M.G. v. Super. Ct. CA4/2

Filed 11/13/26 M.G. v. Super. Ct. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO M.G., Petitioner, E089273 v. (Super.Ct.No. J304572) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF OPINION SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent; SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Real Party in Interest. ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Steven A. Mapes, Judge. Petition denied. Thomas E. Shinton for Petitioner M.G. No appearance for Respondent. Laura Feingold, County Counsel, and Joseph R. Barrell, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. 1  I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner M.G. (Mother) seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s orders issued at a 12-month review hearing (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.21, subd. (f))1 setting a section 366.26 hearing for January 7, 2027, as to her three-year-old child, K.M. Mother seeks a writ directing the juvenile court to vacate its order terminating Mother’s reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing and order that Mother receive an additional six-months of reunification services and set a permanency review hearing under section 366.22. Mother contends that (1) there was insufficient evidence to terminate her services at the 12-month review hearing; (2) the juvenile court applied the wrong legal standard; (3) the court’s order rests on written findings that the record refutes; and (4) the court’s remaining reasons terminating her services do not independently sustain the order.2 We find no error in the juvenile court’s orders and deny the petition on the merits. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The family came to the attention of the San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) on May 15, 2025, after a referral was received alleging general 1 All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated. 2 C.H. (Father) Father joins but provides no additional arguments. 2 neglect and emotional abuse of then two-year-old K.M. According to the referral, Mother and Father got into a physical altercation in K.M.’s presence after drinking alcohol at a friend’s home and both parents suffered injuries. The reporting party noted the domestic violence was mutual and a constant occurrence especially when the parents were drunk. Father was arrested and Mother was at the hospital. Both parents had marks and bruises, and both were intoxicated. K.M. was with the maternal grandparents. Father had recent prior domestic violence and driving under the influence (DUI) arrests. It appeared to the reporting party that Father started the fight. CFS met Mother and the maternal grandfather at the maternal grandfather’s home. The maternal stepgrandmother was also present. The maternal grandfather reported that this was the third time Mother was hospitalized due to domestic violence and that the parents engaged in domestic violence when they were intoxicated and when they were sober. The maternal grandfather believed Father was the aggressor and reported that Mother had been in other domestic violence relationships. Father was an alcoholic and used other substances. Mother reported that during the current incident, she, Father, and K.M. were in the backseat of their friend’s car and were “pretty drunk.” She did not remember much of the incident except that she and Father started arguing and “all of a sudden getting punched in the face.” Mother noted that the domestic violence began in 2022 and was ongoing. Mother confirmed that the domestic violence occurs when the parents are intoxicated and sober. She understood that the relationship was unsafe and unhealthy, but it was difficult to leave. She did not have a plan to leave and “no idea” what to do. She 3 did not have a job, care, or license which made it difficult for her to leave. She contacted the maternal great-grandmother because she was having a mental breakdown and was unhappy about her life and relationship. She stated that she struggled with her mental health and believed Father did as well. She reported that Father smoked marijuana and used cocaine. She believed he was under the influence of cocaine during the domestic violence incident. She noted that the paternal grandmother and paternal aunt used methamphetamine. CFS observed bruising and swelling on the left side of Mother’s face and eye. She also had a swollen and cut bottom lip and was missing a front tooth. Mother said the injuries were from the current domestic violence incident. K.M. was unable to be interviewed because of his age. When he woke up, he wanted to be held by Mother. CFS was unable to interview Father because he was incarcerated. K.M. was detained from the parents on May 15, 2025, pursuant to a detention warrant and placed with a maternal great-aunt, Ms. A., that same day. The maternal grandparents were not appropriate for emergency placement due to criminal history. On May 19, 2025, CFS filed a petition on behalf of K.M. pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect). The petition alleged 11 different allegations under subdivision (b), based on domestic violence between the parents, the parents’ substance abuse, the parents’ untreated mental health problems, and