Filed 4/14/15 In re D.S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 D.S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E062099
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.Nos. J237707 & J237708)
v. OPINION
R.P.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lynn M. Poncin,
Judge. Affirmed.
Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Jeffrey L. Bryson, Deputy County Counsel, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 On September 25, 2014, the juvenile court denied defendant and appellant R.P.’s
(mother) Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 388 petition without providing an
evidentiary hearing. On October 14, 2014, the juvenile court terminated mother’s
parental rights as to child 1 (born in 2007) and child 2 (born in 2009) (collectively the
children). On appeal,2 mother contends the court erred by denying her section 388
petition and in finding the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of
parental rights inapplicable. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 28, 2011, police arrested mother and D.S. (alleged father)3
(collectively parents) for possession of marijuana and methamphetamine for sale and
child endangerment. Plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and
Family Services (CFS) received an emergency response referral that the children were
1All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
2 Although neither party addresses the issue, we note mother’s appeal expressly indicated she was appealing the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights on October 14, 2014. Nowhere in the appeal does mother indicate her appeal is also based on the juvenile court’s denial of her section 388 petition on September 25, 2014. Nonetheless, we will construe the notice of appeal to include the court’s order denying her section 388 petition. (In re Madison (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1447, 1451 [appellate courts may “liberally construe a parent’s notice of appeal from an order terminating parental rights to encompass the denial of the parent’s section 388 petition provided the trial court issued its denial during the 60-day period prior to filing the parent’s notice of appeal”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.405(a)(3).) Here, mother filed her notice of appeal in propria persona on the same day the juvenile court terminated her parental rights, October 14, 2014; thus, the appeal from the denial of the section 388 petition would have been timely filed if she had expressly indicated she was appealing from that order as well.
3 Alleged father is not a party to this appeal.
2 living in a home infested with rats, with rat droppings all over the home, and no hot
water, food, or diapers. Parents were “storing and engaging in the selling of drugs from
the home.” There was electric wiring in a flooded area of the garage, which was
accessible to the children. The children were dirty and had no shoes.
Mother and alleged father both admitted to smoking marijuana. Alleged father
admitted doing so on a daily basis. Parents had a prior substantiated CFS referral for
general neglect in 2010. Alleged father had a prior criminal history for driving under the
influence, possession of a firearm by a felon, and possession of marijuana for sale.
CFS filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging mother suffered from chronic
substance abuse issues (B-2); mother failed to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or
medical treatment (B-4); mother had failed to adequately protect the children from the
conduct of alleged father (B-7); and mother had been arrested for child endangerment and
possession of drugs for the purpose of sales, leaving no provision for the children’s care
(G-9).
On March 3, 2011, the court detained the children, and granted mother visitation
of once weekly for two hours upon her release from custody. In the jurisdiction and
disposition report filed March 21, 2011, the social worker recommended the children be
removed from mother’s custody and mother be granted reunification services. Mother
had pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance for sale and willful cruelty to a
child, and was released on her own recognizance. Alleged father had pled no contest to
possession of a controlled substance for sale and was sentenced to 16 months in state
prison. The social worker noted, “Both mother and father have a history of substance
3 abuse and father has completed at least one (1) inpatient . . . substance abuse treatment
program.”
An addendum report dated May 3, 2011, reflected mother had been sentenced to
24 days in county jail, and was placed on four years’ probation. Additionally, she was
required to attend narcotics anonymous/alcoholics anonymous meetings three times
weekly, attend a one-year child abuse treatment program, and submit to regular drug
testing. On June 8, 2011, as to mother, the juvenile court dismissed the G-9 allegation,
found the remaining allegations true, found the children dependents of the court, removed
them from mother’s custody, and granted her reunification services. Reunification
services for the alleged father were denied because he had never been accorded presumed
father status. The juvenile court granted mother visitation twice weekly for one hour and
ordered “WRAP” services.
On November 28, 2011, in a status review report, the social worker recommended
additional reunification services. Mother had completed her individual therapy
requirements. Her therapist recommended a psychological evaluation to assess mother’s
mental health issues. The therapist stated it had been difficult for mother to talk freely
during sessions. Mother had psychotropic medication evaluations and psychiatric
assessments on May 20 and June 29, 2011.
