile court is required to hold periodic status review hearings “no less frequently than once every six months.” (Welf. & Inst. Code § 366, subd. (a).)1 “Reunification services are ordinarily provided for a maximum of 18 months after a child has been removed from parental custody.” (Michael G., supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 625.) At the 6-month and 12-month review hearings, “[i]f the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian in overcoming the problems that led to the initial removal and the continued custody of the child have been 1 Unless otherwise stated, statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian.” (§ 366.21, subds. (e)(8) and (f)(1)(A).) II. The Family K.C. was born in 2011. K.C.’s father is not a party to the appeal. K.C. has two adult, maternal half-siblings: sister T.W. and an older brother. III. DCFS Investigates a Referral On September 18, 2024, DCFS received a referral alleging that mother physically abused K.C. K.C. reported that the physical abuse was ongoing and she was afraid that mother would “beat” her again. The caller reported that K.C. was at her maternal grandmother’s home and felt safe there because mother did not know the address. A children’s social worker (CSW) visited the maternal grandmother’s home the next day and interviewed K.C. The CSW observed linear marks above K.C.’s right eye that had bruising and bloody marks that resembled stitching. K.C. reported that mother was upset that K.C. had empty soda cans in her bedroom and was not permitting mother to read a note K.C. received from a boy. K.C. said that mother punched and choked her while attempting to retrieve the note, which K.C. did not want mother to see. Mother also hit K.C. on her face with a speaker. K.C. fell onto the bed, at which point mother grabbed an ice roller and hit K.C. all over her body with it. K.C. held her hands up and tried to block mother from hitting her. K.C. said mother then took her computer and phone and told her to take off her new pants and take out the trash. K.C. saw blood on her eye and felt pain in the area. K.C. said mother came back upstairs, attacked her a second time, put her in a chokehold, and said, “I should kill you.” K.C. 3 said mother also told her, “I don’t love you, and I never did since this is a hate relationship.” According to K.C., mother also told her: “I am going to send you to a group home out of state where the boys will rape you and the girls will beat you. [] I cannot wait for another five years until you’re 18 so you can leave[.]” K.C. reported that mother had previously disciplined her by hitting her with a wooden back scratcher and belt. K.C. reported that mother punched and choked her for the first time the previous year while they were on vacation with mother’s boyfriend; that the boyfriend encouraged mother to beat her; and that she saw the boyfriend punch his own children. K.C. contacted her older sister, T.W., after mother left for work on September 18, 2024, and disclosed the abuse. T.W retrieved K.C. and took her to the maternal grandmother’s home. K.C. did not want to return to mother’s home and believed mother could kill her. The CSW spoke with T.W., who said that K.C. called her after mother “beat [her] up over a soda.” T.W. described mother as “crazy” and recounted incidents from her own childhood during which mother would fight her as though she were a “stranger in the streets.” T.W. reported that she experienced suicidal ideation because of mother’s abuse, but she never told anyone. The CSW made an unannounced visit to mother’s home on September 19, 2024. Mother reported that she found three cans of soda in K.C.’s backpack and became concerned that K.C., a diabetic, was sneaking food. Mother also stated that she saw a letter from a boy in K.C.’s backpack and “wrestled” K.C. for the letter. Mother stated that during the struggle K.C. broke her false nails, causing them to bleed. Mother denied hitting K.C. with a speaker or an ice roller. Mother stated that she restrained 4 K.C. to prevent her from hitting mother and may have accidentally scratched K.C. with the butterfly charm from her nail. K.C. received a forensic medical exam on September 20, 2024. The medical findings were consistent with K.C.’s report that mother hit her with a speaker on her face. IV. Juvenile Court Proceedings A. The petition and detention On October 25, 2024, the juvenile court signed an order authorizing DCFS to remove K.C. from mother. On October 30, 2024, DCFS filed a section 300 petition alleging mother physically abused K.C. On October 31, 2024, the juvenile court held an initial hearing on the petition. K.C.’s counsel and mother’s counsel asked the court to release K.C. to T.W. DCFS’s counsel objected and expressed concerns that T.W. “has her own trouble with the mother, which may impede reunification.” The court detained K.C. from mother, ordered that K.C. be placed on extended visit with T.W. over DCFS’s objection, and ordered DCFS to investigate placing K.C. with T.W. On November 7, 2024, at