Father’s extensive criminal history. The detention hearing was held on May 20, 2025. The parents were present and denied the allegations in the petition. The juvenile court found a prima facie basis that 4 K.M. came within section 300 and formally detained K.M. The court ordered the parents to drug test and informed them that a missed test would be deemed a positive test. The court provided the parents with supervised visits once per week for two hours separately and pre-dispositional services. On June 2, 2025, the court granted Father’s counsel’s request to withdraw from the case, and new counsel was appointed for him. When interviewed on June 2, 2025, Mother acknowledged that she and Father got into a physical altercation on May 15, 2025, while heavily intoxicated. During the incident, Mother, Father, and their friends were drinking. Mother noted that the male friend was a good father and asked why Father was not like him. Father then began to “wail[] on her.” The male friend attempted to intervene while driving. Eventually, he asked Father to get out of the car and Father did. Mother said that during the altercation, Father knocked out her tooth, caused her to sustain bruises, swollen eyes, and a split lip, among other injuries. She disclosed that domestic violence was an ongoing issue and began early on in her relationship with Father. Mother noted that Father struck and beat her while she was pregnant on numerous occasions, and described Father as abusive and “very violent.” Father’s use of alcohol and other substances exacerbate his anger issues and many of the parents’ altercation occur while the parents were intoxicated. However, they were not always intoxicated when they fought. Mother reaffirmed that she struggled to leave him because she was “totally dependent on him.” Father did not permit Mother to work or teach her how to drive. She claimed that she was no longer in a relationship with Father and was seeking a restraining 5 order. Mother was in another domestic violence relationship when she was 16 years old. She ended up in the hospital several times because of the abuse her former partner perpetrated on her. Mother acknowledged using marijuana and alcohol but said she stopped after the incident reflected in the referral. She knew that Father used marijuana and drank alcohol and recently began to use cocaine in the couple’s bedroom. She noted that Father left paraphernalia and cocaine residue in places easily accessible to K.M. Mother disclosed a history of substance use including marijuana, alcohol, and cocaine. She reported being sober for three weeks. She explained that she dealt with depression as a teenager but received therapy and it was no longer an issue. Mother was unaware of Father having a mental health diagnosis but suspected he had a mental health issue. Mother was candid, remorseful, and willing to work with CFS to address the issue that led to CFS involvement. She took accountability for the issue that led to K.M.’s removal. Father confirmed the current domestic violence incident in the referral but said he was heavily intoxicated and did not remember much. He also confirmed K.M. was in the back of the car with them during the incident. He disclosed there were two domestic violence incidents between Mother and himself. He was also intoxicated during those incidents. He was aware of Mother’s mental health issues from when she was a teenager but did not observe any current symptoms of mental health. He denied having any mental health issues. He confirmed being arrested twice for domestic violence but described his DUIs as “traffic stops.” Father’s criminal record revealed four arrests for domestic violence and battery during the parents’ relationship. CFS concluded that 6 Father minimized the domestic violence between the parents and his substance abuse issue. K.M. was adjusting well to Ms. A.’s home but she anticipated K.M. would reside with her temporarily pending assessment of the maternal grandparents. CFS did not have a recommendation ready for the court because it was still trying to get police reports and conduct collateral interviews. On April 10, 2024, Mother filed a temporary restraining order in family court restraining Father. She, however, failed to show at the hearing, and the temporary restraining order was vacated. On June 24, 2025, Mother filed a request for a temporary restraining order restraining in juvenile dependency court. The juvenile court issued the temporary restraining order and set a hearing date for July 15, 2025. On July 15, 2025, Mother’s counsel informed the court that Mother no longer wished to pursue the restraining order against him. Ms. A. later informed CFS that she was overwhelmed caring for her biological children and K.M. She requested K.M. be removed “as soon as possible” from her home and placed with the maternal grandparents. After a team meeting, K.M. was placed with maternal great-grandmother. CFS requested the police report twice but were told it was “not finished.” On June 30, 2025, CFS followed up a third time with law enforcement and were informed the police report would be emailed. CFS requested contact information for the parents’ 7 friends who witnessed the domestic violence incident in the referral. Neither Mother nor Father provided