Filed 1/5/16 In re S .Q. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re S

. Q., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court La w. B2 63785 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK99726 )

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KATE C ., Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Julie Fox
Blackshaw , Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates and Stephanie M. Davis for Defendant and Appellant.

Mary C. Wickham
, Interim County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison , Assistant County Counsel, and Aileen Wong, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________2

Kate C. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental rights (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 3 66.26 ) 1 to her daughter, S

. Q. (S

. , born Mar. 2012). S he
contends that the juvenile court violated her due process rights by denying her a contested hearing.
We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Prior Appeal As set forth in our prior opinion, in May 2013, the Department of Children and Family Servic es (DCFS) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of S . ( In re S

. Q. (Sept. 9, 2014, B251773 ) [nonpub. opn.], at p. 3.) The juvenile court sustained the allegations against mother, removed S. from mother’s custody, granted mother reunification s ervices, and granted mother monitored visits as well as a two

- hour weekly unmonitored visit with
S. ( In re S

. Q. , supra , B251773, at p. 17.) S. was placed with her paternal grandparents, who were her legal guardians from June 2012 through April 2013 ( In re S

. Q. , supra , B251773, at pp. 2

– 3) and with whom she had been placed (and remained placed) since May 2013 ( In re S

. Q. , supra , B251773, at p. 9). Interim Review Report (Dec. 18, 2013) During the reunification period, the social worker r eported that he provided
mother with referrals for her court

- ordered family reunification services, including parenting education, a domestic violence support group, mental health counseling, a 12

- step program, and random drug testing. Mother provided the social worker with written documentation regarding her prescription medications, which included Adderall, Diazepam, Bupropi on, and Microgestin.

1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Co de unless otherwise indicated.3

Compliance with court

- ordered services The social worker spoke with mother’s therapist, who voiced concerns ov er mother’s missed t herapy appointments. Mother provided the social worker with a certificate of completion for a domestic violence program through Logan Group, but Logan Group was an online program and not part of the referral list that the social worker had provided to mother. Mother also provided the social worker with a certificate of completion of a four

hour parenting program from the DAZ Foundation ; DCFS recommended that she complete additional parenting classes

. Mother tested positive for ampheta mine and methamphetamine on November 7, 2013; the positive amphetamine result would confirm that mother was taking her Adderall prescription. On November 15, 2013, mother complained that the social worker had not provided her with referrals and she was ha ving difficulty obtaining her random drug testing. The November 22, 2013, drug test result indicated that mother had failed to provide a specimen. The social worker discovered that mother had used two different names (her last name as well as the materna l grandmother’s last name) at the drug

- testing
site. On December 9, 2013, mother informed the social worker that she was enrolled in individual counseling with the DAZ Foundation and that she had attended three session s

. Mother was not attendin g a 12

- ste p program. Visitation Beginning September 2013, DCFS provided mother with unmonitored visits on Wednesdays, Saturdays, and Sundays for three hours each. The exchange occurred at the Los Angeles Police Department. Visits were proc eeding as scheduled.
D CFS attempted to modify mother’s v isits on November 23, 2013. They offered
mother an additional three

- hour visit on Tuesday so that the paternal grandparents, with
whom S. had been staying, could take her to San Diego for the Thanksgiving holiday
weeke nd. Mother would have S. for six hours on Christmas Eve and the paternal4

grandparents would have her on Christmas Day. However, the paternal grandmother informed the social worker that mother had forgo tten about the plan.
DCFS Ex Parte Application ; Ju venile Court Order On December 20, 2013, DCFS filed an ex parte application requesting that mother’s visits be restricted to monitored. DCFS argued that mother had been inconsistent with her random drug testing and participation in individual counseling; mother had taken an unapproved online domestic violence program; and mother had neglected to participate in a 12

- step program. The juvenile court granted the application and ordered mother’s visits to be monitored by a DCFS

- approved monitor. It ordered DCFS to consider Michael C. (Michael) 2 as a possible visitation monitor. It also gave DCFS the discretion to liberalize mother’s visits after she tested negative for 10 consecutive random or o n