Mother had been offered outpatient substance abuse services and testing. The
substance abuse case manager “reported that mother was not progressing on internalizing
treatment objectives with little participation nor has a sober support system.” Mother had
missed eight days of treatment.
4 The social worker had referred mother to a perinatal program. On October 12,
2011, it was reported that mother had “opened up ‘a little’ in group, but overall is not
demonstrating skills necessary to maintain a program of recovery.” Since being referred
to a substance abuse aftercare program, the staff reported mother “has shown minimal
progress and has no social support system. She did not complete the program
successfully.” Mother was in compliance with the requirement that she attend a 12-step
program. She had tested negative for controlled substances on eight occasions.
Mother reported she is bipolar, schizophrenic, and has depression for which she
was on medication and is seeking Social Security disability. She indicated she would
provide a letter of confirmation from a psychiatrist to confirm her diagnoses. Mother was
unemployed.
The social worker reported, “Mother has not completed services and does not
appear to have benefited from services offered. She also does not have appropriate
housing. The relationship with the alleged father is a concern and whether she can
provide ongoing safety [for] the children is questionable.” Alleged father had been
released on probation on October 30, 2011. He reported he did not have a problem with
drugs and did not need services.
Mother visited the children twice a week for an hour: “Visits usually consist of
the children fighting and throwing toys at each other. [Child 1] calls her mother by her
first name and mother has to keep reminding her that she is their mother. In one
particular visit, the mother told [child 2] not to forget who his mother was as she brought
5 him into the world and can take him out. She has also threatened to spank the children.”
The social worker addressed the comments with mother, but mother said she was joking.
The social worker further reported, “Mother has also threatened the children
stating that she would not attend the visits if they did not listen. Mother also discusses
the alleged father with [child 1] even though she was advised not to . . . . The foster
parent has stated that [child 1] at times disclosed that her father used to hit her.” “The
children have also been observed to not want to interact with their mother. Mother at
times seems disconnected from the children and often appears to lack enthusiasm when
seeing the children.”
On December 8, 2011, the juvenile court found mother had made “moderate”
progress and ordered additional reunification services. In the status review report filed
April 17, 2012, the social worker recommended mother receive additional reunification
services. The social worker noted, “mother continues to be engaged in services and
appears to be making [a] substantial amount of progress on her case plan. Mother has
struggled to show benefits of services, but seems to be taking services more seriously.
Mother needs more time to show a benefit.”
The social worker reported, “Mother was terminated from Juvenile Dependency
Drug Court on December 14, 2011, for failure to make progress.” “Mother was also
offered psychotropic medication evaluating/monitoring. Mother has stated that she feels
she does not need any medication. She stated that she will provide a letter from her
doctor to verify this.” “On December 12, 2011, [mother] was referred to the aftercare
program at St. John of Gods. On April 6, 2012, [the social worker] spoke to [mother’s]
6 counselor by phone and was advised that mother is in compliance and has tested negative
for all drug tests.”
Mother reported moving in with alleged father’s aunt, sister, and the sister’s three
children: “Mother reported that the children could be returned to her at this residence.”
However, one of the adults had an active traffic warrant, which the social worker
informed mother would have to be cleared before returning the children to her care at that
address.
Mother informed the social worker that she was together with alleged father and
working on their relationship: “The concern is that he has not taken responsibility for his
actions and does not believe he needs reunification services.” Nonetheless, the social
worker opined, “Mother has made progress and appears to be taking a more active role in
showing that she can benefit from services. Mother needs to continue attending and
showing that she can benefit. She also needs to provide suitable housing and show that
she can provide [for the] safety of the children from the [alleged] father. She needs to
realize that the risk still exist[s] if she continues to associate with the [alleged] father at
this time.”
Regarding visitation, the social worker observed, “Mother visits the children twice
a week for one (1) hour at each visit. Mother receives Wraparound services along with
the children. Mother has become more consistent in visiting and arriving on time.