the contact information for their friends. Mother tested positive for marijuana on May 20, June 6, and June 24, 2025 and missed a drug test on June 18, 2025. Father tested positive for marijuana on May 20, June 11, and June 24, 2025, and missed a drug test on June 25, 2025. The prognosis for Mother was “fair” and the prognosis for Father was “guarded.” Mother acknowledged and took responsibility for the issues that led to removal. Father appeared to minimize the severity of his substance abuse and domestic violence issues. CFS recommended that the allegations related to the parents’ mental health be dismissed and that all other allegations be found true. CFS further recommended that K.M. be removed from parental custody and the parents be provided with reunification services. At the July 1, 2025, further jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the parties agreed to set the matter for mediation. At mediation the parties came to a full agreement. CFS agreed to dismiss the allegations related to the parents’ mental health. The parents submitted on the allegations related to the domestic violence, substance abuse, and Father’s criminal history. The parents agree to reunification services. Mother and Father agreed to participate in individual counseling, parenting, anger management, domestic violence treatment, outpatient substance abuse treatment, and random drug testing. Visitation was to be a minimum of two hours, supervised per week and the parents were to visit separately. On July 15, 2025, CFS reported that the maternal grandfather had “an extensive criminal and CFS history” including child abuse related criminal charges and the 8 maternal grandparents’ home might not meet the approval requirements. Mother missed a drug test on July 3, 2025, and tested negative for all substances on July 7, 2025. Father missed two drug tests because he did not have a ride. He was advised he could request a bus pass. CFS had yet to receive the police reports. On July 15, 2025, Mother and Father submitted waiver of rights forms pleading no contest based on the mediated agreement, which the court accepted. At the hearing, the parties agreed that the anger management component would be removed from Mother’s case plan and that she would be “put [ ] in the appropriate domestic violence course.” The court adopted the mediated agreement with the new amendments and set a six-month review hearing for January 15, 2026. In its six month status review report, CFS noted Mother was employed full-time, had transportation, and had stable, suitable housing. She completed her domestic violence classes on September 16, 2025. She learned that red flags in a domestic violence relationship included controlling everything, belittling comments, being aggressive physically, and screaming. She also learned about the “honeymoon stage” and “love dumping,” and how to complete a safety plan and how to file a restraining order but had not done either yet. Mother also completed her parenting classes on September 16, 2025. During those classes, she learned about finding a safe space, the effects on a child of growing up in a chaotic environment, how to effectively communicate with K.M., and to control your body language and voice when talking to a child. She enrolled in the Inland Behavioral & Health Services (IBHS) outpatient drug treatment program on June 18, 2025, and was expected to complete the program sometime in February 2026. 9 Mother still needed to submit her sponsor letter and complete her Narcotics Anonymous (NA) meetings. She reported that she was able to maintain sobriety by “making it a choice” and no longer had the urge to use marijuana. She no longer had contact with the friends that encouraged her to “smoke weed,” and attended NA meetings two to three times a week via Zoom and had a sponsor named Cindy. She would talk to Cindy if she got the urge to use marijuana again. Mother missed three drug tests on July 2025, October 2025, and December 29, 2025. She, however, tested negative ten times—twice in July 2025, twice in August 2025, twice in September 2025, once in October 2025, twice in November 2025, and once in December 2025. Mother completed her individual counseling on August 19, 2025. Father completed his anger management classes and domestic violence classes. He also completed individual counseling, but a progress report had yet to be received. Father had not begun his parenting classes or his outpatient drug treatment program or 12-step program. He missed ten drug tests between July 2025 and December 2025. On October 2, 2026, he tested positive for cocaine. Father informed the social worker he missed drug tests due to transportation issues but would test going forward. Mother visited weekly for two hours and attended all visits with K.M. The visits were appropriate and Mother was attentive to K.M.’s needs. She brought activities, acknowledged his feelings, and was able to redirect him when necessary. Father also visited K.M. weekly for two hours, and his visits were also appropriate. K.M. was later placed with the paternal grandmother which was also a concurrent planning home. The paternal grandmother met K.M.’s needs. CFS reported Mother had nearly completed her 10 case plan components and had made adequate progress. She