In re A.A. CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 4/23/26 In re A.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E087156

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. J292615)

v. OPINION

C.R. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G. Pace,

Judge. Affirmed.

Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant, C.R.

Terence M. Chucas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant, R.A.

1 Laura Feingold, County Counsel, David R. Guardado, Deputy County Counsel,

for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellants C.R. (mother) and R.A. (father) appeal the juvenile court’s order

terminating parental rights and freeing their child A.A. (born in 2017) for adoption.

(Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26.) They fault the court for failing to apply the beneficial

parent-child relationship exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTS

A. Detention

In early 2022, mother was living with A.A. and four of her other children.2 On

March 16, 2022, law enforcement executed a search warrant at her residence and

discovered over four pounds of methamphetamine (meth), along with residue, acetone,

lighter fluid, glass dishes, and a scale in her bedroom; these items suggest the operation

of a meth lab. Mother was arrested, and an immediate response referral was made to San

Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS). Mother was interviewed and

indicated she last used meth on March 16, 2022, prior to being arrested. A.A. stated that

mother and her significant other “fight with each other.” One of A.A.’s half siblings

claimed she was sexually abused by the maternal great-grandfather. Although mother

1 Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.

2 Mother’s children include A.A., T.A. (born 2014), A.R. (born 2010), R.F. (born 2008), S.R. (born 2005), I.B. (adult), A.S. (adult), and F.S. (adult). Father is the biological father of T.A. and the presumed father of A.A. This appeal involves A.A. only.

2 was aware of the child’s claim, she did not report the abuse out of concern for his age and

how it would affect him.

On March 24, 2022, CFS initiated dependency proceedings, alleging mother has a

history of substance abuse and engaging in domestic violence (§ 300, subd. (b)), both

parents are incarcerated (§ 300, subd. (g)), and mother failed to protect A.A.’s half sibling

from sexual abuse (§ 300, subds. (b), (j)). A.A. was detained, and the juvenile court

ordered supervised visitation.

B. Jurisdiction/Disposition

In its jurisdiction/disposition report filed April 12, and addendum filed May 10,

2022, CPS recommended detention and reunification services. Mother admitted

engaging in domestic violence with father (with both being physically harmed) and being

aware that the children witnessed the domestic violence. She was previously incarcerated

for smuggling drugs into the United States from Mexico; she acknowledged a substance

abuse issue, but denied manufacturing meth or keeping drugs in her home. She began

using meth at age 13, experienced periods of sobriety, and relapsed in 2020. A.A.’s older

siblings reported mother hid drugs throughout the home and used them “almost every

day.” Mother had an extensive child welfare history involving physical abuse, neglect,

and domestic violence in the home. Father was incarcerated for murder and attempted

murder with an unknown release date. According to the social worker, the “most

significant problems in this case are the exposure of domestic violence . . . the sexual

abuse of [A.A.’s half sibling], the mother’s substance abuse problem, the family’s

3 criminal history and the parent’s failure to protect, all which place[] the children at risk of

abuse.”

At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court found the allegations

true, declared A.A. a dependent, removed her from parents’ custody, and ordered

reunification services and supervised visitation.

C. Six-month review report and hearing

By the time of the six-month review report, mother was on probation (compliant

with her terms), living in an apartment, and employed with Cal Trans, working three days

a week. She started domestic violence classes, completed a parenting program, was

attending a child abuse treatment program, and participated in outpatient substance abuse

treatment services but had missed 12-step meetings. Her random drug tests were

negative; however, she failed to show for one test because she had been too busy and was

overwhelmed. Mother consistently participated in visitation, bringing food and drinks.

A.A. appeared to enjoy the visits, but told her foster parent that mother said she (A.A.)

only needs to listen to mother. The social worker had to remind mother not to speak to

the child about the dependency and told her to stop taking father’s calls during her

visitation. Father remained incarcerated, was working on obtaining his high school

diploma, and had not yet participated in services because there were “limited services

offered” at his detention center. A.A. was placed in the same home as A.R.

On November 14, 2022, the juvenile court ordered continued reunification

services for both parents and authorized unsupervised visitation for mother.

4 D. Twelve-month review report and hearing

In its 12-month/permanency review report filed April 21, 2023, CPS

recommended termination of reunification services for both parents and placement of

A.A. in foster care with a goal of placement with a willing relative. CPS expressed

concerns with mother’s inconsistent drug and alcohol testing, lack of progress on her

reunification plan, and poor decision making regarding her relationships with abusive

men. She completed individual therapy, a domestic violence program, and substance

abuse treatment classes. Initially, she tested negative on a regular basis; however, she

missed a number of tests including all tests in March and April 2023. She was working,

but lacked stable transportation. She ended the relationship with her boyfriend because

both were violating their probation by affiliating with each other; on January 31, 2023, he

was arrested due to domestic violence against her. Mother stated that she planned to

marry father upon his release from custody. Father failed to maintain contact with the

social worker or make efforts on his plan; however, he called mother during her visits

with the children and sent letters. A.A. had been moved from her foster care placement

along with A.R., then moved again following an incident of self-harm by A.R. resulting

in a psychiatric hold.

