In re A.C. CA4/2

Filed 11/9/26 In re A.C. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 In re A.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E087307 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J299487) v. OPINION K.C., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge. Affirmed. Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Laura Feingold, County Counsel, and Joseph R. Barrell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1  I. INTRODUCTION This is appellant K.C.’s (Mother) fifth appeal.1 Mother is the mother of seven children, but only the youngest, two-year-old A.C., is the subject of this appeal.2 A.C., along with his six half siblings, were removed from Mother in December 2023, when Mother abandoned then three-month-old A.C. with his alleged father, D.A., who denied paternity to the child and believed the child was not his. San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) filed a Welfare and Institutions3 Code section 300 petition on behalf of all seven children. The juvenile court found true the allegations in the petition, removed the children from Mother’s custody, and terminated jurisdiction awarding the father of A.C.’s half siblings (R.M.) sole legal and physical custody of A.C.’s half siblings and A.C. was placed with the maternal aunt, Ms. C. 1 In the first appeal, Mother challenged the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders, which were affirmed by this court in case No. E083345. In her second appeal, Mother challenged the juvenile court’s order terminating her reunification services, which was affirmed by this court in case No. E084787. In her third appeal, Mother challenged the juvenile court’s summary denial of her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition requesting family maintenance services. The summary denial of her petition was affirmed by this court in case No. E085751. In her fourth appeal, Mother again challenged the juvenile court’s summary denial of Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition requesting an evidentiary hearing on her third section 388 petition for reinstatement of services. The summary denial of her third section 388 petition was affirmed by this court in case No. E086934. 2 A.C.’s father, D.A., is not a party to this appeal. Mother’s six older children and A.C.’s half siblings, M.M, K.M., N.M., T.M., L.M., A.M., are not subjects of this appeal. R.M. (Father) is the father of the older six children. 3 All future statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated. 2  Six days after that court order, Mother advised CFS that she had regained custody of the six older children and inquired when A.C. would be returned to her as well. CFS once again filed a petition for the older children to resume jurisdiction while the children remained in Father’s custody under the court’s supervision due to concerns regarding his ability to protect them from Mother. After the assumption of jurisdiction, the juvenile court granted Mother reunification services. Six months later in October 2024, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s services but continued family maintenance services for Father.4 Since October 2024, A.C. was removed from maternal aunt Ms. C.’s care and placed in a foster home. Mother filed a section 388 petition in November 2024 asking for reunification services to be reinstated and that CFS be ordered to pay for her psychological evaluation, which was summarily denied by the juvenile court. In March 2025, Mother filed another section 388 petition requesting family maintenance services and attached the psychological evaluation that she finally agreed to undergo. The juvenile court again summarily denied the second section 388 petition, which Mother appealed from. We affirmed the summary denial of her second section 388 petition in case No. E085751. 4 Mother appealed the juvenile court’s order terminating her services to A.C.’s half siblings (case No. E085040). While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court subsequently dismissed the matter and granted R.M. sole legal and physical custody of his children. On March 18, 2025, this court granted CFS’s motion to dismiss Mother’s appeal and ordered her appeal be dismissed as moot. Mother also filed a separate notice of intent to file a writ petition as to A.C. (case No. E084747). However, after failing to file a timely writ petition, Mother’s appeal was dismissed. 3  Mother subsequently filed a third section 388 petition, which the juvenile court summarily denied. Mother again appealed, and we affirmed the order in case No. E086934. Subsequently, Mother filed a notice of appeal challenging the juvenile court’s summary denial of her October 30, 2025, section 388 petition (case No. E087307), the current case.5 Of the three requests Mother made in her October 30, 2025, section 388 petition, she only contends that the court erred in denying her request for a bonding study and seeks an opportunity to litigate the issue at a hearing. Mother insists that her bonding study request be treated as a motion under Evidence Code section 730 instead of part of her section 388 petition. We find that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s current section 388 petition. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND6 A. Initial Dependency Matter The family came to the attention of CFS in December 2023 after Mother left then- three-month-old A.C. in a car seat near his alleged father, D.A., while he was at a police station seeking assistance with a possible restraining order protecting him from Mother. 5 Mother also filed a separate notice of intent to file a writ petition as to A.C. (case No. E088111). However, pursuant to a letter filed by her counsel, the petition was dismissed. On our own motion, we incorporated the records from case No. E088111 with case No. E087307; the appellate records in case Nos. E083345, E084787, and E085751 were incorporated with the record in case No. E086934. 6 The factual and procedural background up until Mother filed her fourth section 388 petition is taken from this court’s unpublished opinion in case No. E086934. 4 Mother had followed D.A. over the past four days, including to court, a gas station, an event for one of D.A.’s other children, and the police station. After D.A. stated A.C. was not his, law enforcement took A.C. into custody. A.C. was transported to Loma Linda University Medical Center (LLUMC). Mother was arrested at LLUMC when she went to claim A.C., and charged with willful/intentional abandonment of a child under 14 years old and child endangerment. Based on exigent circumstances, CFS took A.C. into protective custody and placed him in a foster home while CFS assessed maternal aunt, Ms. C., for placement. A.C. eventually was placed with maternal aunt Ms. C. Mother’s six older children—M.M., K.M., N.M., T.M., L.M., and A.M.—resided with their father. Father reported that he had primary physical custody of the children and that Mother had an undiagnosed bipolar disorder. She had been seen pulling her hair out, having bouts of rage, and vomiting at will. In addition, Mother had attacked Father with a boxcutter in the presence of the children, and Mother had attacked and robbed a woman of her cell phone. Father denied any substance abuse and reported Mother used marijuana on occasion. Father noted that he had been in a relationship with Mother for over 16 years off and on with Mother leaving and returning months later. M.M. reported that he resided on and off with Father since March 2023 but mostly with Father. He visited with Mother from time to time but not overnight. He denied any abuse by either parent and denied witnessing any domestic violence between the parents or any illegal activity by Mother or Father. K.M. reported that he lived with Father and wanted to stay with him. He also denied any abuse and reported there was no mental 5 health, substance abuse, or domestic violence in the home. The social worker observed that K.M. had a speech impediment and had to ask him questions several times and in different ways for him to understand. Father confirmed that K.M. had a speech impediment. T.M. reported living mostly with Father. He also had a speech impediment and was hard to understand. T.M. reported seeing Mother attack Father with a boxcutter and cutting him several times on the chest. He noted that he had seen Mother attack Father multiple times and had not observed Father ever hit Mother. He denied any type of abuse in the home. All three older children reported feeling safe in Father’s home. Because the interviews of Father and the three older children occurred around 2:00 a.m., the other three children refused to get up and were not interviewed. After being bailed out of jail, Mother spoke with the social worker. She denied the allegations in the referral and claimed that she and D.A. had set up to exchange A.C. for visitation at the police station. She asserted that D.A. was denying paternity because he had a new girlfriend. She believed the social worker was biased because the worker did not collect all the information. Mother provided the contact information for D.A., but the social worker was unable to reach him. Child welfare history searches revealed histories for Mother, Father, and D.A. Searches also revealed criminal histories for Mother and D.A. A family law court minute order revealed that Father had requested a restraining order on August 18, 2023, protecting him from Mother. Another minute order from family law court showed Mother had requested a restraining order on July 25, 2023, protecting her from Father. A 6 third family law minute order addressed Father’s request for custody, visitation, and domestic violence issues filed on October 18, 2023. The first two minute orders showed that testimony was taken, and the matters were continued. The third showed testimony was taken but the family law court was unable to make a record because Mother was being argumentative with the court and the matter was continued to February 27, 2024. On December 26, 2023, CFS filed petitions on behalf of all seven children pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect) and (g) (no provision for support). The petitions alleged that Mother created an unsafe and unstable lifestyle and lacked knowledge and parenting skills; Mother participated in domestic violence; Mother had untreated and undiagnosed mental health issues; Mother abandoned A.C.; D.A. failed to supervise and protect A.C.; D.A. abandoned A.C.; A.C. was left