a pretrial release investigation hearing, mother’s counsel reported that K.C. and T.W. had “a strong and closely-bonded relationship” and that mother reported T.W. has “been very supportive and a great caretaker to [K.C.]” Mother’s counsel thought T.W. “would be a wonderful caregiver for [K.C.] and also very supportive of reunification from the 5 mother’s perspective.” The court ordered K.C. placed with T.W. over DCFS’s objection. B. Jurisdiction and disposition On November 27, 2024, DCFS filed a combined jurisdiction/disposition report. DCFS’s dependency investigator interviewed K.C., who described the events that led to the filing of the petition consistent with her previous reports. K.C. reiterated, “I don’t want to see my mom, I don’t want to go back to her.” DCFS determined that K.C. and T.W. “share a close bond” and K.C. was doing well in T.W.’s home. The dependency investigator also interviewed mother, who denied the petition allegations and asserted that the “discipline here is never physical.” Mother stated, “If [K.C.] can’t come home, then I want her to be with family. It would be better if she was not with strangers.” On January 16, 2025, DCFS filed a “Last Minute Information for the Court” (LMI) report, which states that “there has been no contact between [K.C.] and her mother” and K.C. “is not interested at this time to have any communication with her mother.” Mother also told DCFS that the petition allegations “are not true and that adult sibling, [T.W.], is not the best fit for placement for [K.C.] due to [mother’s] and [T.W.’s] contentious relationship.” On January 21, 2025, the juvenile court held a combined adjudication/disposition hearing. Mother pleaded no contest to the section 300 petition, as amended by interlineation, which the court sustained. The section 300 petition, as amended, states the following: “The child, [K.C.’s] mother, [S.H.], physically abused the child. On 09/18/2024, the mother struck the child. The child sustained an abrasion and a bruise to the child’s upper eyelid. 6 On a prior occasion in 2023, the mother struck the child. On prior occasions, the mother struck the child with a belt and a wooden back scratcher. On a prior occasion, the mother struck the child’s face with the mother’s open hand and struck the child. On prior occasions, the mother struck the child, inflicting welts on the child. The child is fearful of the mother and refuses to return to the mother’s home. Such physical abuse . . . caused the child unreasonable pain and suffering. . . .” The juvenile court declared K.C. a dependent of the court, removed her from parental custody, and ordered her suitably placed under supervision of DCFS. The court ordered DCFS to provide mother with reunification services and mother to participate in parenting programs and individual counseling. The court ordered that K.C. participate in individual counseling and conjoint counseling with mother. The court signed mother’s case plan, which ordered that mother visit K.C. twice a month, that the visits be two hours in duration, and that “DCFS [] confer with [K.C.’s] therapist for visits in a therapeutic setting.” The court also ordered DCFS to follow up on mother’s request for a cultural broker. C. The six-month status review report and hearing On July 14, 2025, DCFS submitted a status report stating: K.C. “is very vocal about not having any type of relationship with her mother” and K.C. “reports that she has nightmares about her mother.” K.C. withdrew from group therapy “because she is not being comfortable discussing her feeling[s] in groups,” and the CSW submitted a new referral for individual counseling for K.C. Mother completed a parenting program and an anger management course, and she was participating in individual counseling. “Mother currently has no visits with [K.C.] due to the 7 current restraining order by criminal court. However, . . . [t]he modified court order states that mother may have monitored visits in a therapeutic environment.”2 On August 1, 2025, the juvenile court held the six-month status review hearing. The court denied mother’s request for a continuance but ordered DCFS to make “all efforts” to ensure K.C. was in individual therapy and stressed the objective “to get [mother and K.C.] to a point where they’re in therapy together.” Although a “close call,” the court found that “in totality” DCFS had provided reasonable services. The court admonished DCFS that “a lot more will be expected in the next review period.” D. K.C. attends individual therapy K.C. attended individual therapy sessions on August 7 and 21 and September 4, 18, and 25, 2025. K.C.’s therapist informed the CSW that K.C. had a “meltdown” on September 13, 2025, at T.W.’s home. K.C. was “screaming at her younger cousins and [] police [were] called to her home.” T.W. decided to suspend therapy services “because it was not working.” In place of individual therapy for K.C., T.W. agreed to wraparound services and a team was developed for the family. E. The progress hearing On October 1, 2025, the juvenile court held a progress hearing. Mother’s counsel stated that mother “is engaged in her 2 DCFS requests that we take judicial notice of the criminal protective order. We deny the request because the criminal protective order was not before the trial court. (Duronslet v. Kamps (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 717, 737.) Further, the appellate record already shows that the criminal protective order included an exception for court-ordered visitation in this dependency proceeding. 