At the May 1, 2023, hearing, both parents objected to termination of parental

rights. Mother testified. Regarding her missed drug tests, she blamed it on her limited

transportation means and decision to visit her daughter at the hospital instead of drug test;

however, she later admitted that she only visited her daughter two times while she was

hospitalized. Mother stated she lives in a three-bedroom house and has bunk beds for her

5 children. Regarding her prior statement about marrying father upon his release from

custody, she clarified that he also needed to take “every step that [she had] done . . . for

. . . [the] children’s safety.” Following argument, the juvenile court found that mother

had not benefitted from services given her domestic violence relationships (father and her

recent boyfriend) and her multiple failures to drug test prior to the hospitalization of her

daughter. The court agreed that CPS’s recommendations were appropriate, terminated

reunification services for both parents, ordered a permanent plan for A.A., and continued

supervised visitation.

E. Postpermanent plan review

For the postpermanent plan review hearing on November 1, 2023, CPS

recommended placement in foster care with a permanent plan of adoption or legal

guardianship. Neither parent had maintained communication with the social worker.

Mother stopped attempting to complete any services due to “doing ‘too much at once and

falling back into depression.’” She was working but still had not obtained stable

transportation. Father remained incarcerated. The juvenile court adopted the

recommendation and continued the child in foster care. Parents’ visits were ordered

supervised, once monthly for two hours, and the matter was continued.

In its postpermanent plan review reports filed April 22, and October 23, 2024, CPS

recommended the permanent plan and visitation schedule remain the same. A.A. had

been placed with A.R.; however, she was returned to the home of Ms. B. where she was

doing good, but expressed a desire to be placed back with mother. Mother’s monthly

visits were going well, and father maintained telephonic visitation. CPS did not

6 recommend weekly visits for mother because of her history of failing to confirm her visit

or showing up late. The children were visiting each other and expressed a desire for more

sibling visits without mother being present. The juvenile court adopted CPS’s

recommendations and continued the hearing.

By April 2025, CPS recommended a section 366.26 hearing to establish a

permanent plan of adoption for A.A. The child reported that she loves being in Ms. B.’s

home, loves Ms. B., refers to Ms. B.’s daughter as her sister, and “would be okay staying

with Ms. B. permanently so long as she gets all of her stuffed animals from her mother’s

home and is able to talk to her mother sometimes.” Mother’s visitation was inconsistent.

The juvenile court set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.

F. Section 366.26 hearing

In its section 366.26 selection and implementation report filed August 19, 2025,

CPS recommended termination of parental rights and adoption as A.A.’s permanent plan.

Despite mother’s inconsistent visitation, the child was excited to see her and would ask

the social worker about her during their monthly contacts. A.A. was having trouble

accepting the fact that she could not reunify with mother because mother continued to

give her “false hope of returning” home; however, A.A. was “closely bonded” to Ms. B.

who provides emotional consistency and stability, stating, “‘I do not want to go anywhere

else. I love being here.’” The social worker opined that A.A. is “appropriate for

adoption,” and Ms. B. is “dedicated to [the child] and committed to raising her to

adulthood.” On August 28, 2025, the juvenile court set the matter for a contested

hearing.

7 At the contested hearing, mother testified that she visits A.A. regularly and the

child is “super happy” when they visit. She described their visitation activities and stated

A.A. “keeps asking when is she going to come home.” Mother opined the two share a

bond as evidenced by the child talking about what happens at school and calling her for

help with homework, to say prayers, or to hear a song before bedtime. Following

argument, the juvenile court found A.A. to be both generally and specifically adoptable

by clear and convincing evidence. Regarding the parental bond exception, the court

found that father failed to meet the first prong, but mother met both the first and second

prongs (regular, consistent visitation and a bond). However, turning to the third prong,

the court observed that A.A. had been removed from parental control more than three

years ago, she has been in a stable, loving placement for the last year, and she is bonded

to her caregiver and the caregiver’s family. The court added, “[G]iven the stability that

this child desperately needs, stability outweighs any potential detriment from the

termination of parental rights.” Having concluded that mother failed to establish the

parental bond relationship exception, the court terminated parental rights and ordered

adoption as the permanent plan.

II. DISCUSSION

Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding that the beneficial parent-child

relationship exception to termination of parental rights did not apply. Father joins with

mother’s argument and contends reversal of the order terminating her parental rights

mandates reversal of the order terminating his.