Mother does struggle with setting boundaries and disciplining the children when they are
being unruly.” Mother began parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) with child 1 in
7 February 2012. The therapist reported mother was doing well and actively participating.
Mother was scheduled to begin PCIT with child 2 on April 10, 2012.
On April 27, 2012, the juvenile court found that mother had made substantial
progress, and approved a reunification plan. Mother was ordered to participate in the
plan. In the August 28, 2012 status review report, the social worker recommended the
children be returned to mother’s home with the dependency continued. The social
worker reported, “Mother has made great strides and has shown that she has benefitted
from services offered.” Mother was taking Wellbutrin, Lamictal, and Latuda for a
diagnosis of schizophrenia. She had previously been off medication since June 2011.
Mother continued to be involved in the “Wraparound” program and PCIT. The
therapist reported mother was doing well and actively participating. Mother had
successfully completed outpatient substance abuse aftercare services including negative
drug testing. However, the social worker noted, “Mother has not provided proof of
attending a 12-step program since completing the substance abuse [aftercare] program on
July 8, 2012.” Mother’s residence with the paternal aunt had been cleared. Mother
visited with the children twice weekly for two hours each time: “Mother does miss on
average one visit a month due to unreliable transportation with family members. But for
the most part she regularly attends. When she does attend she is on time and attentive to
the children’s needs.”
On August 28, 2012, at the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court ordered
mother to provide evidence she was participating in a 12-step program. The court found
mother had made substantial progress, returned the children to mother’s custody,
8 continued the children as dependents of the court, and approved a family maintenance
plan.
In the February 28, 2013 status review report, the social worker reported that
“[s]ince the children were returned home to mother on August 28, 2012, she has lacked
motivation and [has] not followed through with services offered.” Further, “[a]s of
February 8, 2013, the Wraparound team and [social worker] agreed to have mother’s case
closed as mother missed Wraparound appointments.” Mother tested positive for
marijuana on September 11, 24, and October 2, 2012, and failed to appear for a drug test
on December 17, 2012. Mother tested negative on November 14, 2012, January 4, 15,
and February 6, 2013.
The social worker noted that on “January 31, 2013, a child abuse referral came in
stating that the mother left Victor Valley Hospital with her son [child 2] against medical
advice. [Child 2] was diagnosed with pneumonia and the doctor was recommending an
IV antibiotic. The doctor was also recommending that the child stay in the hospital for a
few days.” At the direction of the social worker, mother later returned to the hospital
with child 2, where he was diagnosed with bronchitis. Mother had been attending 12-step
meetings. Alleged father was now living next door to mother.
Mother failed to show at the hearing on February 28, 2013. The juvenile court
ordered mother “to test today with the understanding that if she fails to test today or
refuses, that counts as a positive.” The court later agreed to give mother more flexibility
if the attorney or social worker could not reach her that day. The court ordered parents
attendance at the next hearing.
9 In an addendum report filed March 8, 2013, the social worker reported she had
been unable to make contact with mother in order to comply with the court’s order at the
last hearing that mother complete a drug test. However, mother had last tested negative
on February 22, 2013.
At a hearing on March 13, 2013, at which mother was present, the court ordered
mother to drug test that day.4 Mother had moved to another city; alleged father had again
moved next door to mother.
On June 11, 2013, CFS filed a subsequent and supplemental juvenile dependency
petition reiterating the previous allegations: mother suffered from chronic substance
abuse issues (B-2); mother failed to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical
treatment (B-4); and mother failed to adequately protect the children from the conduct of
alleged father (B-7). CFS added allegations, as to mother, that she had been arrested
again on June 4, 2013, for willful cruelty to a child and possession of drugs for sale (G-
9), and she had failed to comply or make progress with family maintenance services (S-
1). CFS recommended removal of the children from mother’s custody. At the detention
hearing on June 12, 2013, mother submitted on the report. The juvenile court detained
the children and ordered mother to submit to random drug tests.