8 entire case plan” and is “doing everything in her control to reunify with her daughter.” Mother’s counsel argued that the case plan ordered “monitored visits in a therapeutic setting” and that “it’s not happening right now.” Mother’s counsel requested a Child and Family Team (CFT) meeting and that mother be assigned a cultural broker. K.C.’s counsel reported that K.C. is “doing really well with her sister” and “continues to say that she does not wish to return to her mother’s care or even see her mother.” However, K.C. “did want to let the court know she’s open to trying a therapeutic visit with mom, as she wants to ensure she has a lot of support to do this.” The juvenile court ordered DCFS to hold a CFT meeting “as soon as possible.” F. The Starbucks visit K.C. agreed to meet mother at a Starbucks restaurant on October 22, 2025. The CSW monitored the Starbucks visit and summarized what occurred, as follows: “Mother started off apologizing for what happened with the case. Mother asked for a hug however [K.C.] refused to hug her mother. [K.C.] sat quietly and listened to her mother talk about what happened and where she was at the time of detention for this case. The two discussed school, [K.C.] was slow to respond at first, however she began to warm up and they discussed grades, [K.C.] reports that she is receiving mostly ‘A’s[’] and mother seemed pleased. . . . [¶] As they talked [K.C.] became more comfortable with talking with her mother. [K.C.] talked about wanting a relationship with her mother but not living with her[.] [K.C.] was very direct wit[h] her mother about not . . . wanting to [h]a[v]e a relationship with her[.] [M]other thanked [K.C.] for being honest about her decision. Mother asked [K.C.] if there was anything she needed. . . . Mother took notes and wrote down what [K.C.] 9 wanted in her notice book. Mother stated that [s]he would give it to CSW so that she can have them before Christmas. [¶] After the visits . . . CSW encouraged [K.C.] to see her mother again. [K.C.] stated that she will think about it and let CSW know.” G. K.C.’s therapy continues K.C. attended six therapy sessions between October 16 and December 4, 2025. On November 20, 2025, K.C.’s therapist reported that K.C. was not ready for conjoint therapy with her mother at that time. On December 16, 2025, K.C.’s therapist reported that “[a]t this time, the therapist does not recommend family therapy, as they are still focused on establishing rapport and trust with [K.C.].” H. The CFT meeting On December 29, 2025, a CFT meeting was held with the following persons attending: K.C., mother, K.C.’s therapist, T.W., the CSW, DCFS’s counsel, mother’s counsel, and K.C.’s counsel. “[K.C.’s] therapist said she does not believe conjoint therapy between the child and mother should begin yet because [K.C.] needs to make more progress individually first; the plan is for mother to start having collateral sessions (alone) with the child’s therapist, and eventually move to conjoint therapy sessions with child and mother.” The therapist requested clarification on the juvenile court’s order for “visits in a therapeutic setting.” I. The 12-month review hearing On December 31, 2025, the juvenile court held the 12- month status review hearing. The court clarified that “therapeutic setting” visits only needed to include someone who was trained as a social worker or therapist and could “direct and step in if need be.” This was what happened at the Starbucks visit. 10  After hearing argument from counsel, the juvenile court stated that it needed to “look at the [] totality of everything going into this.” The court noted that K.C. is 14 years old; that the court found she was physically abused; and that “there were pretty egregious facts underlying this.” The court understood mother was frustrated with the pace but told her that “sometimes that pace is a natural outgrowth or consequence of what has happened in a child’s life and their feelings.” The court found that, although mother “has been working through her case plan,” “[t]here’s been a lot of harm done in that relationship,” this was “not a case of a child [] just having unbridled veto discretion,” and K.C.’s therapist did not believe K.C. was ready for conjoint therapy. The court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCFS made reasonable efforts to return K.C. to a safe home and to complete any steps necessary to finalize the permanent placement of K.C. The court ordered DCFS to provide mother with additional reunification services and set a review hearing for April 2026. DISCUSSION I. Appealability and Standard of Review Mother appeals the juvenile court’s reasonable services findings from the 6-month and 12-month review hearings. We assume, without deciding, that these orders are appealable. (See In re A.O. (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1048, 1061 (A.O.); but see Melinda K. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1157 [construing appeal as writ petition].) “When a finding that reunification services were adequate is challenged on appeal, we review it for substantial evidence.” (In re Alvin R. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 962, 971.) “[A]ppellate 11 review of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding requiring clear and convincing proof must account for the level of confidence this standard demands.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 995–996.) “We view the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and give due deference to how the trier of fact may have evaluated the credibility of witnesses, resolved conflicts in the evidence, and drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence.” (In re M.V. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 944, 960.) II. Substantial Evidence Supports the Juvenile Court’s Reasonable Services Findings A. Mother forfeited her challenge to the placement of K.C. with T.W. Mother asserts that DCFS failed to provide reasonable services because DCFS did not change K.C.’s placement with T.W. despite concerns that T.W. “was impeding reunification efforts.” Mother forfeited this argument because she repeatedly asked the juvenile court to place K.C. with T.W. Mother asserted that T.W. “would be a wonderful caregiver for [K.C.] and also very supportive of reunification from the mother’s perspective.” Although mother told the CSW prior to the disposition hearing that T.W. was not the best placement for daughter, mother did not object to the placement at the disposition hearing or the status review hearings. Mother did not file a petition pursuant to section 388 or make an oral request for the juvenile court to change its placement order, and she never argued before the 12 juvenile court that the placement with T.W. was “impeding reunification.” “It is settled that an appellant waives or forfeits the right to challenge a ruling on appeal by agreeing with or acquiescing to the ruling at trial.” (In re N.S. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 816, 840.) “The court does not err by failing to do that which it is not requested to do.” (In re Sofia M. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1038, 1046.) Further, even without forfeiture, DCFS cannot be faulted for complying with the placement order that mother herself advocated the juvenile court to adopt. Therefore, we reject mother’s contentions that the placement of K.C. with T.W. establishes that the juvenile court’s reasonable services findings are not supported by substantial evidence. B. The six-month review hearing Mother also contends that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s reasonable services findings at the six-month hearing because DCFS: “[1] did not expeditiously arrange for a new therapist after the child’s therapy was disrupted; [2] allow[ed] the child and therapist to have veto power over whether visits occurred; [3] [did] not successfully connect[] the mother with a cultural broker; and [4] [did] not adequately encourag[e] the child to attend visits with the mother.” Mother argues for perfection in DCFS’s services, but that is not the standard. “ ‘In almost all cases it will be true that more services could have been provided more frequently and that the services provided were imperfect. The standard is not whether the services provided were the best that might be provided in an ideal world, but whether the services were reasonable under the 13 circumstances.’ [Citation.] ” (A.O., supra, 111 Cal.App.5th at p. 1063.) “ ‘Visitation is an essential component of any reunification plan.’ [Citation.] ‘Where the minor is reluctant to visit, and family therapy is needed to promote visitation, such therapy may be critical to reunification.’ [Citation.] ‘But a parent’s liberty interest in the care, custody and companionship of children cannot be maintained at the expense of their well-being.’ [Citation.] ‘. . . [T]he court must focus on the best interests of the children “and on the elimination of conditions which led to the juvenile court’s finding that the child has suffered, or is at risk of suffering, harm specified in section 300.” ’ [Citation.] ‘This includes the “possibility of adverse psychological consequences of an unwanted visit between mother and child.” ’ [Citation.]” (A.O., supra, 111 Cal.App.5th at p. 1062.) In this case, mother physically abused K.C. on multiple occasions and caused her unreasonable pain and suffering. Mother also verbally and emotionally abused K.C. Because of this abuse, K.C. was “very vocal about not having any type of relationship with her mother” and reported “that she has nightmares about her mother.” DCFS’s efforts at reunification must be assessed in these circumstances. The juvenile court sustained the petition and issued the case plan on January 21, 2025. Thereafter, the CSW spoke with K.C. and her caretaker, T.W., about visitation and individual therapy each month from January through May 2025. K.C. remained adamant that she did not want to have contact with mother. In June 2025, K.C. withdrew from group therapy “because she is not being comfortable discussing her feeling[s] in groups,” and, shortly thereafter, the CSW submitted a new 14 referral for individual counseling for K.C. The court could reasonably find, by clear and convincing evidence, that these efforts to arrange K.C.’s individual therapy and visitation were sufficient under the circumstances. Although mother was not assigned a cultural broker, the evidence shows that K.C. was unwilling to have contact with mother, at this early stage of the proceedings, because of the serious physical abuse and harm to the relationship with mother. Assignment of a cultural broker could not change this fact. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCFS provided reasonable reunification services through the six-month review hearing. C. The 12-month review hearing Mother contends that DCFS: “delay[ed] the child and family team meeting until December 29, 2025; . . . ignor[ed] the child’s statements that she wanted a relationship with the mother; . . . and allow[ed] the therapist too many months to build a ‘rapport’ with the child without identifying a new therapist with whom the child was more comfortable.” Mother also contends that DCFS “used the child’s aversion to visiting the mother as the sole factor in declining to provide the mother with visits.” These arguments fail. K.C. complied with the juvenile court’s case plan and attended at least 11 individual therapy sessions between August and December 2025. Throughout this time, K.C.’s therapist opined repeatedly that K.C. was not ready for conjoint therapy with her mother. Considering the serious physical abuse that occurred, and that K.C. had been making progress in individual therapy, DCFS acted reasonably in allowing the therapy process to continue. Mother fails to show that DCFS had any obligation 15 to “identify[] a new therapist,” and there is no evidence that a different therapist would have recommended conjoint therapy any sooner. Furthermore, visitation did occur in October 2025, when K.C. agreed to meet mother at a Starbucks restaurant under supervision of the CSW. DCFS encouraged this visit even though K.C. did not wish to “even see her mother[.]” During the visit, “[K.C.] was very direct wit[h] her mother about not . . . wanting to [h]a[v]e a relationship with her[.]” Contrary to mother’s assertion, there is no evidence that DCFS “ignor[ed]” K.C.’s statements that she wanted a relationship with the mother. In fact, the CSW “encouraged [K.C.] to see her mother again.” Mother fails to show that the juvenile court permitted K.C. or her therapist to have veto power over visitation. The juvenile court issued a case plan that required DCFS to “confer with [K.C.’s] therapist . . . for visits in a therapeutic setting.” DCFS made reasonable efforts to implement the case plan, and mother did not request any specific enforcement with respect to visitation other than her request for a CFT meeting, which the court granted. “Absent a request, it is not the court’s burden to sua sponte come up with a solution to the intractable problem of a child’s steadfast refusal to visit a parent.” (In re Sofia M. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1038, 1046.) “[If] after reasonable efforts have been exhausted, the child simply cannot be persuaded to visit, that, in and of itself, is not a basis for reversal.” (Id. at p. 1047.) Although the CFT meeting requested by mother did not occur until December 29, 2025, K.C.’s therapist said at the meeting that K.C. was not ready for conjoint therapy and there was a risk of her “regressing due to feeling pressured.” The juvenile court could reasonably find that holding the CFT 16 meeting earlier would not have made a difference. Similarly, DCFS referred mother for a cultural broker , and there is no evidence that the delay in assigning a cultural broker affected mother’s reunification with K.C. Finally, K.C.’s aversion to visiting with mother was not the sole factor in the juvenile court’s determinations. The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the serious physical abuse, the harm to the relationship with mother, the possible adverse psychological consequences of an unwanted visit, and the recommendations of K.C.’s therapist. On this record, we find that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings, by clear and convincing evidence, that DCFS provided reasonable reunification services through the 12-month review hearing. 17  DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. GOORVITCH, J. We concur: LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. 18