P.D. v. Superior Court CA1/1

Filed 10/28/26 P.D. v. Superior Court CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE P.D., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF A177049 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, (Contra Costa County Respondent; Super. Ct. Nos. J2400476 & CONTRA COSTA COUNTY J2400477) CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU, Real Party in Interest. Petitioner P.D. (Mother) seeks extraordinary writ relief from the juvenile court’s order at the 18-month review hearing terminating her reunification services and setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1 Mother contends substantial evidence does not support the court’s finding of detriment because she had made progress on her case plan and obtained appropriate housing. We conclude the juvenile court did not err and deny the petition and request for stay. All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions 1 Code unless otherwise indicated. 1  BACKGROUND Dependency Petition and Removal The Contra Costa County Child and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) filed a section 300 petition alleging then three-year-old J.D. and three-week old B.D. had suffered, or there was a substantial risk they would suffer serious risk of physical harm or illness as a result of the failure or inability of parents2 to adequately supervise or protect the minors. (§ 300, subd. (b).) Specifically, the petition alleged the minors were found “unsupervised in a vehicle by first responders.” J.D. was sweating and “dressed only in a shirt,” “ ‘completely nude’ from the waist down,” while B.D. was “laying on a ‘furry’ baby item.” Mother was “discovered in a deep sleep” in a separate vehicle. Additionally, the petition alleged Mother failed to provide B.D. with adequate medical care. At the detention hearing, the court found continuance in Mother’s home was contrary to the minors’ welfare and there was a substantial danger to the physical health of the minors. Additionally, the court ordered visitation and set a jurisdiction and disposition hearing. At the jurisdiction hearing, the court sustained one allegation as amended and dismissed the remaining allegation.3 (§ 300, subd. (b).) 2 The minors have different fathers, neither of whom is a party to this writ proceeding. 3 In October 2024, Mother “entered a plea” on amended language in the section 300 petition for jurisdictional purposes. The court sustained the allegation, as amended—that Mother had placed the minors at risk of suffering serious physical harm as a result of her negligent failure to provide adequate supervision in that she “was discovered by first responders in a deep sleep in a vehicle” leaving the minors “unsupervised in an unlocked, separate vehicle.” 2  In its disposition report, the Bureau recommended the court adjudge the minors dependents of the court and offer family reunification services. The report recounted that Mother had moved from Texas to California when she was 17 years old. She became addicted to methamphetamine “and used consistently for about three years.” She maintained she stopped using methamphetamine when she learned she was pregnant with J.D. Mother had an “extensive” prior welfare history, and the Bureau had received several referrals over the previous two years. Most of the allegations were for general neglect of J.D. due to inadequate supervision or domestic violence and physical abuse by Mother’s boyfriend. “[M]ultiple referrals also referenc[ed Mother] leaving [J.D.] unattended while in a ‘deep sleep’ and/or ‘unresponsive.’ ” She also reported that one of the maternal aunts currently had custody of the minors’ four-year-old sibling. The Bureau was concerned about Mother’s mental health as she had a “history of severe trauma that has not been addressed.” Mother had been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder, “but her diagnosis has since changed to generalized anxiety.” However, Mother had stopped taking her anxiety medication because “she no longer feels like she needs it.” Mother explained “learning to parent by herself has been difficult and she is working on keeping [the minors] safe, like not keeping them in the car, but that it is hard.” Additionally, Mother lacked stable and safe housing. Mother participated in visitation with the minors two times per week, and the visitation was described as “positive” with Mother responding to the minors’ cues and engaging in age-appropriate activities. However, Mother sometimes “struggle[d] with dividing her attention to both children.” Mother also reported she was on probation and required to submit to monthly drug testing. 