needed to complete her outpatient program and missed three tests. Under the Assessment of the Current Permanent Plan section of CFS’s report, CFS indicated it did not have concerns about Mother’s ability to maintain K.M. in her care. Under the Detriment & Prognosis of Returning Child Home section of the report, CFS concluded that it would be detrimental to return K.M. to her care. CFS recommended additional services for the parents. CFS also requested authority for Mother to have overnight and weekend visits, as well as a 29- day visit when appropriate. At January 15, 2026, six-month review hearing, the juvenile court provided the parents with additional services and provided Mother with unsupervised visits once per week for two hours. CFS was authorized to liberalize Mother’s visits to overnights and weekends, a 29-day visit, and placement. Father’s visits remained supervised once per week for two hours. The court adopted the case plan as written which now required Mother to participate and complete an outpatient drug treatment program, a 12-step program, and drug testing. The 12-month hearing under section 366.21, subdivision (f) was set for July 14, 2026. By the 12-month review hearing, Mother was employed full-time at two jobs, had reliable transportation, and stable suitable housing. She successfully completed her outpatient drug treatment program on March 19, 2026, and told the social worker she had been sober since the beginning of the case. She had a sponsor and attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) twice a week. During the review period, Mother provided 11 negative 11 drug tests, missed one drug test, and provided one positive drug test for cocaine. A later confirmation test came back negative for cocaine. On April 15, 2026, Mother began overnight and weekend visits. There were no concerns with the visits and Mother was working with a therapist to help with K.M.’s transition. CFS did not have concerns with Mother’s ability to maintain K.M. in her care because she completed her case plan and continued to test negative for all substances. She showed she benefitted from her services by taking accountability for CFS’s involvement and made positive changes in her life such not smoking marijuana. Mother reported that she maintained her sobriety, could identify the red flags in a domestic violence relationship, had housing, a vehicle, and two jobs. CFS recommended Mother receive family maintenance services. CFS acknowledged Father made some progress in his case plan and requested he continue to receive services. He tested negative for substances five times, missed six tests, tested positive for cocaine once, and tested positive for ethanol once. He continued to have supervised visits once per week for two hours and there were no concerns noted during those visits. K.M. was moved again and now resided with the maternal great-grandparents. He was receiving individual therapy for anger issues. The maternal great-grandparents were willing to be a concurrent home if reunification with the parents failed and they were meeting all his needs. On May 29, 2026, CFS received a referral that alleged K.M. reported to his grandmother that he saw Father hit Mother. It happened two weeks prior to the referral. 12 K.M. disclosed that Father was in the car waiting for him and Mother. Mother claimed it was the maternal grandmother in the car, but the maternal grandmother denied she was in Mother’s car. CFS was also concerned that K.M.’s violent behavior increased after returning from Mother’s care. Another referral was received on June 3, 2026, that alleged Mother allowed Father to be present during her unsupervised visits and during the visits there was domestic violence. During the visits, Mother and Father hit each other and argued in K.M.’s presence. It was also reported that there was a domestic violence incident at a grocery store a few weeks before the referral. On June 6, 2026, Mother informed CFS her brother was in the car, and she did not communicate with Father. Mother and K.M. were the only people in the home at the time. On June 9, 2026, the social worker met separately with K.M., Mother, and Father. K.M. said that he went swimming with Mother and Father. Father said that he had not seen Mother or spoken to her in over a year but also disclosed that Mother Facetimed him when K.M. visited with her. He denied seeing Mother or being part of her unsupervised visits. Mother also denied Father was present during her visits with K.M. and believed K.M. was lying as he had done in the past. Mother said she knew it was the therapist who made the report and accused CFS of wanting to keep her case open for a “paycheck.” CFS requested that Mother’s visits revert to supervised pending the outcome of the referral investigations. CFS was concerned about Mother allowing Father to be part of her visits given that CFS was involved with the family, in part, due to domestic violence between them. 13  At a special hearing on June 12, 2026, over Mother’s objection, the court ordered that Mother’s visits revert to supervised and that a visitation monitor be made aware of concerns about “coaching.” The results of the investigation and associated notes were to be provided to all counsel. On June 30, 2026, CFS informed the