without provisions for support because Mother was incarcerated; and A.C. was left without provision for support because D.A.’s whereabouts were unknown. No allegations were filed against Father. Mother and Father were present at the December 27, 2023, detention hearing. D.A. was not present. A one-day continuance was granted for the six older children to be present. A.C. was detained from Mother and D.A. The six older children were detained from Mother and remained in Father’s custody. Mother was ordered to drug test. At the further detention hearing, Mother’s counsel informed the court that she attempted to drug test yesterday but her name was not on the list. The juvenile court formally detained all seven children from Mother and A.C. from D.A. The court ordered 7 the six older children to remain with Father. Mother was provided with supervised visitation once a week for two hours. The court intended to order Mother to drug test again, but while it was making the findings, Mother left the courtroom. On January 17, 2024, CFS filed amended section 300 petitions on behalf of the children. The petitions modified the domestic violence allegation to read that Mother had a pattern and history of engaging in domestic violence and added an allegation that Mother had a substance abuse problem. CFS recommended dismissing the allegations that Mother had untreated and undiagnosed mental health issues and that A.C. was left without provisions for support because Mother was incarcerated. CFS also recommended that all other allegations in the amended section 300 petitions be found true, that Mother be provided with reunification services, and that the six older children remain with Father and dependency dismissed in their cases with family law orders. Mother acknowledged that in 2014 or 2015 she was arrested and convicted for assaulting Father but did not want to discuss the matter further as it occurred about 10 years ago. She completed her probation through the Substance Abuse Treatment and Reentry Program (STAR) in Oklahoma where she and the children resided from 2015 to 2020, but she was unable to obtain the certificate of completion. When asked how she benefited from the program, Mother said it was helpful and she learned to recognize unhealthy situations and leave before it got toxic. Mother noted her relationship with Father was unhealthy. Mother and Father got back together again in 2020 and lived together with the children in Colorado. They remained together for about 8 two more years. She denied any subsequent domestic violence incidents with Father and noted if there were any disagreements, Father would sleep on the couch. She added that Father was arrested for driving under the influence in Oklahoma. Mother denied the allegation that she maintained an unstable and unsafe lifestyle and that she lacked knowledge and parenting skills because the children lived with her the entire time in Oklahoma and most of the time in Colorado. She also stated that the children lived with her the majority of the time in 2023. Mother denied the allegation that she abandoned A.C. She explained that she left A.C. at the police station with D.A. because it was a prearranged custody exchange. The plan was for A.C. to stay with D.A. for a day or two and for her to pick him up sometime before Christmas. She also said she met D.A. in public prior to the police station incident so he could spend time with A.C. She denied she ever followed D.A. to his other child’s event and denied stalking D.A. When she was contacted by the police and told that D.A. denied A.C. was his child, she sent her friend to pick him up from the police station, but the friend was told to go home. She asserted that if she knew D.A. was going to do something like that, she would not have left A.C. with D.A. Mother also denied being diagnosed or assessed for any mental health issues or being prescribed any medications for mental health or having any problems with her mental health. She claimed Father always stated she had “ ‘undiagnosed bipolar.’ ” When Father was interviewed, he said he was “ ‘not surprised’ ” by Mother’s behavior of abandoning A.C. and that Mother was “ ‘just crazy.’ ” He reiterated Mother attacked him 9 with a boxcutter in 2014. He also reported that Mother had “ ‘keyed’ ” his car multiple times, that she “ ‘goes off,’ ” and that she does “ ‘scandalous stuff,’ ” such as stealing from him, “ ‘coming home pregnant by men,’ ” and “ ‘tear[ing] up’ ” his property. Father noted that while they were living in Colorado, Mother “ ‘got mad and jealous and up and left’ ” for two months and did not contact him or their children. When she returned, she “ ‘emptied the house’ ” and took the children to California while he was at work. The children called Father and told him to come to California. After moving back to California, Mother went to jail for felony robbery and possession of a firearm. He bailed her out and the family resided together in a hotel from December 2022 to March 2023. In March, Father found out Mother was pregnant, and they separated again. A court ordered the parents to have joint custody. Soon thereafter Mother went to jail for three months and the children resided with Father. In October 2023, Mother dropped the children off with Father