In the jurisdiction and disposition report filed July 3, 2013, the social worker
reported that during “the 10 months the children have been in the mother’s care, mother
has not followed through with her case plan and continues to make excuses for not
4 There is no indication in the record as to whether mother complied with the order.
10 completing her services.” The social worker noted that mother “continues to use drugs,
which places the children at risk of harm. Also the mother has allowed the alleged father
to spend time with the children unsupervised.” Further, “mother has not been able to
sustain sobriety even though she has had multiple treatment episodes.”
Mother requested mediation. On July 8, 2013, the court referred the matter to
mediation. On August 2, 2013, the social worker reported that mother “is out of statutory
time to reunify with the children. . . given that the children were initially removed from
her care in February 2011.” The social worker recommended the juvenile court terminate
mother’s reunification services. Mother failed to appear for mediation. On August 15,
2013, the juvenile court found the allegations in the subsequent and supplemental petition
true, but continued the matter for disposition.
In an addendum report filed October 10, 2013, the social worker recommended
returning the children to mother’s custody with family maintenance services. The social
worker observed, “The prognosis for this family to successfully complete a family
maintenance program is good. Mother is very appropriate in her interaction with the
children and demonstrates above average parenting abilities. Mother has been very
cooperative with CFS since her release from jail and has not exhibited any signs of
inappropriate behavior. Mother submitted to random drug screenings indicating negative
results and completed a parenting class.”
On October 15, 2013, the social worker reported, “Although mother did provide
negative drug tests as well as completion of parenting class as asked by CFS, mother was
arrested on October 11, 2013, for receiving stolen property and is currently incarcerated.”
11 The social worker further noted, “Prior to the children being removed on June 12, 2013,
mother was given eleven (11) months of Family Maintenance Services and is continuing
to make inappropriate decisions. With the children not being returned at this time,
mother exceeded her time limit with [CFS].” On the same date, the juvenile court
removed the children from mother’s custody, terminated mother’s reunification services,
and ordered that mother continue to receive services under a permanent planning
program.
In the status review report filed April 11, 2014, the social worker recommended
the juvenile court terminate mother’s parental rights. The social worker observed mother
had “finished her outpatient treatment program and it was reported she wanted to stay in
the program longer. Mother is also testing negative on her random drug test[s], however
it is believe[d] that mother is using a drug called Spice as evidence[d] by her demeanor
during the visits. It has been reported that Spice does not show up on a drug test however
the effects [are] the same as being under the influence of marijuana.” Mother had
completed a parenting class.
Mother had been visiting consistently with the children once weekly for one hour,
missing only one visit. During the visits, the children would become upset and hold onto
the foster parent’s leg. The social worker opined, “The children do not appear to have a
bond with mother.” The social worker reported, “Mother does not know how to engage
or have any long periods of interaction with the children. Mother is very quiet and does
not appear to be very firm with the children.” On April 18, 2014, the juvenile court
reduced mother’s visitation to once monthly for one hour.
12 In the August 11, 2014 section 366.26 report, the social worker recommended the
court find the children adoptable and terminate mother’s parental rights. Mother had
been visiting with the children once a month; however, “[a]t the visits, the children are
not excited to see the mother but are interested in the games she brings. [Child 2] will
ask when the visit [will be] over and [the children] do not have a problem with saying
good-bye to their mother.”
The children had resided with the prospective adoptive parent since November 21,
2013. The social worker observed, “The children appear to have made a positive
adjustment to the current placement and appear to have a strong emotional attachment
with the current caregiver.” “The children appear to be happy, and are thriving in this
adoptive family situation.” The prospective adoptive parent “appears as a stable, strong,
nurturing, honest, and dependable individual. She believes that she is the best parent for
these children because she has loved and cared for them since they were placed with her.
She stated her intention to raise them as her own children. The children obviously love
and enjoy her and both of them call her ‘Mommy.’”
On September 24, 2014, mother filed a section 388 petition naming only child 1.