3  The court adjudged the minors dependents of the court, found continuance in the home was contrary to the minors’ welfare and physical well-being, ordered reunification services and visitation, and set the matter for a six-month status review hearing. Mother’s case plan included completing a mental health assessment, completing an assessment for substance abuse and random drug testing, obtaining suitable housing, completing individual counseling, completing parenting education, and attending regular visitation. Combined Six-Month and 12-Month Review Periods In its six-month review report, the Bureau recommended termination of reunification services to Mother. Mother “had trouble keeping consistent communication, making scheduled appointments, and making visits with her sons.” Mother was attending a parenting education program, but she was “still working on securing employment and stable housing.” During the reporting period, Mother had been living with her boyfriend in Vallejo, but she stated they were no longer together. Mother disclosed a “tumultuous relationship with her boyfriend, with at least one incident of domestic violence in the home.” She “declined resources for domestic violence.” Mother reported obtaining a job in December 2024, but by February 2025, had “lost her job and the reason was due to the demands of the Bureau, including visits.” Mother was “working on becoming approved to become an IHSS provider.” Mother was no longer required to do monthly drug testing by her probation officer, rather she was subject to on-demand testing. During a scheduled home visit, Mother would not answer the door. She maintained she did not hear anyone knocking and that her cell phone did not ring. Later, Mother admitted she was sleeping because she had been “up until 4 a.m. due to arguing with her boyfriend.” When the social worker 4 returned hours later, she asked Mother to submit to an on-demand drug test. However, Mother stated she had lost her state identification. Mother and the social worker agreed Mother would obtain a new ID the next day and then test. Mother did so, and the test results came back “negative for all substances.” Mother had neither completed her mental health assessment nor started individual therapy. The Bureau was concerned Mother “is struggling with [an] undiagnosed mental health condition and/or developmental delay that limits her ability to provide safety and stability” for the minors. The Bureau was also concerned Mother lacked “understanding of the reason” why family services was involved with her family. Mother thought it was due to her lack of housing. When the social worker explained it was because she left the minors unattended in a car with the windows rolled up and the danger this presented, Mother maintained she had done so because “she was extremely tired having a new-born and 3-year-old with special needs.” At a different meeting, when the social worker expressed concern over Mother’s continued lack of understanding, Mother “became upset” and stated that she had left the minors in the car because “she wanted to have sex with her boyfriend and did not want to have sex in front of the children, causing them to go into a different car. [She] then explained that her boyfriend told her that he would watch the children while she napped, but that he was ‘on pills’ so then he ended up falling asleep as well.” Mother’s visitation was inconsistent. Beginning around mid-December 2024, Mother began working six days a week and reported she would only be able to visit on Sundays. At the beginning of January 2025, Mother informed the Bureau she could also visit on Thursdays. At the end of January, Mother and the social worker agreed to Monday visits of two hours, however, Mother 5 later requested one hour due to her work schedule. From the end of January through mid-June, Mother was scheduled for approximately 19 visits, but she canceled eight citing various reasons, including issues with transportation, that she was feeling sick, and that she had broken her glasses. She also had “multiple opportunities to increase visitation, but did not follow up.” “Given the children’s age, [Mother’s] inconsistent visitation, and safety concerns still being present,” the Bureau concluded it was in the minors’ best interest to terminate reunification services. However, in a combined six and 12-month status review report, the Bureau now recommended another six months of reunification services. Mother had “recently stepped-up engagement with services, including more consistent visitation” and “voiced a willingness to comply with the psychological evaluation, to complete an additional parenting class, and to engage in Domestic Violence services.” Mother had moved out of her boyfriend’s home and moved into Elizabeth House, a transitional housing program. The program held classes for residents, including parenting and intimate partner violence classes and required random monthly drug testing. Mother had her own room, which was set up to accommodate the minors as well. The Bureau remained concerned with Mother’s ability to “manage her schedule.” For example, Mother informed her social worker she could not make a court hearing to obtain a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend because of Elizabeth House’s rules, which do “not allow residents to leave the house until 7AM.” However, when the social worker spoke to Mother’s Elizabeth House case manager, the manager stated this “was not true as they do not have a rule for how early a resident can leave.” Instead, the case manager explained Mother failed to make her court appointment because 6 “she reported she had not had enough money on her clipper card, and waited [until] the morning of to say something.” The case manager reported Mother “had been out of home most of the weekend, so it did not seem like she planned well/prioritized the hearing on Monday morning.” When confronted, Mother “became very defensive and began crying stating that due to her trauma, she does not like asking people for help” and that she “gets overwhelmed easily when she does have appointments.” Although Mother had been “more consistent” with