In re J.M. CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 9/18/26 In re J.M. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 J.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY E087320 CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, (Super.Ct.No. J283136) Plaintiff and Respondent, OPINION v. J.M., Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cara D. Hutson, Judge. Affirmed.

Jill Smith, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.

Laura Feingold, County Counsel, and Joseph R. Barrell, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 Minor J.M. appeals from an order of the juvenile court approving his placement in a short-term residential therapeutic program (STRTP). J.M. raises multiple related issues, but primarily contends the juvenile court misapplied the law by approving his placement in the STRTP based on lack of available family-based foster homes. Because we agree with respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

In November 2019, then six-month-old J.M., along with his twin brother and their six siblings, was removed from his parents’ home in response to reports of general neglect involving squalid living conditions. As J.M.’s parents could not identify any relative placement, J.M. and his twin were placed in a foster home together and their six siblings were placed in other foster homes. After finding the allegations in the juvenile dependency petition true, the court ordered family reunification services. In the meantime, the parents became homeless.

At the contested 18-month review hearing in August 2021, the court terminated family reunification services, mainly because the parents could not secure housing for J.M. The court found, however, that setting a hearing on termination of parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 was not in J.M.’s best interest;1 the court instead set a permanent plan review (PPR) hearing. Eventually, a section 366.26 hearing was set for March 2023 and after multiple continuances was finally held 1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

2 in September 2024, at which time the court chose not to terminate parental rights, again finding that a section 366.26 hearing was not in J.M.’s best interest; the court set another PPR hearing.

In August 2025, CFS placed J.M. in an STRTP, which the court approved after a contested placement review hearing in November 2025.

A. J.M.’s Foster Home Placements Prior to STRTP Placement Since his removal in November 2019, J.M. and his twin were placed together in several different foster homes. Prior to his third birthday, J.M. began engaging in aggressive behavior, hitting others when upset. J.M. and his twin began receiving weekly play therapy to address their aggressive behavior.

By the end of March 2023, J.M. and his twin were still “struggl[ing] with aggression and tantrums towards each other and in school.” School personnel reported that J.M. was exhibiting behavioral issues such as “biting, hitting, and throwing items.”

In March 2024, J.M. and his twin were placed in the foster home of Mr. and Mrs.

G. About four months later, Mrs. G. requested removal of the children “due to [J.M.]’s temper tantrums, which include[d] hitting, biting, kicking, yelling, throwing things and using inappropriate language.” Just prior to that request, J.M. had been aggressive with his biological mother, hitting and scratching her during a temper tantrum.

J.M. and his twin were then placed in the foster home of Ms. B., but six days after their placement, she requested that J.M. be removed due to his “continued temper tantrums and destruction of personal property.” She was also concerned because J.M.

3 was physically and verbally aggressive toward his twin.

In August 2024, J.M. and his twin, now five years old, were placed in the foster home of Mr. M. and Ms. O. About three months later, in November 2024, they were placed with Mr. and Mrs. V. Later that same month, after reports that J.M. was aggressive toward other children in the home, Mr. and Mrs. V. requested J.M.’s removal “due to safety concerns.”

In December 2024, J.M. and his twin were placed in the foster home of Mr. and Mrs. B., where it was reported that J.M. was “physically aggressive towards his [twin], the caregiver, Mr. B., and other peers, as evidenced by hitting, kicking, [and] pushing.”

In one incident, J.M. even knocked out Mr. B.’s tooth and laughed about it. In addition to his aggressive behavior, J.M. used vulgar, combative language.

In March 2025, during a Child and Family Team (CFT) meeting, Mr. and Mrs. B.

requested J.M.’s removal due to his physical aggression. Mrs. B. was worried about the safety of J.M.’s twin. A few days later, J.M. was separated from his twin and moved to the foster home of Mr. and Mrs. F. Although he was the only child in the home, J.M.

would not follow rules and “was physically and verbally aggressive towards the caregiver in the home.” Mr. and Mrs. F. made multiple requests for J.M.’s removal due to his aggressive behavior.