- demand drug

tests. Request for Walk

- on On January 4, 2014, mother filed a request for walk

- on , claiming that the juvenile court had failed to set up a visitation schedule in over three weeks. She also requested
that Michael be allowed to monitor he r visits with S. About two weeks later, the juvenile court or dered DCFS to provide mother with a
written monitored visitatio n schedule. Last Minute Information for the Court (Mar. 20, 2014) DCFS reported that mother had had weekly monitored visits with S. on Mondays
for an hour

- and

- a

- half. On March 3, 2014, mot her asked the social worker if her monitored visits could be liberalized. Specifically, she asked if Michael could monitor her visits. The social worker asked mother to have Michael go to the DCFS office to sign the monitor’s
instructions and visitor’s t erms forms. However, the social worker was concerned about

2 Michael is mother’s former foster father (when she was a child). ( In re S

. Q. , supra , B251773, at p. 3.) Mother has resided with him from time

- to

- time. ( Ibid .)5

Michael monitoring the visits because she lived with him. As of March 20, 2014, Michael had not yet contacted the social worker. On December 4, 2013, moth er was arrested for prostitution while s he was living with Michael. Thus, DCFS could not approve Michael as a m onitor at that time. Mother tested negative for drugs four times between Jan uary and March 2014. Status Review Report (May 7, 2014)
Visitation
Mother visited with S. every Monday at the DCFS office. S. appeared to be friendly to mother and offered her hugs and kisses during the visits. S. presented as a

c a lm and quiet child. She transitioned well befo re and after visits. Mother’s visits were consistent; she had not missed any. The monitor reported that the visits were going well and mother would bring food and toys. During visits,
mother would read books to S. and th ey played with toys. Mother requested that the visits be liberalized; the visits were modified so that they would take place in the downstairs lobby o f the DCFS building. Compliance with court

- ordered services Mother was not compliant with her co urt

- ordered services. On March 24, 2014, the social worker tried to offer mother additional referrals, but mo ther refused. She said that she was seeing a therapist, but she could not provide any contact information. The social worker asked mother to sign a release of information form with her therapist. There was some confusion with mother’s random

- drug testin g. If mother was taking her prescribed medication, she would test positive for amphetamine. She told the social worker that she was a loving mother who never caused any
harm to S. She claimed that the positive test result for methamphetamine was the result
of a mistake by the testing lab.6

S .Q. Meanwhile, S. appeared relaxed in her paternal grandparents’ home. While there were no medical concerns, there were concerns about her speech and l anguage development. According to Dr. Kelly Glaze, the paternal grandmother noted that S. engaged in aggressive or self

- injurious behavior when frustrated. Further, after visits with mother, the paternal grandmother reported that S. would have “sleep disturbances

. . . , defiant
behavior

. . . , and agg ression.” Dr. Glaze noted that S. and the paternal grandmother had been participating in psychotherapy as a result of S. ’s current symptoms of aggressive and defiant behaviors and her exposure t o domestic violence. Status Review Report (July 16, 201 4) The paternal grandmother informed the social worker that S. transitioned well
before and after visits with mother. Mother consistently visited S. Her visits had been modified to allow mother to
visit at the museum across the street from the DC FS office. The social worker was unable to reach mother to discuss her progres s in court

ordered services. She missed her dru g test on April 17, 2014. Dr. Glaze reported that S. appeared to be improving and felt less anxiety when she was separated fr om the paternal grandmother during her visits with mother. Her language skills were improving, which helped alleviate some frustration when she was tryi ng to communicate her needs.
S. was very bonded to the paternal grandparents. She was also v ery at tached to her parents. Last Minute Information for the Court (Sept. 29, 2014) The social worker met with mother regarding Michael being a potential monitor for her visits. Mother asked that the social worker not mention her arrest for prostitution
becaus e he did not know about it. Mother indicated that she was prescribed Adderall, which she took twice a day; she also took Wellbutrin daily and Diazepam every other day as needed. When asked7

why mother had not tested positive for her prescribed medications , mother explained that she knew she was going to test so she did not take them. The social worker reminded mother that the juvenile court had ordered her to take all of her prescribed medications; mother did not reply. When asked why mother had missed m ultiple drug tests in July, August, and September, mother stated, “ ‘ It was a busy day and I shirked my responsibility. ’ ” Mother tested negative for drugs on September 12, 2014. Mother’s therapist, Stephanie Castro, reported that mother had been regularly attending her weekly therapy sessions for the past one