and did not return for a month because she could not afford the children. Father claimed Mother then forged his signature and was awarded sole custody of the children in November 2023. The children stayed with Mother for three weeks until the events that led to this case in December 2023. Father said he was the only stable parent in the children’s lives, explaining Mother would leave for a period of time, come back, and try to buy the children things to make them forget what she did. Father denied knowledge of substance abuse by Mother. N.M. did not disclose any issues at Mother’s home and felt safe with Mother. She denied she was ever present when her parents did not get along and denied ever seeing 10 her parents use any drugs. She did not believe Mother would leave A.C. at the police station in the manner described and denied the allegations against Mother. K.M. reported that he heard his parents argue on the phone, but Father would step outside when it happened. He denied any domestic violence between his parents or seeing Mother acting strange in any way. K.M. felt safe at Mother’s home. M.M. said he saw his parents argue three years ago but never observed anything physical. T.M. also denied ever seeing his parents get angry around the children. Both T.M. and M.M. reported feeling safe in Mother’s home. The day after his interview in January 2024, Father showed a video recording to CFS which he claimed depicted Mother breaking into his car and going through it. CFS was unable to identify Mother, but the video showed it was Father’s residence and Mother’s car parked behind Father’s vehicle. Father was not home during the incident, but M.M. called him to let him know Mother was at the apartment. Father said Mother broke into the apartment through a window looking for money she believed he stole from her because he had reported to county welfare that the children primarily resided with him. Father claimed Mother stole a printer from his home. He called the police to report the incident and stated feeling “ ‘unsafe about the whole situation.’ ” When asked about the incidents, Mother denied ever going to Father’s apartment. Mother submitted to a random drug test which was positive for cocaine and marijuana. Mother knew it would be positive for marijuana but denied knowing why it was positive 11 for cocaine. CFS submitted a referral for a confirmation test and for another on-demand test. A Department of Justice inquiry yielded several arrests and/or convictions for Mother from 2005 to 2023 excluding the charges related to this case. There was one arrest for use/under the influence of a controlled substance and several charges from 2010 to 2014 for corporal injury to a spouse. In 2015, Mother was sentenced to two years in prison for assault with a deadly weapon. In 2022 and 2023, she was arrested for robbery and possession of a firearm. Father’s criminal history revealed charges for corporal injury to a spouse/cohabitant in 2007 and assault with a firearm in 2008, each of which was dismissed. Father admitted to being on probation in Oklahoma in 2015 due to a driving under the influence conviction. A search of Mother and Father’s child welfare history revealed four prior referrals. A referral from September 2023 alleged that Mother was selling “crack cocaine” in downtown Victorville while the children were in the car. It was also reported that Mother stole Father’s firearm from his home in Colorado and then used it to commit a robbery in California. It was also reported that Mother tried to kill Father in front of the children and that Mother cooked crack cocaine in the home using the microwave while the children were present. It was further reported that Mother cooked crack cocaine in other people’s homes while she was pregnant and that she had a history of abandoning the children for months at a time. In one incident, Mother had dropped the children at a paternal relatives’ homes and left them there for two months while she was still 12 breastfeeding A.M. There were also allegations that Mother smoked marijuana and used cocaine. The referral was closed as inconclusive because CFS was unable to locate the family. A referral from February 2023 alleged that Mother cooked crack cocaine in front of the children and sold drugs. It also alleged that Mother and Father used methamphetamine, Mother left the children for long periods of time, and Mother was on the run and had felonies. This referral was also closed as inconclusive because CFS was unable to locate the family. A referral from August 2014 alleged physical abuse of N.M. that was closed as inconclusive because the child denied any abuse by the parents and Father was being protective of the children and was working on not allowing the children to fight or hurt themselves. A referral from July 2011 alleged that Mother attacked Father with a shovel and that the parents were always fighting. The referral was closed as inconclusive because CFS was unable to locate the family. CFS attempted to locate D.A. but was unsuccessful in contacting him. D.A. had an extensive criminal history related to theft and drug-related charges. D.A. also had a prior child welfare history related to his other children, but they were not substantiated or inconclusive. CFS concluded