B. STRTP Placement and the Placement Review Hearing On August 20, 2025, CFS placed J.M. in an STRTP. Prior to the placement review hearing set for November 12, 2025, J.M.’s social worker submitted a Status Review 4 Report (the social worker’s report) with attachments, including a Qualified Individual Assessment Summary Report (the QI assessment) completed by Raquel Tejeda, a “qualified individual” (QI) as defined by section 16501, subdivision (l).

As will be discussed in greater detail, the social worker’s report and the QI assessment document J.M.’s extensive behavioral issues. The QI, after identifying numerous such issues including J.M.’s difficulty with controlling his anger, his emotional and physical dysregulation, and his intentional misbehavior, concluded that J.M. was a danger to others. Similarly, the social worker documented reports that J.M. was physically aggressive and violent towards others, used profanity, and destroyed property.

This was consistent with input from the STRTP director, who reported that J.M. has a low frustration tolerance and struggles with emotional/physical dysregulation, among other behavioral issues. The social worker and the rest of the CFT agreed with the QI’s recommendation that J.M. be placed in the STRTP. J.M.’s counsel filed a general objection to his placement based solely on whether an STRTP is appropriate for a child of J.M.’s age.

During the placement review hearing, two witnesses testified—the social worker, and the QI, Ms. Tejeda. The social worker testified about, among other things: several instances in which J.M. was removed from foster homes due to behavioral issues involving aggression and violence; her efforts to locate a suitable family-based foster home for J.M.; and the fact that foster family homes would not accept J.M. because they were either full or they were unwilling to take him due to his behavioral issues. She 5 stated that J.M. could be placed in a family-based foster home if one were available, but she also opined that it was in J.M.’s best interest to remain in the STRTP. The QI unequivocally testified that her recommendation that J.M. be placed in the STRTP was based on his behaviors and needs, not on the availability of family-based foster homes.

After the evidentiary phase of the hearing, J.M.’s counsel presented a single argument—that J.M.’s placement in the STRTP was improper because it was based on lack of available family-based foster homes, not based on J.M.’s needs.

C. The Juvenile Court’s Ruling and Order Approving STRTP Placement Prior to pronouncing its order on the STRTP placement, the juvenile court informed the parties that it read and considered the social worker’s report, the QI assessment and attachments, and section 361.22. The court then “caution[ed] counsel [that if it read section 361.22] narrowly and just read the statute for what it is, [J.M.’s counsel] would be absolutely correct. But what the Court also has to do always is look at the factors surrounding the placement of the minor, in addition to the statute.” The court went on to acknowledge the social worker’s testimony that she would have placed J.M. in a family-based home if one were available.

The juvenile court then discussed J.M.’s “symptoms and behavior, impulsivity, hyperactivity, depression, oppositional behaviors, attachment difficulties, difficulty controlling anger, emotional-physical dysregulation, poor social functioning, intentional misbehavior, poor school behavior, academics and attendance,” finding that J.M. was “a danger to others.” The court provided examples of such behavioral issues, including J.M.

6 being aggressive towards his twin, his caregivers, and “school staff, other peers, evidenced by hitting, kicking, pushing, using profane language . . . exhibit[ing]

dysregulation outbursts, making threats, [and] destroying property when triggered.”

The juvenile court explained it was interpreting section 361.22 in relation to its finding that J.M.’s “behavioral issues are such that if he were placed in a family-based home right now the entire home would be at risk.” The court told the parties it could not “just look at lightening in a bottle and say, okay, this is what the statute says,” but rather that it was required “to look at the context in which [it was] placing [J.M.], other children, [and] adults, including one that now has a knocked out tooth.