visitation, the caregiver reported J.D. had been “very dysregulated after visit[s] with his mother and takes a few days to get back to his baseline.” Additionally, Mother had cancelled four out of 21 visits. Two visits were cancelled due “safety concerns” after Mother reported she “was receiving threatening text messages from her ex-boyfriend stating that he was going to come to the visit site,” and one visit was ended early after her ex-boyfriend came to the visit site and was seen “knocking to get into the building” and “tampering with [Mother’s] car.” Mother had completed and was “following all recommendations from her psychological evaluation,” including “meeting with a psychiatrist for medication to treat symptoms” of posttraumatic stress disorder. At the combined six and 12-month review hearing, the court ordered six more months of reunification services and set the matter for an 18-month status review hearing. 18-Month Review Hearing Prior to the hearing, Mother was asked to leave Elizabeth House at the end of October 2025 “due to her not following the rules and safety concerns/threats of individuals coming to the home to fight her and someone calling stating she needed to return their drugs and money.” In December, 7 Mother checked herself into Amber House, a mental health program, as her brother had attempted to commit suicide “and this, set off her emotions and she was worried about falling off her medications and daily routine.” She remained in Amber House for three weeks, and then went to Insight Women’s Shelter. In February 2026, Mother entered the Bay Area Rescue Mission (BARM) program, a life-transformation program, which allowed for visitation. Although visits had been going “very well,” J.D. was having a “hard time after visits.” He was “dysregulated the night of and day after visits,” and “lately this has intensified and been affecting [him] at school and day care.” He was observed hitting and kicking other students and teachers, which was “not usual” for him. In its 18-month status review report, the Bureau recommended termination of services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Mother “reported having many” job interviews during the reporting period. A job at Chipotle did not work out because Mother stated she cannot “work full-time due to having to visit with the children.” When the social worker pointed out Chipotle is open early, late, and on weekends, and Mother only visits the minors for four hours each week, and they could work around her schedule, Mother stated Chipotle “wanted her to work 6-7 days a week.” The worker reported, “It is unclear what happened at the other job interviews [Mother] reported having.” When asked to “think back to when CFS first became involved, and where she was . . . then versus now,” Mother reported she did not know then that J.D. had Autism. However, the social worker pointed out that it was Mother, at the very beginning of this dependency, who informed the Bureau about J.D.’s diagnosis. Mother then admitted she “did know, but that she didn’t know how to deal with it, and she now tries to think about how her 8 behavior affects him.” Of the 45 visits scheduled during the reporting period, Mother missed 14 for various reasons. The report also recounted that during the past 18 months, Mother had “struggled to demonstrate she can provide long-term safety” for the minors. Mother had been in three different placements since being asked to leave Elizabeth House. She had been connected with multiple programs to help her obtain housing and employment, “though nothing has come to fruition and it is often unclear as to why.” As Mother “often provides conflicting information as to what she reported previously, or to what service providers are reporting,” the Bureau was left “perplexed as to what the root of the issues are.” Mother “has worked with about five different service providers that help support with finding employment and housing, but has still not shown stability, consistent behavior change, and capacity for long-term safety.” Mother had also shown a “pattern of struggling through the review period, then right before a scheduled Court hearing picking up her engagement in services and/or getting into a new program.” This pattern reached “back to prior to the dependency, as [Mother] had prematurely left” a program in San Mateo County “and shortly after is when the children were found unsupervised in the car,” leading to the Bureau getting involved. Over the course of a continued hearing, the Bureau filed several interim memoranda. In May 2026, the Bureau reported Mother would be moving on to Phase II of the BARM program the following month. BARM reported Mother was doing well but she “does get overwhelmed and needs support around changes.” There had also been two infractions: One was for sneaking outside food into the program, which was concerning because Mother was “able to leave the program, get the food, and bring it back in without being noticed” and the second was for arriving late to a visit. In the 9 second incident, Mother was seen exiting a Lyft with an unidentified male in the backseat next to Mother, and “BARM has a strict rule that no residents should be in a relationship, and this could be grounds” for dismissal. Mother provided an explanation and was not asked to leave but the incident resulted in an infraction “due to questions remaining around the