8 At a permanency planning hearing, once the juvenile court finds by clear and

convincing evidence that a child is likely to be adopted, “the court shall terminate

parental rights and order the child placed for adoption” unless it “finds a compelling

reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child due to one or

more” enumerated exceptions. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1) & (c)(1)(B); see In re Caden C.

(2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 630-631 (Caden C.).) “The statutory exceptions merely permit

the court, in exceptional circumstances [citation], to choose an option other than the

norm, which remains adoption.” (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.) One

exception is the beneficial parent-child relationship exception. (§ 366.26,

subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) In Caden C., our Supreme Court examined this exception and held

that a drug-addicted parent’s failure to succeed in drug rehabilitation programs and

continuing struggles with addiction did not, on its own, disqualify the parent from being

accorded the beneficial parent-child relationship exception. (Caden C., at pp. 637-641.)

In other words, unless the factors that led to the dependency in the first place also bear on

the question of whether a child would benefit from continuing the relationship and be

harmed, on balance, by losing it, they are irrelevant. (Id. at p. 638.)

Under the parental relationship exception, the parent must show, by a

preponderance of the evidence, each of the following three elements. First, he or she had

“regular visitation and contact with the child, taking into account the extent of visitation

permitted.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 636.) Second, “the child has a substantial,

positive, emotional attachment to the parent—the kind of attachment implying that the

child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (Ibid.) This element is affected by

9 “‘[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, the

“positive” or “negative” effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child’s

particular needs.’” (Id. at p. 632.) In conducting this assessment, “courts often consider

how children feel about, interact with, look to, or talk about their parents.” (Ibid.) Third

party witnesses, including psychologists, can provide relevant evidence about the

parent/child bond. (Id. at pp. 632-633.) Third, “terminating that [parental] attachment

would be detrimental to the child even when balanced against the countervailing benefit

of a new, adoptive home.” (Id. at p. 636.) “Because a section 366.26 hearing occurs only

after the court has repeatedly found the parent unable to meet the child’s needs, it is only

in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent’s rights will prevail over the

Legislature’s preference for adoptive placement.” (In re Jasmine D. (2000)

78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350, disapproved on another ground in Caden C., at p. 636, fn. 5.)

We employ a “hybrid standard” of review to the juvenile court’s findings on the

application of the beneficial parent-child relationship exception. (Caden C., supra,

11 Cal.5th at pp. 639-641.) The first two elements are primarily factual and reviewed for

substantial evidence. (Id. at pp. 639-640.) On the third element, the “court makes the

assessment by weighing the harm of losing the relationship against the benefits of

placement in a new, adoptive home.” (Id. at p. 640.) Thus, any factual determinations

underlying the court’s evaluation would also be reviewed for substantial evidence, but the

court’s ultimate balancing of the detriment of severing the parent-child relationship

against the benefits of adoption is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Id. at pp. 640-641.)

10 In the present case, the juvenile court agreed that mother regularly visited the child

and the two shared a bond. Concerning the third prong, mother asserts (1) A.A. spent the

first four years of her life with mother, (2) the conditions that caused the child’s removal

were resolved, (3) mother completed all of the services required of her, (4) Ms. B. was

the child’s fifth placement whereas mother remained a stable influence in the child’s life,

and (5) mother represented a “fundamental primary bonded relationship” to the child who

“loved being in Ms. B.’s home, [but] wished to continue to see her mother.” Thus,

mother argues “the record show[s that she] and A.A. had ‘the kind of attachment

implying that the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.’”

In deciding whether to sever the parents’ relationship with A.A., the juvenile court

was tasked with weighing “the harm of losing the relationship against the benefits of

placement in a new, adoptive home.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 640.) Here, the

court had been involved in the dependency case for more than three and one-half years.

It was aware of the standard set forth in Caden C. and found that mother had established

the first two prongs. Regarding the third prong, the court observed that A.A. has “been in

a stable, loving placement for a year. She is bonded to the caregiver and the caregiver’s

family. And I believe that, given the stability that this child desperately needs, stability

outweighs any potential detriment from the termination of parental rights.” The bond

between A.A. and Ms. B. and Ms. B.’s family was well documented by CPS. Regarding

Ms. B.’s home, A.A. stated, “‘I do not want to go anywhere else. I love being here.’”

The feeling was mutual as Ms. B. stated, “‘I would not want her to go to another home, I

can provide stability for her.’”

11 Considering the evidence, there is no indication that the detriment (if any) A.A.

would suffer from terminating parental rights “‘outweigh[s] the sense of security and

belonging an adoptive home would provide.’” (In re Jason J. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th

922, 938.) Thus, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that mother

failed to carry her burden of establishing the parental benefit exception to adoption.

III. DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

FIELDS J.