After discussing J.M.’s progress in the STRTP, the court stated its finding that the STRTP was “the most effective place for [J.M.] to be to stabilize his very concerning conduct.” Consistent with its oral pronouncement, the court entered a minute order stating its finding that J.M.’s needs could not be met through placement in a family-based setting, and that placement in the STRTP would provide the most effective and appropriate care setting for J.M. in the least restrictive environment. The court signed and filed its formal order stating the same.

J.M. timely appealed the juvenile court’s placement order.

DISCUSSION

J.M. contends the juvenile court misapplied controlling law by approving his STRTP placement based on unavailability of family-based homes, rather than based on the statutorily required determination that his needs could not be met through placement 7 in a family-based setting and that the STRTP provided the most effective and appropriate care setting for him in the least restrictive environment. J.M. raises multiple related arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence supporting the court’s findings.

CFS argues the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by approving J.M.’s placement at the STRTP and, relatedly, that the evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings.

A. Relevant Law A dependent child may be eligible for placement in an STRTP if they fall into one of three categories: (1) they meet specific medical necessity criteria for mental health services; (2) they are diagnosed with serious emotional disturbance; or (3) their needs can only be met by the level of care provided by the STRTP. (§ 4096, subd. (e)(1)(B).)

Section 361.22 sets forth procedures by which the juvenile court must review placements of juvenile dependents in an STRTP, as well as procedures the placing agency must follow when seeking court approval. Prior to the STRTP placement review hearing, the social worker is required to prepare and submit a report which includes, among other things: (1) a QI assessment addressing the appropriateness of placement in the STRTP based on the services and care needs of the child (§ 4096, subd. (g)); and (2) case plan documentation required pursuant to section 16501.1, subdivision (d)(2)(C). (§ 361.22, subd. (c)(1).)

The QI assessment must include “[e]ngagement with the child and family team members” to assess the child’s strengths and needs, as well as “identification of the child- 8 specific short- and long-term mental and behavioral health goals and treatment needs of the child.” (§ 4096, subd. (g)(3)(A)-(C).) If the QI determines that the child’s needs cannot be met with family members or in another family-based setting, she must explain why in writing (§ 4096, subd. (g)(4)(A)-(B)(i)), and, among other things, why the STRTP “is the setting that will provide the child with the most effective and appropriate level of care in the least restrictive environment” and “is consistent with the short- and long-term goals for the child.” (§ 4096, subd. (g)(4)(B)(ii)-(iii).)

At the STRTP review hearing, the juvenile court must consider the information provided by the social worker under section 361.22, subdivision (c), including the QI assessment. (§ 361.22, subd. (e)(1).) The court is required to determine “whether the needs of the child or nonminor dependent can be met through placement in a family- based setting, or, if not, whether placement in a short-term residential therapeutic program or community treatment facility, as applicable, provides the most effective and appropriate care setting for the child or nonminor dependent in the least restrictive environment. A shortage or lack of family homes shall not be an appropriate reason for determining that the needs of the child cannot be met in a family-based setting.”

(§ 361.22, subd. (e)(2) (italics added).) The court also determines whether the level of care provided by an STRTP is consistent with the child’s short- and long-term mental and behavioral health goals and permanency plan. These determinations must be made by a preponderance of the evidence. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.618(g)(2).)

In addition to the determinations required under section 361.22, the juvenile court 9 must determine whether placement in an STRTP “is consistent with the child’s . . . best interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.618(g)(1).) The court approves or disapproves the placement, and makes a finding, in writing or on the record, of the basis for its determinations. (§ 361.22, subd. (e)(3), (5)-(6).)