explanation.” In July 2026, the Bureau reported on several visits. In the first unannounced visit, the social worker observed J.D. slap B.D. on the top of his head, rake his nails across the top of B.D.’s head twice, and headbutt B.D. Mother “grabbed [J.D.] and held him in a bear hug to try and de-escalate him.” J.D. “screamed and tussled with the mother for approximately 5 minutes trying to break free.” Later in the visit, J.D. grabbed B.D.’s toy causing him to cry. The social worker explained J.D. “was able to physically attack [B.D.] over three times before [Mother] intervened,” and she explained to Mother that she “has to intervene quicker when [J.D.] is targeting [B.D.]” In another visit, attended by Mother’s therapist, the therapist observed J.D. run ahead of Mother at the end of the visit. The therapist encouraged Mother to “catch up because [J.D.] was out of reach.” J.D. had “gotten to the front door of the building, opened the door and ran out towards the busy street,” and Mother had “to chase [him] down the street,” leaving B.D. with the therapist. When the therapist attempted to call Mother the following day to talk about the visit, Mother “refused to talk with her and put the phone down.” In the last unannounced visit, two days later, the social worker observed J.D. “required significant redirection” to not ride his bike into B.D. and to not crowd B.D. when they were playing on a climbing structure. Mother would physically remove B.D., which caused him frustration, “like a game of ‘keep away.’ ” When discussing the visit observed by the therapist, 10 Mother stated she and the therapist “have different parenting styles,” and the therapist wanted her to be a “ ‘gentle parent.’ ” Mother explained, when they were leaving the visit, J.D. did not want to hold her hand, “so she decided to ‘show’ the therapist what happens when she does not hold [his] hand.” When asked where B.D. was during the incident, Mother stated he was with the therapist. And, when asked why she did not want to “process what happened with the therapist,” Mother stated “she feels the therapist does not listen to her and she felt disrespected.” While Mother and the social worker were talking, J.D. walked up to B.D. and pushed him to the ground. Mother grabbed J.D., attempting to put him in a timeout, but J.D. punched and pushed Mother. This lasted approximately five minutes. At the end of the visit, Mother and the minors were heading to dinner across the street, the social worker who was also leaving heard J.D. screaming and saw him “flailing on the sidewalk screaming ‘No, I don’t want to eat.’ ” She observed Mother trying to get control of J.D. Mother eventually let go of B.D. to get a better hold of J.D. “who is screaming and kicking on the ground,” and B.D. walked over “towards a parked van and plays with the van’s handle.” This lasted approximately 10 minutes before the social worker began to make her way back to Mother and the minors. When the social worker got closer, Mother “hoisted [J.D.] up and grabbed [B.D.] and rushed into the facility.” The minors’ caregiver, care providers, and TK teacher also provided updates. The caregiver stated that although J.D. had been “potty trained for a while,” he “would frequently display signs of self-harming behaviors during the car ride home from visits,” and “[m]ore recently, this has shifted into toileting accidents immediately following visitation.” Additionally, after visits with Mother, J.D. “scratches himself until he bleeds, yells at his sibling, pushes his brother and also reprimands other children in the daycare,” and 11 this behavior “consistently coincide[d] with visitation days.” The care providers stated the minors had been “ ‘extremely dysregulated’ ” after visits with Mother. In addition to being “ ‘disruptive,’ ” which “ ‘created disharmony within our entire group,’ ” J.D. was also “ ‘extremely hyper, very hands on with his brother.’ ” The minors did “ ‘well overall. But the day after their visit is mostly a disaster for everyone involved.’ ” In another letter, the care provider noted J.D. “ ‘would not keep his hands off [B.D.],’ ” and for the “first time ever, [B.D.] was also not fully himself. He kept taking everyone’s toys, and he also hit a couple of kids today, something that we have never seen from him before.’ ” His TK teacher noted J.D. seemed “angry at times with the other children . . . and sometimes is very aggressive toward his peers.’ ” Over the course of the eight-day hearing (spread over the course of five months), the court heard from Social Worker Rachel Pozos; Melissa Jefferson, the program coordinator at BARM; Social Worker Tammi Cason; and Mother.4 Rachel Pozos testified Mother had never tested positive on any drug test. The Bureau had concerns about Mother’s decision-making. When Pozos contacted Mother’s therapist, the therapist stated he “had been looking at ending services with mother because she was not attending sessions consistently.” Further, when she checked herself into Amber House, he “discharge[ed her] from his services.” When asked why she recommended against the minors’ return to Mother, “despite her being in [BARM, a] one- year program,” the social worker replied, “Mother is in this program and has 4 The court also heard from La Tausha Wade, a counselor at Seneca Family Agency, who supervised visitation between Mother and the minors. However, the court found Ms. Wade’s testimony to be “very biased” and “did not find her credible.” 