it would be detrimental for the children to be in Mother’s care and recommended they be removed from her custody. CFS listed several concerns, including her failure to provide documentation of her completed domestic violence class, a lack of 13 benefiting from the program as evidenced by breaking into Father’s apartment while M.M. was there and breaking into Father’s car, and denial of substance abuse issues despite testing positive for cocaine and marijuana. CFS noted Mother had a pattern of damaging Father’s property when she became upset and that her behavior continued to show a pattern of coercive control that met the definition of domestic violence. Mother also demonstrated a pattern of abruptly leaving for extended periods without contacting the children. As a result, CFS recommended the children remain in Father’s care under family law orders. In contrast to Mother, CFS explained that Father was protective of the children, the children were bonded to him, and he was employed. Father attempted to get a restraining order against Mother in August 2023 and he appeared to have appropriate living arrangements and a support system. At the initial jurisdictional/dispositional hearing on January 18, 2024, the juvenile court set the matter for mediation. Mother’s counsel entered a general denial to the allegations in the amended section 300 petitions and represented that her position was to have the children returned to her under the prior family law order. During the hearing, after setting the matter for mediation, Mother spoke directly to the court stating there were no reasonable efforts to prevent removal. When told by the court to “stop talking” and that she was “not helping herself,” she responded “No,” and told the court she was “not talking to [her] attorney.” When told by the court that she was talking too loudly and communications with her attorney are supposed to be confidential, she responded by saying to the court, “sorry you’re offended.” Mother then walked out of the courtroom. 14  The January 30, 2024, mediation report indicated there was no agreement between the parties. CFS continued to recommend the dismissal of the allegations that Mother had untreated and undiagnosed mental health issues and that A.C. was left without provisions for support because Mother was incarcerated. Mother wanted family maintenance with all of her children and contested the dismissal of the cases of the six oldest children with custody to Father. On February 2, 2024, CFS informed the court that a 10-day referral was called into the hotline in which it was reported that on January 22, 2024, N.M. called her mother to pick her up from Father because “ ‘my dad just put hands on me.’ ” Mother called law enforcement who responded to the home and reported that N.M. would remain with Father. It was also reported that Father was not taking the children to school. The children, Father, and maternal aunt K.C. were interviewed. N.M. reported that her father kept pushing her, that father’s niece choked her, and her neck was red, and she had a cut on her finger. N.M. had been staying at the maternal aunt’s home with Father’s permission since the incident. M.M., K.M., and T.M. denied the reports that Father pushed N.M. and said that N.M. was being “disrespectful” to Father. They also denied that Father’s niece choked N.M., explaining Father’s niece had to pull N.M. off T.M. because she was trying to take his cellphone. The law enforcement calls for service to the home regarding the incident indicated, in contrast to N.M.’s statements, that she had no injuries. The referral remained open but would likely be closed as inconclusive. 15  CFS informed the court of other calls for service to the home. On May 5, 2023, it was reported that Father was receiving death threats via email from Mother for testifying against her. A police report from the same day noted that Father’s home was burglarized, and Father believed it was Mother. A police report filed on August 1, 2023, reported that Father’s home was burglarized again and Father again suspected it was Mother. On October 2, 2023, it was reported that Mother attempted to get into the home through a broken window. On October 21, 2023, it was reported that there were no child safety concerns noted but Father discussed on-going issues with Mother breaking into the home, vandalizing his vehicle, and that he suspected her of damaging the mirror of his rental vehicle. On October 29, 2023, Father reported that Mother violated the custody agreement and intended to take one of the children and not return her. On November 4, 2023, Father reported that Mother took the phones he bought for the children and threatened to sell them. On January 4, 2024, Father reported that he had a restraining order against Mother and his son reported she was trying to get into the apartment. CFS also reported that Mother’s drug test from January 11, 2024, was positive for marijuana. The contested jurisdictional/dispositional hearing was held on February 6, 2024. Mother was not present in court, even though she set the matter contested. The matter proceeded by argument. Mother’s counsel argued as follows: “I’m going to object for the record. I have no affirmative evidence. My client was interviewed by the social