“A juvenile court’s placement orders are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.” (In re Sabrina H. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420.) The juvenile court abuses its discretion by making a determination that is “ ‘ “ ‘arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd . . . .’ ” ’ ” (Id. at p. 1421.) An abuse of discretion can be found when the juvenile court “ ‘applies the wrong legal standard or its factual findings are not supported by substantial evidence.’ ” (In re R.F. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 718, 728.) “The appellant bears the burden of showing a [juvenile] court abused its discretion.” (F.T. v. L.J. (2011)

194 Cal.App.4th 1, 16.)

B. The Juvenile Court’s Application of Section 361.22 J.M.’s primary contention is that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it misapplied section 361.22, subdivision (e)(2), by approving his STRTP placement based on lack of available foster homes, rather than a finding that his needs could not be met through placement in a family-based setting and that an STRTP would provide the most effective and appropriate care setting for him in the least restrictive environment.

In support of his argument, J.M. relies heavily on testimony of the social worker, which J.M. contends was the “focus[]” of the juvenile court. However, the issue to be decided by this Court is not whether the social worker applied an improper standard, but 10 whether the juvenile court did so. (§ 361.22, subd. (e)(2) [“the court shall . . . .

[d]etermine whether the needs of the child or nonminor dependent can be met through placement in a family-based setting” (italics added)].)

The record is clear that the juvenile court focused on whether J.M.’s needs could be met through placement in a family-based setting. The court stated that it read and considered the social worker’s report and all attachments, including the QI assessment.

The court then discussed, in detail, J.M.’s behavioral issues, including “impulsivity, hyperactivity, depression, oppositional behaviors, attachment difficulties, difficulty controlling anger, emotional-physical dysregulation, poor social functioning, intentional misbehavior, poor school behavior, academics and attendance, and [J.M.] is a danger to others.” Specifically citing the incident in which J.M. knocked out a caretaker’s tooth, the court discussed its finding that J.M. is aggressive towards his brother, his caregivers, school staff, and other children, as evidenced by physical attacks, profanity, threats, and destruction of property. Based on these findings, the court found that the STRTP was “the most effective place for [J.M.] to be to stabilize his very concerning conduct.”

Contrary to J.M.’s interpretation, the record does not reflect that the juvenile court considered a shortage or lack of family homes as a reason for its determination that J.M.’s needs could not be met in a family-based setting. Rather, the court began its analysis by considering whether J.M.’s needs could be met in a family-based setting even if one were available, explaining that the court “has to consider what happens if [it] put [J.M.] in a family-based home right now.” (Italics added.)

11 Although the juvenile court discussed availability of family-based homes in the context of the evidence and arguments presented, it expressly found that J.M.’s needs could not be met through placement in a family-based setting. The court did not identify a shortage or lack of family homes as a reason for its determination that J.M.’s needs could not be met in a family-based setting. Thus, the record does not demonstrate that the court applied the wrong legal standard or that the court made an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination. We find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in its application of section 361.22.

C. The QI Assessment J.M. takes issue with the juvenile court’s reliance on the QI assessment, which he argues does not meet the requirements set forth in section 4096, subdivision (g).

Specifically, he argues, or suggests: Ms. Tejeda is unqualified to serve as a QI because she was not “licensed” and that she had not personally visited the STRTP or have “personal knowledge” of its services; the QI assessment is deficient in relation to CFS’s search for family members; and the QI assessment insufficiently documented other issues, such as engagement with CFT members and how services provided by the STRTP differ from those provided in a family-based home. Relatedly, J.M. argues services previously discussed by his care team were not attempted prior to his placement in the STRTP.

In so doing, J.M. appears to challenge the sufficiency of the QI assessment and accordingly questions whether there is substantial evidence supporting the juvenile 12 court’s finding that STRTP placement is in J.M.’s best interest.

A juvenile court abuses its discretion when its findings are not supported by substantial evidence. (In re R.F., supra, 94 Cal.App.5th at p. 728.) Under the substantial evidence test, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order, drawing every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in support of the judgment.

[Citation.] An appellate court does not reweigh the evidence.” (In re Marina S.

(2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 158, 165; In re Michael G. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 580, 589 [“The substantial evidence standard of review is generally considered the most difficult standard of review to meet, as it should be, because it is not the function of the reviewing court to determine the facts”].)