12 been so for about five weeks, but [she] has not demonstrated that she can provide long-term stability and safety.” Over the course of the case, Mother had been in five different programs and shelters. Melissa Jefferson testified she first met Mother as a BARM “shelter guest” before she was accepted into its life-transformation program. Jefferson explained the program was a “very structured,” multi-phase program. The first phase consisted of “a mix of around 12 classes, five times a week. It’s a three-hour class period,” along with “vocationary duties that they do after that.” The participants could not have cell phones for the first 45 days, could not leave unaccompanied and only for doctor’s appointments, and if someone leaves, they are drug tested upon return. A positive test results in immediate removal from the program. Mother was required to take five classes, including “Pride versus Humility,” conflict resolution, anger management, AA/NA, and parenting classes. Mother had been in the program for “[o]ver four months” and had just moved on to phase II the day before the hearing. Phase II, which lasted four months, allowed participants to “go out on a Saturday pass.” Mother took a mental health assessment when she entered the program and was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and anxiety, for which she took psychotropic medications. She was also “engaged in therapeutic services.” Approximately two months into the program, the minors began visitation at the center. Mother began with four supervised visits, transitioned to two “loosely supervised” visits, and then unsupervised visitation. Jefferson supervised two of the visits and noted the minors “seemed to adjust well” and were “happy to be with mom from what you could see with the kids’ faces.” She described J.D. as “testing boundaries,” in that he would say “ ‘No,’ ” and try to hit Mother. Mother received two minor 13 infractions during the first phase for a verbal altercation with her roommate and for ordering food delivery. Additionally, a third incident occurred, for which she did not receive an infraction, where Mother arrived at the center in a Lyft with an unidentified male—the program “does not allow fraternization” or relationships. However, Mother explained it was a “shared ride,” and Jefferson took Mother at “her . . . word.” Tammi Cason, the social worker, testified that in the prior three weeks, the minors had three overnight visits with Mother. Additionally, Mother had two-hour visits with the minors each week, for a total of approximately 80 hours of visits. Cason had observed two visits and noted on the first visit she observed J.D. hitting B.D. on his head. When J.D. “was having some sort of behavioral issue or meltdown,” Cason observed B.D. would duck or come to her to sit on Cason’s lap. Cason had observed the minors in their caregivers’ placement, and there, J.D. “actually plays with [B.D.]” The two minors “cooperated” and there “wasn’t any falling out or running” or any of the “jumpiness” observed at visitation. J.D. did not require assistance to go to the bathroom in his caregivers’ home, something he did require at visitation with Mother. In the service log of another visit, it was observed that J.D. had run into a residential street in front of the daycare, prompting another adult to “pick him up to move him to safety.” Cason also testified about a clinical assessment, which listed “approximately 14 experiences” of “neglect or emotional abuse or exposure to domestic violence that occurred between September 2022 and June 2024.” Some of J.D.’s behavioral issues, “when he is being transitioned to something that he doesn’t like,” is that he “acts out,” throws his body to the ground, or elopes. 14  Mother testified J.D. only had one tantrum during the overnight visits, the one in the service log, where J.D. “threw himself on the ground” and then “got back up very quickly” and “ran to the front office where the door to the busy street” was. Mother acknowledged she had “some maybe challenges” in managing both of the minors but “nothing that was too hard.” Mother felt she was ready to have the minors placed with her “with my support.” Mother presented photographs of the minors at the recent overnight visits. When questioned by the court about the nature of the photographs and whether one of the individuals had alcohol in his hands, Mother maintained she could not recall and she could not see what was in the man’s hand because the picture was blurry. The court asked Mother what she had learned since the incident where she left J.D. and B.D. in the car, Mother responded that she had learned “accountability.” She had explained she had been “more concerned about what my boyfriend wanted or what he wanted me to do,” and she put him before she “put myself sometimes and my kids.” But since then, she had learned “parenting skills, such as being able to talk and communicate with my kids, and trauma bonding and the side effects that it has of my kids, and learning techniques in order to help relationships with my kids and I.” Additionally, she had learned about herself “and the learned behaviors that I had and being able to redirect them so I can appropriately teach my kids what is right, what is wrong, what are the things you do.” Finally, she had learned about J.D.’s “condition, what behaviors might