- and

- one

- half months. She said that mother was making progress to ward her goals. The social worker had called Michael twice requesting that he call back about becoming a visitation monitor for mother . Michael had not returned the calls. Status Review Report (Dec. 12, 2014) Mother was participating in her court

- ordered case plan of random drug and alcohol testing, domestic violence classes, parenting education, individual counseling,
and ment al healt h treatment. On October 24, 2012, Ms. Castro reported that up until two months ago, mother’s therapy attendance had been inconsistent and scattered; she was at risk of being dropped from the program. However, mother now appeared interested in re unifying with S

. Mother had missed at least one drug test, but had also tested negative at a test scheduled for the following week. The social worker noted that mother had a poor drug testing history and no real or valid excus e for missing tests. Mother pro vided a letter from the Sojourn agency, indicating that she had attended three group sessions of a domestic viole nce program in 2013. Mother’s mental health issues were being treated. Mother provided the social worker with attendance sheets from AA/NA me etings she attended from September 2013 through September 2014; she attended meetings approximately once a week. The social worker was unable to confirm whethe r she had a

sponsor.8

Mother continued to have weekly monitored visits with S. at the DCFS of fice. The social worker discussed with mother about providing candidates for others to become
DCFS

- approved monitors; the social worker suggested mother’s boyfriend. Mother initially declined because she did not want to get him involved. However, on
Nov ember 6, 2014, mother stated that she was interested in having her boyfriend monitor
he r visits with S. Regarding visitation, the monitor stated: “‘I would say that things go okay for the most part, but I do have some concerns with the mother. She i s not very receptive or re

directable with the child. The child is old enough to walk
, but the mom carries her on her hip

— literally everywhere all the time. This is odd and I have asked her to let the child walk instead of carrying [ S .] on her hip. She is too big for that and it is a little strange. Also, a few months ago

. . . the mom came to a visit glassy eyed and was high. She wasn’t normal. I have been monitoring the mom for a year. I confronted the mom with this and the mother changed the subj ect and blew it off.’” (Italics omitted.) The social worker explained that due to concerns regarding mother’s missed drug tests, her abnormal behavior during visits, and possibly being under the influence of drugs during visits, DCFS had not liberalized mother’s visits with S. to unmonitored. The paternal grandparents were willing to adopt S. if the pare nts did not reunify.
Visitation Logs On September 23, 2013, the social worker monitored a visit between mother and
S. S. appeared comfo rtable with mother. Mother was very affectionate with S. and hugged and kissed her, telling her that she loved her. At the end of the visit, S. comfortably waved goodbye to mother and went to the paternal gra ndparents. On October 18, 2013, the pa ternal grandmother reported that mother’s visits with
S. had been going relatively well. She noted that mother was nice to her during the visitation exchange. On December 24, 2013, the social worker left mother a message, offering her a
three

- hour vis it at a local park on December 25 and 27, 2013. The paternal grandmother agreed to monitor the visits. On December 25, 2013, mother called the social worker,9

stating that she did not know about the visit for that day. Later that day, the paternal grandm other stated that mother did not show up for the visit. The paternal grandmother
informed mother that there also was a visit scheduled for December 27, 2013; mother did
not sho w up for that visit. On December 31, 2013, the social worker offered mother a visit on New Year’s Day at a local park with the paternal grandmother as the monitor. Mother said that she
would not feel safe at the visit because she believed that fath er would be present. Mother did not show up for the Febru ary 10, 2014, visit.
Mothe r showed up 10 minutes late for the February 24, 2014, visit. She greeted S. with hugs and S. showed mother her shoes. Mother picked up S. and held her tightly. She brought markers, a coloring pad, juice, and snacks. Mother fed S. and S. was content. Mother took pictures of her and S. Mother was affectionate and told S. that she missed her and was happy to be with her. Mother changed S. ’s diaper. Mother gave S.
snacks to take home. The visit went well a nd without inciden t. Mother arrived on time for the March 10, 2014, visit. She brought toys, markers, coloring books, and snacks. She was affectionate with S. , hugging her and holding her,
and told her that she missed her. Mother fed S. and changed her diaper. A t one point, S. became cranky and pointed to the door as if she wanted to leave. Mother responded: “‘I know, I want to leave with you but it is the law.’” S. and mother played with mother’s makeup. Again, the visit went well and mot her was approp riate. At the March 17, 2014, visit, mother brought a lot of toys and snacks for S. ’s birthday. Mother hugged and held S. They played with toys. When S. whined, mother comforted her. Mother took pictures, and she took care of S. by feedi ng her and changing her diapers and clothes. Mother played a cartoon on her cellular telephone,
which S. enjoyed. Again, the visit went well. When the March 24, 2014, visit began and S. was being separated from the paternal grandmother, S. star ted to cry. Mother was able to redirect her and verbally console her. Mother brought snacks and fed S. She read her a b ook and they played.10