Mother was apparently requesting reinstatement of reunification services: “Please give
me another chance at being a mom to my kids. I’m not perfect. I did make mistakes in
my life, but I’m . . . different now.” Mother alleged as changed circumstances that she
now had “a place to bring my kids to . . . live. I’ve done every requirement that the court
has asked of me. I’ve done parenting, substance abuse, and I am testing negative.” She
alleged reinstatement of reunification services would be better for the children because “I
13 feel it’s best for my kids to be home with their mother.” The next day, the juvenile court
denied the petition without a hearing because the request did not state new evidence or a
change of circumstances and there were “[n]o attachments or other evidence of the
completion of programs or testing.”
On October 14, 2014, the juvenile court held the contested section 366.26 hearing.
Mother testified that the children had lived with her until they were initially detained at
the ages of two and three. The children were returned to her for a year during the instant
dependency proceedings. During the time mother had custody, she had provided their
primary care.
Mother testified that since the children had been removed, she had attended every
visit with them. During the visits, “[w]e play games. I read to them. Watch movies,
color, or I just interact with them while they are playing with their toys.” The children
are happy and run to her at the beginning of visits and give her hugs. They call both the
prospective adoptive parent and mother “mom.” At the end of visits the children hug
mother, grab her, hold her, tell her they love her, and do not want to let her go.
After a lengthy restatement of the facts of the case, the juvenile court noted it did
“not see [a] beneficial relationship between the children and [mother] based on the
report . . . . While I understand that [mother] loves her children and wants a second
chance, the Court is finding that it’s in the best interest of the children to terminate
parental rights and follow the recommendation as set forth in the report.” The court
expressly found the parental bond exception to termination of parental rights did not
apply. The court found the children adoptable as “they are strongly and emotionally
14 attached to the . . . prospective adoptive parent[], who [has] expressed a desire to legalize
the parental relationship with the children through adoption.” It found termination of
parental rights would not be detrimental to the children. The court terminated mother’s
parental rights.
DISCUSSION
A. Section 388 Petition.
Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her a hearing
on her section 388 petition. We disagree.
“To prevail on a section 388 petition, the moving party must establish that (1) new
evidence or changed circumstances exist, and (2) the proposed change would promote the
best interests of the child. [Citation.]” (In re J.T. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 953, 965.)
“Under section 388, a party ‘need only make a prima facie showing to trigger the right to
proceed by way of a full hearing.’ [Citation.] The prima facie showing is not met unless
the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a
favorable decision on the petition. [Citation.] In determining whether the petition makes
the necessary showing, the court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of
the case. [Citation.] The petition must be liberally construed in favor of its sufficiency.
[Citations.]” (In re J.P. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 108, 127.)
“We review a summary denial of a hearing on a modification petition for abuse of
discretion. [Citation.] Under this standard of review, we will not disturb the decision of
the trial court unless the trial court exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an
arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd determination. [Citation.]” (In re A.S. (2009) 180
15 Cal.App.4th 351, 358.) Any error by a juvenile court in denying a hearing on a section
388 petition may be deemed harmless where the petitioner fails to identify any additional
evidence the petitioner could have presented at an evidentiary hearing that would have
established a right to reunification services. (In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147,
1161-1165.)
Chronic substance abuse is generally considered a serious problem and, therefore,
is less likely to be satisfactorily ameliorated in the brief time between termination of
services and the section 366.26 hearing. (In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519,
528, 531, fn. 9 [“It is the nature of addiction that one must be ‘clean’ for a much longer
period than 120 days to show real reform”]; In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681,
686 [no abuse of discretion in denying a § 388 petition where mother established only a
372-day period of abstinence]; In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 423 [“seven
months of sobriety since . . . relapse . . . , while commendable, was nothing new”].)
Here, one of the original bases for detaining and removing the children was the
fact that mother had a chronic substance abuse problem. The initiating incident was
mother’s arrest for possession of a controlled substance for sale. Mother pled guilty to
possession of a controlled substance for sale.
Yet even early on, it was reported that mother was not progressing well in her drug
treatment programs. Since being referred to a substance abuse aftercare program, the
staff reported mother did not demonstrate skills necessary to maintain a program of
recovery, had shown minimal progress, and had no social support system. Mother had
missed eight days of treatment. She did not complete the program successfully. Mother
16 was terminated from the juvenile dependency drug court for failure to make progress.