pop up” and how to “manage the stressors that [J.D.] has and how to manage two kids instead of just one.” When the court questioned Mother about the incident involving the Lyft, Mother maintained the man in the car was an “unknown passenger.” She stated when her ride arrived there was already someone in the car, and 15 the driver “asked if he could drop the person off first” at a liquor store. Although Mother told Ms. Cason it was a shared ride, she informed the court it was not a shared ride. Rather, she maintained it must have been a “glitch[],” which she stated had happened to her before. Mother’s long-term plan, if the minors were returned to her, was to remain in the program, which she stated could continue for up to five years. The court then heard from counsel. Counsel for the Bureau recommended termination of services and setting a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. The Bureau remained concerned about Mother’s “capacity and ability to maintain safety for both children.” Counsel noted the “quite alarming” history of referrals regarding Mother, beginning “as early as 2022 when [J.D.] was very, very young.” The pattern demonstrated “a pattern of mom being involved in a very chaotic lifestyle, where she’s involved with people who have perpetrated domestic violence against her, but that she has also been fully involved in that chaos, and how that has impacted [J.D.’s] behaviors.” Over the course of the almost two years of services,5 Mother had “time and again made poor decisions and engaged in behaviors that really call into question her credibility and her capacity to recognize risks when it comes to keeping herself safe.” During the first six months of the case, Mother remained with her boyfriend, only disclosing after the end of the relationship that he “was perpetrating domestic violence against her.” Additionally, the Bureau initially offered domestic violence services, but Mother declined. Counsel commended Mother on staying at BARM for as long as she had but noted there had still “been issues.” Mother’s “decision-making” and her 5 The 24-month mark for services was August 22, 2026, which was “a couple weeks away.” 16 “ability to provide care for two children,” one of whom has “special needs” and Autism and has “behaviors that is in part due to the neglect and emotional abuse that occurred over the time that he had experienced in mother’s care.” For example, Mother did not view J.D. “attacking his little brother, slapping him, head-butting him, raking his nails on this little child’s head as something that rises to the level of severity that she would consider that a tantrum,” which gave the Bureau “concern about her ability to recognize and protect [B.D.]” Finally, counsel questioned Mother’s credibility stating, she had a “long history of . . . providing really inconsistent stories of what she’s engaging in, what behaviors and what conduct she’s engaging in outside that could place these children at risk.” Counsel pointed to the inconsistent stories regarding the incident with the Lyft as an example. The minors’ counsel agreed with the Bureau’s recommendation to terminate services. Mother had “made a lot of progress in the last six months, but it has not been consistent progress over the last 23 months.” Counsel did not think Mother was “close to being able to safely parent these children, as the progress has only been in the very recent past.” In particular, counsel noted although J.D. had been diagnosed with Autism over a year ago, Mother was only now “learning how to respond to [his] behaviors and how to respond to [his] tantrums and outbursts and also how to respond to [B.D.] in those situations.” J.D. had “stability” and had “come very far along in his progress,” and Mother’s “progress just hasn’t matched that.” Mother’s counsel argued there was no substantial risk of detriment in returning the minors to her. She noted the law “does not require [Mother] to be a perfect parent,” and Mother had “shown tremendous growth in the last 17 six months.” Mother had stable housing for the past six months, and she had “completed above and beyond what her case plan has required.”6 The court began by going through Mother’s compliance with her case plan. Mother had been offered domestic violence services at the beginning of the case but she was initially unable to participate because she did not provide her full address to “receive the workbook needed to participate in the class.” Mother then entered Elizabeth House, which offered one-on-one domestic violence classes, but she was unable to finish because she was asked to leave that placement. Since then, Mother had taken five classes in a two- week period, where she “watched online about how domestic violence affects children of different ages.” As for on-demand drug testing, the court recounted several instances where Mother did not test when asked or offered excuses why she could not test. The court stated, “it was a real struggle after mom left Elizabeth House and had a voicemail about drugs being left—being an issue for mom still by . . . the unknown male, that it was a real struggle to get mom to test and there always seemed to be an excuse as to why she couldn’t test.” For instance, Mother reported she was moving into a program and asked to test another day, but then Mother did not move into the program, “as she had reported, and that was the excuse that she gave the social worker why she couldn’t test.” Mother also provided various stories about the events surrounding her being asked to leave Elizabeth House, including blaming her ex-boyfriend and a friend who had previously stabbed Mother and who Mother had a restraining order against, although Mother admitted to still 6 Mother’s counsel alternatively asserted there were extraordinary circumstances warranting an additional six months of services. Mother does not pursue this assertion in her petition for relief. 