worker, so her statements are included in the reports. [¶] As far as the family law order, I would ask for joint legal custody if it’s not there already.” The children’s counsel 16 submitted on CFS’s recommendations and argued that Father should be awarded sole legal custody. Counsel did not believe Mother could coparent based on her behavior in court and added that ordering joint legal custody would create unnecessary friction if Father had to cooperate with Mother. CFS’s counsel joined in the children’s counsel’s arguments. The juvenile court dismissed Mother’s mental health allegation and the allegation that A.C. was left without provisions for support because Mother was incarcerated and found true the remaining allegations. As for the disposition of the six older children, the court removed the children from Mother’s custody, maintained them with Father as their primary residence, granted sole legal and physical custody of the children to Father, and terminated their dependency cases. The court awarded full custody to Father based on the arguments made by the children’s counsel. Mother was provided with supervised visits with the children once a week for two hours with additional days and times by mutual agreement monitored by Father’s delegate or a professional monitor. The basis for supervised visits was Mother’s failure to complete a drug treatment program with random testing, a domestic violence treatment program, anger management training, parenting classes, and individual counseling. Regarding A.C., the juvenile court declared A.C. a dependent of the court, found D.A. to be an alleged father not entitled to services, and ordered reunification services and supervised visitation once a week for two hours for Mother. Mother’s case plan consisted of anger management classes, domestic 17 violence classes, parenting classes, individual counseling, a drug treatment program, and random drug testing. After Mother appealed from the jurisdictional and dispositional findings, we affirmed the juvenile court’s judgment. (In re A.C., et al. (Oct. 23, 2024, E083345) [nonpub. opn.].) B. Second Dependency On February 15, 2024, six days after the court terminated jurisdiction, Mother reported to CFS that she obtained custody of the children in family law court, and she inquired when then one-year-old A.C. would come home. Mother reported that she and Father went to family law court, and they were issued new custody orders. Mother believed she could get custody of her children after the case was closed. When the social worker asked Mother how she had mitigated the concerns which led to the initial removal of her children, Mother did not know what concerns CFS referred to. When the social worker advised her of the issues related to domestic violence and substance abuse, Mother denied being involved in domestic violence and “she did not know what happened for her to have a dirty test.” CFS was unable to contact Father. CFS obtained a detention warrant to temporarily remove the children from Mother and Father. On February 22, 2024, CFS found Mother and Father at Mother’s home. A social worker saw three of the children walking around the neighborhood upon arrival, but later the children were determined to be missing from the area once police detained Mother for questioning and started investigating the scene. Five children were found at a neighbor’s 18 home and then 15-year-old M.M. was found walking around the neighborhood. CFS tried to interview Mother at her home, but she refused to talk to CFS. When asked if she had any Native American ancestry, Mother replied “ ‘[n]o one wants to work for the devil’ ” and “ ‘[g]et out of my face.’ ” Father said that he had been supervising Mother’s visits. The parents later informed CFS that they went to family law court on February 13, 2024, intending to file for joint 50/50 custody and the family law court advised them to work out an agreement. The parents noted that they went to family law court to get a court date for their case. The parents reported being confused about what steps they needed to take regarding changing the custody orders. The parents denied that Father had left the children alone with Mother. The parents also denied domestic violence between them aside “one isolated incident” 10 years ago. Then 14-year-old K.M. reported that he would see Mother “pretty often with my dad.” He did not know why Mother would report that Father had left the children alone with her. Then 12-year-old N.M. said she lived with both parents. She stated that Mother “breaks” her “stuff,” that the parents were “always upset with each other,” that she wanted Mother to stop “breaking her stuff,” and that she did not want to go with Mother as she thought it was best for her that she not go with her. N.M. believed Mother reported that Father left the children with her because “she wanted to take us from him,” that Father did not leave the children with Mother and that Mother “needs to see a therapist.” Then 10-year-old T.M. said his visits with Mother lasted “20 minutes and 19 then we leave after that.” He did not know why Mother would say Father had dropped the children off at her home and denied sleeping at Mother’s house. M.M. reported that Father had brought him to Mother’s home that day