Although not argued by CFS, there is no indication that J.M. made any of these arguments or raised any of these objections to the juvenile court regarding the sufficiency of the QI assessment or Ms. Tejeda’s qualifications. The arguments are therefore forfeited. (In re Dakota S. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 494, 502 [listing numerous applications of the waiver doctrine in dependency proceedings, and applying the doctrine to appellant’s failure “to object in the juvenile court to the lack of a preliminary assessment of the prospective guardian”]; cf., In re M.V. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1508 [“courts have repeatedly held that a party’s failure to object forfeits appellate review of the adequacy of—or the failure to prepare—mandatory assessment reports in juvenile proceedings”].)

Additionally, some of the issues addressed by CFS in its respondent’s brief—such 13 as Ms. Tejeda’s qualification to serve as QI, and placement in a small family home2—are not argued in J.M.’s reply brief, which indicates an implicit concession of those issues.

(Ross v. Superior Court (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 667, 681.) As will be discussed, even if the arguments had not been abandoned or forfeited, reversal of the juvenile court’s order is not warranted here.

1. Qualification of the QI Contrary to the suggestion in his opening brief, J.M. has not shown that Ms.

Tejeda was unqualified to serve as a QI. A QI is defined, in relevant part, as “a trained professional or licensed clinician responsible for conducting the determination described in subdivision (g) of Section 4096 and determining the most effective and appropriate placement for a child.” (§16501, subd. (l) (italics added).) There is no requirement that a QI be licensed. The record demonstrates here that Ms. Tejeda is a trained professional as a registered associate marriage and family therapist with a master’s degree and has experience conducting dozens of QI assessments. There is also no requirement that a QI personally visit an STRTP facility or have “personal knowledge” of its services, and J.M.

2 J.M. may be abandoning the “small family home” issue. The social worker testified that she attempted to have J.M. placed in a “small family home,” but such placement was not possible because it required that he first be denied placement in a group home “because of his high needs.” In his opening brief, J.M. argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by delegating its authority to the STRTP to decide whether J.M. should be placed in a small family home. As CFS correctly points out, a “small family home” is defined as a “residential facility, in the licensee’s family residence, that provides 24-hour care for six or fewer foster children who have mental disorders or developmental or physical disabilities and who require special care and supervision as a result of their disabilities.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 1502, subd. (a)(6).) J.M. cites no evidence or authority suggesting he qualified for placement in a small family home. In fact, he appears to concede the issue in his reply brief.

14 does not cite any authority establishing such a requirement. Nevertheless, the record indicates that Ms. Tejeda spoke to the STRTP therapist and program director regarding services J.M. received.

2. Differences in Services Provided J.M. argues the QI failed to document how the services provided by the STRTP were different than those provided in a family-based home. That requirement is set forth in section 4096, subdivision (g)(4)(B). The QI assessment includes a section captioned “Barriers to Family-Based Settings,” under which Ms. Tejeda noted that since “September 2023, [J.M.] has participated in wraparound services and other intensive mental health services; however, his ongoing needs and challenges have made it difficult for him to sustain stability in a foster home placement.” Based on his mental health needs relating to anger, aggression and numerous other symptoms and behaviors, she noted that “he would benefit from a structured setting, 24/7 supervision and support and specialty intensive mental health services.” She later testified that the purpose of placing him in the STRTP was to “help to address and stabilize the behaviors that essentially led to the recommendation of placement in an STRTP.” The implication in these statements is that the services provided by the STRTP involve more comprehensive supervision and support and specialty intensive mental health services addressing J.M.’s anger and aggressive behavior, which were not provided in the family-based homes. The court appeared to agree when it stated that J.M.’s “behavioral issues are such that if he were placed in a family-based home right now the entire home would be at risk.”