court that the investigation into the referrals was ongoing. CFS requested Mother’s visits remain supervised pending the outcome of the investigation. CFS also informed the court that Mother tested positive for cocaine on June 10, 2026. Mother claimed she was sober and was unsure how she tested positive. The test was sent for confirmation. The scheduled June 30, 2026, 12-month review hearing was continued with all orders remaining in full force and effect. The parents were ordered to drug test that day. On July 27, 2026, CFS reported it had obtained a May 7, 2026, police report from the Crestline Police Department. According to the police report, an officer responded to a 911 call and conducted a search of a parking lot associated with the Lake Gregory Recreational Park. It was about 11:25 p.m. and the park was closed for overnight parking. During the search, the officer observed Father inhaling nitrous oxide and proceed to the passenger side of a vehicle. When the officer was detaining him, he thrashed about and attempted to flee. Mother was in the driver seat of the vehicle and both were detained. Mother was released at the scene because she did not display signs of being intoxicated. Father was arrested for possession of a nitrous oxide canister with intent to inhale, resisting an officer, being under the influence, and for two active misdemeanor warrants. Mother told the officer that she and Father were spending time at 14 the lake, drinking, and using nitrous oxide. She denied inhaling the nitrous oxide. Mother believed Father called 911 because they were arguing. The officer confirmed that the call to 911 was made from Father’s phone. Initially, Mother told CFS that she was cleaning her home on May 7, 2026. When the social worker confronted Mother with the information in the police report, she admitted she saw Father and said she was embarrassed to inform the social worker. She also stated that she wanted closure with Father and was angry and frustrated that he was under the influence and that she did not want him to be part of her life. CFS also reported that the confirmation test for the June 10, 2026, positive cocaine test came back positive for cocaine. Mother did not know how the test came back positive. She claimed she was sober but also disclosed that she went on a multiday “alcohol binge” because she was frustrated about the referrals and the change in her visitation. She took responsibility for drinking and being around people using substances but denied using substances herself. CFS changed its recommendation and requested that reunification services be terminated. Mother completed her case plan and continued to participate in substance abuse testing but she tested positive for cocaine, presented as not having benefited from services, did not mitigate the circumstances that brought the case to the attention of CFS, and she was not using her coping skills. CFS also noted that Father was not consistently participating in the random drug testing part of his case plan and may have been removed from his outpatient drug treatment program for failing to attend. On September 10, 2026, CFS reported that Mother had provided five negative drug tests in June and July 2026. Mother tested positive for cocaine three more times on 15 July 29, August 12, and August 31, 2026. She informed the social worker she did not use cocaine and tested positive because as an exotic dancer she got paid to have men “do lines on my body.” Mother also tested positive for ethanol in August 2026, and admitted to drinking alcohol. She told the social worker that she had reenrolled in outpatient services and contacted her prior sponsor to avoid relapsing. Mother’s previous sponsor provided a letter attesting to Mother’s prior completion of a substance abuse outpatient program and that Mother applied what she previously learned to her relapse. Mother visited K.M. once per week for two hours, was attentive to his needs, and engaged with him during visits. Father did not make himself available to CFS. He visited with K.M. without concern but left immediately after the visits even though the social worker sought to meet with him. Father missed all seven drug tests he was scheduled for between June and August 2026. The contested 12-month review hearing was on September 10, 2026. At that time, Mother’s prior sponsor testified that she took accountability for “what happened” and intended to return to meetings while waiting for another intake appointment. He believed she reached out to her sponsor and returned to meetings and that she was doing what she was taught to do by taking accountability. Mother’s sponsor stated that the first step to address a relapse would be to acknowledge that one had relapsed and explained that relapse can take place over a number of weeks or months. He believed that Mother was on track for recovery. He also testified that Mother disclosed “a lot of things” about her career choice as a dancer and what was going on at the parties, but he did not dig too deep. He said Mother’s disclosures were made to him on August 7, 2026. However, he 16 stated he did not know what substances Mother used though he did know that drugs and alcohol were used at the parties. Mother also testified. She stated that she started working