but was not left alone with Mother. He noted that Mother would say Father dropped off the children with her because “she was just mad.” He denied being left alone with Mother and said Mother was “mad” at Father and “they got into it and she lied.” M.M. said Mother lies when the parents are “mad at each other.” On February 26, 2024, CFS filed petitions on behalf of the children pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect). The petitions alleged that Mother created an unsafe and unstable lifestyle and lacked knowledge and parenting skills; Mother participated in domestic violence; Mother had untreated and undiagnosed mental health issues; Mother abandoned A.C.; and that Mother had a substance abuse problem. CFS recommended that the children return to Father because the children denied that they were not alone with Mother. CFS also requested that the court order the parents not to discuss the case with the children, as on at least two occasions, Mother was observed to tell the children in front of CFS staff that they do not have to speak to CFS because CFS would “twist” their words. In addition, during an attempted meeting with the family on February 22, 2024, both parents pressured the children to disclose what they told CFS and told them social workers would “twist” what they say. The parents also encouraged the children to refuse to speak to CFS. 20  At the detention hearing, the children remained detained from Mother and were released to Father’s custody. During the hearing, Mother interrupted the court three times and asked the court why she could not be around her children. By the jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, CFS recommended that the children remain with Father with family maintenance services. Father reported recent problems with Mother, as he believed Mother broke the windows of his vehicle on February 27, 2024. Father believed Mother did this so he could not transport himself to court. Father noted Mother had damaged his car “several times before.” On February 27, 2024, Mother advised CFS that she had a domestic violence warrant against Father. Father denied having a warrant and reported that he verified Mother’s claim with the sheriff’s department. On February 29, 2024, Mother informed CFS that Father was selling drugs. Father reported that Mother was “crazy” and that she was saying things that were untrue. Father said he understood CFS’s concerns with Mother that she continued to pose a risk to the children, since although she had participated in some services she appeared not to have benefitted. Father believed Mother had a mental health disorder and that she was angry about the situation with D.A., the father of A.C. N.M. reported that she thought Mother needed to see a therapist because of the “stuff” Mother was doing. N.M. said the “stuff” was the “stuff that got us here.” CFS attempted to interview Mother, but Mother refused to communicate with the social worker. CFS determined that the Structured Decision-Making Risk Assessment 21 for the family was “very high.” CFS noted that in the prior case, Mother was open to participating in services, but now Mother was uncooperative and stated she did not believe she needed to take the domestic violence classes. CFS opined that Mother did not benefit from her classes as she continued “to engage in domestic violence behaviors including breaking into the father’s apartment while the child M.M. was home and breaking into the father’s car.” CFS also pointed out that Mother had a “pattern of abruptly leaving for extended periods of time with no contact with her children” and that Mother denied any substance use other than marijuana despite testing positive for cocaine on December 29, 2023. CFS recommended that Mother’s case plan include a domestic violence program, counseling, anger management, parenting education program, substance abuse testing, and an outpatient drug program. At the March 19, 2024, jurisdictional/dispositional hearing, Mother failed to appear. Mother’s counsel objected to the allegations. The children’s counsel argued that there was a “significant amount of information that shows Mother’s erraticism” and requested that the court order a psychological evaluation. CFS’s counsel agreed that Mother’s case plan should include a psychological evaluation as it would be in the children’s best interest since “we had another case involving erratic behavior from Mom and that Mother’s erratic behavior also helped bring the case back before the court again” and “we need to get to the bottom” of Mother’s mental health issues. The juvenile court found true all the allegations in the petitions and ordered that Mother’s case plan include a psychological evaluation, a domestic violence program, individual counseling, an anger 22 management program, a parenting education program, substance abuse testing, and an outpatient drug program. The court maintained custody of the children with Father. By the six-month review hearing CFS recommended that Mother continue with her services while continuing family maintenance services to Father. Father reported trying to schedule supervised visits with Mother, but he was unsuccessful because Mother’s lack of follow through. Father also stated that Mother made threats towards him