15 3. CFS’s Search for Family Members J.M. also argues the QI assessment failed to establish whether his assessed needs could be met with family members or in another family-based setting, as required by section 4096, subdivision (g)(4), because CFS did not conduct a “family available”

search. The argument assumes, with no factual support, that if CFS were able to locate additional family members, the juvenile court might have ruled differently. But as discussed, the record supports the juvenile court’s determination that J.M.’s needs could not be met in a family-based home, regardless of its availability.

At the time of J.M.’s initial detention in 2019, J.M.’s parents completed family find forms, but they failed to identify any relatives with which J.M. could be placed.

Over the years, the juvenile court consistently made findings that CFS exercised due diligence to locate relatives with which J.M. could be placed, including on September 25, 2024; March 21, 2025; and at the STRTP review hearing on September 19, 2025. There is no indication that J.M. ever objected to the juvenile court’s findings regarding the sufficiency of CFS’s search for additional family members prior to his placement in the STRTP or at the STRTP review hearing. J.M.’s counsel never argued that the juvenile court should disapprove of his placement in the STRTP because CFS did not sufficiently search for family members.

4. Engagement with CFT Members Citing the requirement that the QI assessment include “[e]ngagement with the child and family team members” (§ 4096, subd. (g)(3)(A)), J.M. also argues it “does not 16 appear that [the wraparound] team were identified” or “consulted,” and that the QI assessment failed to specify what services were provided to J.M. and whether those services could be provided in a family-based home. The QI assessment establishes that Ms. Tejeda engaged with CFT members involved in J.M.’s prior and current placement, and it identifies the CFT members interviewed to include the social services worker, an STRTP therapist, the STRTP program director, and J.M.’s previous therapist at Pacific Clinics, Shay McMillen. The social worker’s report states that prior to his placement at the STRTP, J.M. received wraparound services twice per week through Pacific Clinics.

Notably, J.M.’s counsel specifically asked the social worker on direct examination about “Shay McMill[e]n, [J.M.]’s prior therapist,” and the social worker identified McMillen as “the facilitator for wraparound.” J.M.’s counsel then had “no further questions,”

including any questions about identification of members of the wraparound team. There is no indication in the record that J.M.’s counsel ever raised any objection or contention in the juvenile court proceeding regarding incomplete identification of the wraparound team in the QI assessment or that any such lack of identification prejudiced J.M.

5. Timing of Services Provided to J.M.

J.M. argues there is no indication that services identified seven months prior to his placement in the STRTP, such as applied behavior analysis therapy, therapeutic behavioral services, and a referral for an individualized education program (IEP)

assessment, were attempted prior to his placement in the STRTP. But even assuming J.M. should have received the treatments discussed by his wraparound team prior to his 17 placement in the STRTP, J.M. fails to explain how that alters the analysis. J.M. concedes that he has been “receiving services consistently” since his placement in the STRTP and that “[m]oving into [multiple] different [foster homes] interrupted his services and schooling.” These facts demonstrate that J.M.’s constant shuffling between foster homes impeded his ability to obtain consistent services, which he now receives in the STRTP.

D. Juvenile Court’s Statements Regarding J.M.’s Improvement Finally, J.M. argues the juvenile court’s belief that he was improving in the STRTP was “misguided” and did not provide evidence that the STRTP was the most effective and appropriate setting in the least restrictive environment. But the facts cited by the juvenile court are relevant and have evidentiary support. The court stated that J.M. was “thriving”

in school. That is consistent with the testimony of the social worker that J.M.’s school behavior had improved since his placement in the STRTP. The court also noted that J.M.’s behavior was beginning to stabilize, which is supported by the record.

In sum, substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that the STRTP was the most effective and appropriate setting in the least restrictive environment.

Appellant has not shown that the juvenile court misapplied the law or made a determination that was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd.

18 DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order placing J.M. in the STRTP is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

LEE J.

We concur:

MCKINSTER Acting P. J. RAPHAEL J.