as an exotic dancer in June 2026 and it affected her sobriety. She testified she was sober for seven or eight months before that and by August 2026, she had enrolled in therapy, had attended 16 AA/NA classes, and was reenrolled in a substance abuse program. She attended her substance abuse program three times per week for an hour and a half each time and that she stopped contacting people in her life that were drinking and stopped dancing as an exotic dancer. She believed this time around she could remain sober. Regarding the incident at the lake, Mother explained Father had asked her for a ride and she picked him up. They had not seen each other since the beginning of the case and pulled over to talk. She wanted to get things off her chest and get closure which she testified she got. She had not been around Father since that time and claimed to attend domestic violence classes. She did not have a restraining order against Father and did not believe she needed one. She explained that domestic violence can be physical, verbal, mental, and emotional. Mother acknowledged that she made mistakes and took responsibility. She testified that she was “extremely bonded” with K.M. and described him as smart and happy at visits. On cross-examination, Mother admitted to using cocaine and alcohol while working as a dancer and when not working. She said she used cocaine and alcohol together and since June used them four times. Mother maintained that K.M. was not telling the truth when he said that he saw Mother and Father fighting in May 2026. She 17 did not recall saying K.M. lied. Mother said she was only in the hospital once due to domestic violence contrary to what was reported by CFS. She agreed she had a pattern of making bad decisions when things got difficult and minimizing her substance abuse. She agreed there were times when she was not forthcoming with CFS. Mother immediately knew Father was intoxicated and picked him up anyway. She drove to the parking lot to talk with Father and get “closure.” The social worker testified that Mother never told her that she used cocaine, only that she allowed men to “do lines” on her body. After hearing testimony and argument, the juvenile court found that Mother regularly and consistent visited K.M. The court then explained the second prong of section 366.21, subdivision (g)(1): “This idea of significant progress is interesting because initially it appears as though that was made, and now we’ve gone backwards, it’s almost like one step forward, and two steps back. So can we say there is overall progress because there was significant progress, but now there’s not. We’ve fallen a few rungs off the ladder. [¶] So the view of the Court is there is not significant progress because progress has to be made and maintained, not just obtained and quick falling off. I think the case you cite is analogous and instructive for sure. I mean, obviously, I would not be looking—we’re not looking for perfect parents. In fact, I’ve heard it said, perfect can be the opposite of good. So we’re not looking for perfect parents. So, we understand the humanity. I understand the humanity of the situation and overcoming struggles emotionally, life, the partners we choose, trying to have an understanding of all things, being young. These things are all very real tangible things that you have to navigate through and overcome and deal with in life, so I’m not insensitive to that. You know, a 18 cliche, but relapse could be for a minute, or it could be for a month or two. I mean, I understand all of that.” As for the third prong whether Mother “demonstrated capacity and ability to complete objectives of the treatment plan and provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional health and special needs,” the juvenile court explained: “That’s also a complicated question to answer in this case because [Mother] initially showed that, but then ultimately she showed that she couldn’t. So she has a capacity for a certain period of time to do something. For example, if she really wanted closure, the appropriate thing would have been to tell the social worker or a counselor. Like, there’s an issue I need to deal with—that’s why we give counseling—related to getting past this relationship to do it the right way. She did this on her own, exposing herself to a high- risk situation again. This man put her in the hospital, and she feels no need for a restraining order, which is also very concerning about her—I don’t know if it’s the ability to forgive or lack of self-awareness or whatever the situation, but there’s a huge disconnect that translates into a risk factor. Whatever is actually going on at the end, it translates to danger, okay, for her, for any child who is with her. She doesn’t perceive of that issue or conceive—she doesn’t catch it. I can’t think of the word. It’s not occurring to her. She is not grasping.” The court also considered Mother’s dishonesty to be a risk factor and found Mother’s testimony to be manipulative and that she was dishonest to herself and others. The court found she lacked credibility and did not know what to believe from her. The court cited Mother’s testimony regarding K.M. as an example where K.M. was honest when it favored her but dishonest when he said something that 19 did not