18 seeing her. All of which differed from the initial explanation provided to the Bureau. The social worker asked Mother to submit to an on-demand drug test due the multiple changing stories and having contact with someone who Mother “knew used cocaine and methamphetamine,” however, Mother did not answer the social worker’s attempts. When the social worker followed up the following day, Mother stated she was in Oakland and had a visit with the minors and could not test. When asked about the earlier requests to test and despite informing Mother the social worker had a “read . . . receipt showing mom read” the earlier messages, Mother told the social worker she “had bad reception, so she must not have received the text.” As to “mental health component,” the court noted in the beginning of the case there “were several different therapists” Mother reported seeing, however, “[i]t doesn’t appear that the Bureau received proof of some of those therapy sessions that mom said that she had.” In December 2025, when Mother checked herself into Amber House, “for mental health stabilization” Mother reported the program provided group therapy and “check-ins with mental health conditions.” After release from that program, Mother “reported that she started therapy by the end” of January 2026. Mother was further required to “maintain a stable and suitable residence for herself and her children, and specifically” Mother was “to remain at Elizabeth House and follow all recommendations of the program.” After removal from the program, “there were multiple efforts” to try and get Mother additional housing. In one instance, Mother declined placement because the program would not allow her to have her cell phone for 90 days, which meant she could not get a job or go to school. And although Mother had previously reported applying to go back to school, the “social worker had no information that she had actually starting her schooling.” The record 19 showed “every time mom had housing instability” the social worker provided referrals to programs, and “mom either didn’t want to go to certain programs for her own personal preferences, or she just didn’t follow up on some of the referrals that were given to her.” The court was “concerned about the lack of transparency that mom has had with the social worker regarding the various incidents,” including the photographs “with mother of the men at the park,” where “[i]t appears that they are holding alcohol, and I believe that photograph was given to the Department out of concern that mom was at the park around people who were using alcohol and substances.” The court pointed out Mother was there and in “the best position to say, they were absolutely not drinking” but instead, Mother testified she did not know or did not remember, which the court stated “did not seem credible to me.” The court also did not find her testimony “reliable or credible as to what really happened at Elizabeth House, and the fact that it involved allegations of possible fighting, allegations of drugs, is concerning given mom’s history . . . regarding methamphetamine use.” As for visitation, there had been “plenty of opportunities for mom to get stable housing, be in a position to have her visits step down to loosely supervised or something greater than that for her to have more time with her kids, and every step along the way, there would be something that would happen.” Additionally, “there are quite a few visits that are cancelled by mother due to her not feeling well or other issues.” Finally, the court noted although Mother testified she had learned to be accountable, the court had “not really seen that accountability.” Mother had made progress in the last six months, but when asked about “what brought her to the court, and the Court asked her about the original facts of this case 20 and what she would do differently, and then all of the different issues that have occurred since she started her reunification process, I have not seen mother take accountability for it,” for what happened at Elizabeth House, or for what happened with the Lyft ride, which the court had a “hard time believing that she showed up to get her Lyft and that, basically, there was a random person in there, and the only option she had was to get in the car with a random guy who was going to a liquor store. I just don’t find that story credible,” especially because Mother stated it was not a shared ride. The court found substantial risk of detriment, terminated reunification services, and set the matter for a selection and implementation hearing pursuant to section 366.26. DISCUSSION “We review the juvenile court’s finding of detriment for substantial evidence. [Citations.] Under that standard we inquire whether the evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports the court’s determination. We resolve all conflicts in support of the determination, indulge all legi