In re E.A. CA2/6

Opinion

Filed 8/25/26 In re E.A. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re E.A. et al., Persons 2d Juv. No. B350777 Coming Under the Juvenile (Super. Ct. No. 23JD-00155) Court Law. (San Luis Obispo County)

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. I.M., Defendant and Appellant.

I.M., mother, appeals the juvenile court’s visitation orders after a permanent plan of dependency guardianship was ordered for her three children. We will affirm. SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS In June 2023, the Department initiated dependency proceedings after the mother and newborn C.A. tested positive for amphetamine. Petitions were also filed for mother’s three older children – Is.A. (then 16 years old), E.A. (then 9 years old), and Iy.A. (then 1 year old) – due, in part, to mother’s unresolved substance abuse issues and repeated positive drug tests for amphetamine and methamphetamine. Mother received both family maintenance and reunification services, but she failed to participate regularly and did not make substantive progress in the court-ordered treatment plans and her services were terminated. Before termination of services, mother regularly attended her court ordered supervised visits with the children on average seven to eight times each month. She was generally loving and attentive, although there was an incident where she used her eldest child to secretly provide a cell phone to E.A. and then denied having done so. After reunification services were terminated in June 2024 the court ordered that visits be gradually reduced to occur once a month for one hour pending the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, selection and implementation hearing.1 During the time reunification services were offered the three youngest children had multiple placements.2 C.A., who was originally detained at birth, had four placements, and E.A. and Iy.A. had three. All three children were eventually placed together in June 2024 with a caregiver who was willing to adopt them. At a contested section 366.26 hearing in January 2025, the court terminated mother’s parental rights. The court ordered 1 Undesignated statutory citations are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 The oldest child, Is.A. was living separately from her siblings and turned 18 years old in July 2024.

2 that the children and parents receive three final visits. The last of these visits occurred in April 2025. After the visit, C.A. and Iy.A. transitioned easily to the prospective adoptive parent showing no signs of distress. E.A., ten years old at the time, stated she was very sad and would miss her parents. After this last visit, E.A. became more affectionate and closer to her prospective adoptive family, participating more in family life and demonstrating more attachment. In August 2025, the Department reported a legal impediment prevented the children’s caregiver from adopting the children. Because the Department did not believe it would be in the children’s best interest to move them from their current home it requested and the juvenile court granted an order vacating the order terminating the parents’ rights.3 The court reappointed counsel for the parents, set a new selection and implementation hearing and granted the Department discretion to allow visits between the children and the parents. At the selection and implementation hearing in November 2025 guardianship with the current caregiver was the proposed permanent plan. Mother requested the court order a return to the visitation schedule that existed before her rights were terminated – supervised visits once a month for one hour. The Department recommended the parents have only one visit every six months. The social worker’s report stated although E.A. continued to demonstrate more attachment to her caregiver and the caregiver’s extended family, after she was told visits with her 3 Mother appealed the order terminating her parental rights. When the impediment to adoption was discovered, in October 2025 the parties stipulated to and we granted an order vacating the order terminating parental rights and remanding the matter back to the juvenile court. (In re E.A. (Oct. 15, 2025, B344454) [nonpub. order].)

3 parents would resume, she became more distant and defiant. She was reported to “want to continue attaching to her caretaker, and at the same time, feels a sense of loyalty to her biological family.” Her therapist also reported she had “less openness during sessions.” On November 12, 2025, the court adopted the Department’s recommendation ordering guardianship with the current caregiver and one supervised visit every six months for the parents. Mother appeals the court’s visitation orders. (§ 395(a)(1).) She argues the court abused its discretion. We disagree. DISCUSSION If a court orders guardianship as the permanent plan at a section 366.26 hearing it also must order visitation between the children and the parents unless it finds visitation would be detrimental. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(4)(C).) The juvenile court is afforded “great discretion in deciding issues relating to parent-child visitation, which discretion we will not disturb on appeal unless the juvenile court has exceeded the bounds of reason.” (In re S.H. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557- 1558.) Juvenile courts must “consider ‘the best interests of the minors in all deliberations.’” (In re J.C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 984, 992-993; §202, subd. (d).) After reunification services end, the focus is on the child’s needs for permanency and stability. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) The juvenile court did not exceed the bounds of reason in determining twice a year visits were in the children’s best interest. These children had experienced multiple placement changes before being placed together with their guardian. There is no plan for the children to return to the mother’s custody. The youngest children, C.A. and Iy.A. had not lived with the mother for most of their lives and had not exhibited any distress at not 4 seeing her between visits or after visits ended. Reintroducing mother more frequently than twice a year when they were demonstrating significant attachment to their now guardian could cause disruption and confusion. As for E.A., despite her grief, she was adjusting well to knowing she would not see her mother again, but understandably began to exhibit signs of emotional dysregulation and distress when she was told visits would resume. The juvenile court could have reasonably concluded that allowing the mother to have more frequent contact with E.A. would disrupt her growing attachment to the guardian and would exacerbate the conflict she felt between that attachment and her “sense of loyalty to her biological family.” Supporting her bond with the guardian and the guardian’s extended family would meet E.A.’s need for permanency and stability. DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s November 12, 2025 findings and orders are affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CODY, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.

5 Matthew G. Guerrero, Judge Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo _______________________ Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Jon Anasolabehere, County Counsel, Vincent Uberti, Deputy County Counsel; Gordon-Creed, Kelly, Holl, & Sugerman, Jeremy Sugerman & Anne H. Nguyen, for Plaintiff and Respondent.