benefit her. The court was “disturbed” by Mother’s prior sponsor’s testimony. The court considered the sponsor to be biased and an advocate and concluded that he came to court to help Mother. The concluded by indicated it would “welcome” a section 388 petition. As for Father, the court concluded that he did not meet prongs two or three “at all.” The court thereafter terminated reunification services for Mother and Father and set a section 366.26 hearing for January 7, 2027. On September 11, 2026, Mother filed a notice of intent to file a writ petition challenging the findings and orders made by the juvenile court at the September 10, 2026, hearing and setting a hearing under section 366.26. III. DISCUSSION Mother contends there was no substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding at the 12-month review hearing that return of K.M. to her care would create a substantial risk of detriment to his safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. She also claims the juvenile court applied the wrong legal standard, the court’s order rests on written findings that the record refutes, and the court’s remaining reasons terminating her services do not independently sustain the order. A. Legal Principles For a parent of a child under three years of age at the time of removal, the statutory scheme for providing reunification services establishes “three distinct periods and three corresponding distinct escalating standards . . . .” (Tonya M. v. Superior Court (2007) 42 Cal.4th 836, 845.) During the first period, from the jurisdictional hearing to 20 the six-month review hearing, services are “afforded essentially as a matter of right,” subject to certain statutory exceptions not relevant here. (Ibid.) During the second period, from the six-month review hearing to the 12-month review hearing, “a heightened showing is required to continue services.” (Ibid.) The juvenile court must continue services only if it finds that “there is a substantial probability that the child . . . may be returned to their parent . . . within 6 months or that reasonable services have not been provided . . . .” (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(3).) During the third and final period, from the 12- month review hearing to the 18-month review hearing, services are “disfavored.” (Tonya M., at p. 845.) The juvenile court shall continue the case “only if it finds that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent” within the extended review period or if it finds reasonable services have not been provided. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1).) In order to find a substantial probability of return, the juvenile court is statutorily required to find that the parent has (1) consistently and regularly contacted and visited with the child; (2) made significant progress in resolving the problems that led to the child’s removal; and (3) demonstrated the capacity and ability to complete his or her treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs. (§ 366.21, subd. (g)(1)(A)-(C).) The 18-month period is calculated from the date the child was initially taken from the physical custody of the parent. (Id., subd. (g)(1).) “The statute explains if these three factors are present, then there was ‘a compelling reason for determining [a permanency hearing] is not in the best interests of the child.’ [Citation.] It recognizes a parent who still poses a risk of 21 detriment at the 12-month hearing could with additional time successfully rehabilitate and reunify. Nevertheless, the Legislature has set a very high hurdle for continuing the case beyond 12 months.” (A.H. v. Superior Court (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1059- 1060.) “By authorizing the continued removal of a child from parental custody based on the risk of either physical detriment or emotional detriment, sections 366.21 and 366.22 focus on the child’s well-being at the time of the review hearing rather than on the initial basis for juvenile court intervention. [Citation.] Thus, while the court must consider the extent the parent has cooperated with the services provided and the efforts the parent has made to correct the problems which gave rise to the dependency [citation], the decision whether to return the child to parental custody depends on the effect that action would have on the physical or emotional well-being of the child.” (In re Joseph B. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 890, 899.) “Hence, the question whether to return a child to parental custody is not governed solely by whether the parent has corrected the problem that required court intervention; rather, the court must consider the effect such return would have on the child.” (Id. at p. 901.) “We review the juvenile court’s finding of detriment for substantial evidence by considering whether the evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports the court’s finding.” (L.C. v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1021, 1034 (L.C.).) In doing so, “ ‘We resolve all conflicts in support of the determination, indulge in all legitimate inferences to uphold the findings and may not substitute our deductions for those of the juvenile court.’ ” (Ibid.) “When determining whether substantial evidence is present, we