More than a month after completing a substance abuse aftercare program, mother had not
provided proof of attending a 12-step program.
After the children were returned to mother’s custody, her “Wraparound” program
services were terminated as she had missed appointments. Mother tested positive for
marijuana on three occasions and failed to show for testing on another date. Mother
failed to complete a subsequent court ordered drug test. Mother was subsequently
arrested again for willful cruelty to a child and possession of a controlled substance for
sale. As the social worker observed, “mother has not been able to sustain sobriety even
though she has had multiple treatment episodes.” Later still, it was suspected mother was
using a mind-altering substance, which would not appear on drug tests.
At the time of mother filing her section 388 petition, on September 24, 2014, her
last documented negative drug test was from March 27, 2014. Although mother alleged
in her petition that she was “testing negative,” nothing in the petition or the record (even
in subsequent proceedings) demonstrated this was true. Even if mother had documented
subsequent negative drugs tests, this would amount only to “changing,” not “changed”
circumstances. (In re Ernesto R. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 219, 223 [recent completion of
drug treatment and sobriety, where parent had a history of relapses and chronic substance
abuse problems, is not a changed circumstance warranting § 388 relief].) Moreover, any
error in failing to grant mother a hearing on her petition was harmless because mother
failed to identify any additional evidence she could have presented at an evidentiary
hearing that would have established a right to reunification services. The court acted
17 within its discretion in denying mother a hearing on her section 388 petition based on her
failure to allege a prima facie case of changed circumstances.
B. Beneficial Parental Relationship Exception.
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in declining to apply the beneficial
parental relationship exception to termination of her parental rights. We disagree.
Once reunification services have been terminated and a child has been found
adoptable, “adoption should be ordered unless exceptional circumstances exist.” (In re
Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 51.) Under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i),
one such exception exists where “[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and
contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” A
beneficial relationship is established if it “‘promotes the well-being of the child to such a
degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home with
new, adoptive parents.’” (In re Brandon C. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1534, quoting
In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) The parent has the burden of proving
termination would be detrimental to the child. (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th
1339, 1350; In re Jerome D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1207.)
“‘[T]he court balances the strength and quality of the natural parent[-]child
relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new
family would confer. If severing the natural parent[-]child relationship would deprive the
child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly
harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent’s rights are not
terminated.’ [Citation.]” (In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 555.)
18 “[I]t 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.,
supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1350; accord, In re Casey D., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 51.)
“We determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court’s ruling by
reviewing the evidence most favorably to the prevailing party and indulging in all
legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the court’s ruling. [Citation.] If the
court’s ruling is supported by substantial evidence, the reviewing court must affirm the
court’s rejection of the exceptions to termination of parental rights . . . . [Citation.]” (In
re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 297-298.)
Although CFS concedes mother visited regularly with the children, mother failed
to demonstrate that termination of her parental rights would be detrimental to the
children. Early on, visits with the children were chaotic. Child 1 had to be reminded not
to call mother by her first name, mother threatened the children with physical discipline
and a refusal to visit with them in the future, the children at times indicated no desire to
interact with mother, and mother often seemed disengaged with the children. During
subsequent visitation, mother continued to struggle with maintaining discipline. Later
visits found the children upset with having to visit with mother and holding on to the
prospective adoptive parent’s leg. The children were not excited to see mother. During
visitation, child 2 would ask when the visits would end, and the children did not have a
problem saying goodbye to mother when the visits ended.
The social worker opined, “The children do not appear to have a bond with
mother.” The juvenile court’s findings reflect the court found the social worker’s reports
19 credible and disbelieved mother’s testimony regarding her bond with the children.
Moreover, the children were strongly bonded with the prospective adoptive parent. The
juvenile court’s findings that there was no beneficial relationship between mother and the
children, that the children were strongly bonded to the prospective adoptive parent, and
the beneficial parental bond exception to termination of parental rights was not applicable
were supported by substantial evidence.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
McKINSTER J.