The March 31, 2014, visit also went well, although at one point mother said, “‘ [ S .] [ is ] in a ignoring bit ter mood today’” and described S. as “‘bi tter.’” On April 3, 2014, S. ’s father called the dependency investigator, stating that on March 31, 2014, he received a call from mother, who was drunk. He added that mother
told him that she had been arre sted four times and that she was working with a “madam.” She also sold prescription medication, including to an underc over police officer. At the April 7, 2014, visit, the social worker asked mother about her arrest; she
denied that she had been arrested

. She refused to sign the form to have S. assessed by the Regional Center, claiming that if S. spent more time with her, then she would talk more. Mother did bring toys, cake, and sushi to the visit. On April 14 and 21, 2014, S. was excited to see mother. Mother played cartoons on her cellular telephone for S. ; she also changed her diaper and fed her. They played with toys and mother took pictures. Mother was affectionat e and attentive. The paternal grandmother reported on April 23, 2014, that mother’s visits with S. were improving as S. did not cry when she was l eft with mother. Although mother was five minutes late for the April 28, 2014, visit, and S. was cranky, the visit went well. Mother brought gifts and food for S. They played, and mother changed her clothes and diaper. Mother was patient, affectio nate, and attentive. Last Minute Information for the Court (Dec. 12, 2014) Mother tested negative for drugs on November 18, 2014. Mother had completed
29 sessions with M s. Castro, who reported that mother had been consistent with her
treatment and had shown excellent progress. Contested Section 366.22 Hearing (Dec. 12 & 15, 2014) The juvenile court found mother not in compliance with her court

- ordered case plan and term inated reunification services. Mother could still have visits for at least three
hours a week. The matter was set for a section 366.26 hearin g. Section 366.26 Report (Apr. 13, 2015) Mother had twice weekly visits for an hour

- and

- a

- half each; mother’s bo yfriend was the approved monitor for the Thursday visits. The visits were usually uneventful.11

On March 2, 2015, mother cancelled her visit with S. The paternal grandmother stated that mother had said that she was sick and unable to visit. However, S. ’s father told the paternal grandmother that on March 1, 2015, mother had called him and sounded intoxicated. The paternal grandmother believed that mother cancelled the visit because
sh e was “‘hung over.’” On March 30, 2015, the paternal grandmot her informed the social worker that mother’s boyfriend allowed mother’s visits to occur at their home. The social worker noted that DCFS did not provide mother with visits at her home; visits were supposed to take place in a neutral setting. Moreover, mo ther’s boyfriend had failed to inform DCFS about the plan for home visits. DCFS was concerned about mother’s boyfriend’s ability
to remain a neutral visitation monitor. The adoption home study for the paternal grandparents had been approved. S. had
b een in their home since May 2013; they loved her and wanted to provide for h er and protect her. DCFS recommended that the juvenile court terminate parental rights and that S. be adopted by the pa ternal grandparents. Section 366.26 Hearing
Mother’s cou nsel made an offer of proof as to the basis for setting the section 366.26 hearing for contest. He said: “Understanding that the only ex ception that I have
in terms of

— after looking at the record

— is the [section] 366.26 [subdivision] (c)(1)(B) [ (i) ] excep tion in terms of the mother having consistent contact with the child and that it would be detrimental to terminate that relationship or sever that relationship

— I understand
, in talking with my client, that her v isitation has been monitored, t wo times a

wee k for one and a half hours. And I understand that, under the law and in the appellate cases at this point, normally, a parent should be at a point of having unmonitored overnight weekend visitation as kind of a minimum bar. [¶] But I would offer that my client has, apparently, made numerous requests of the social worker to try and liberalize this visitation, and there doesn’t seem

— in speaking with her

— to have been any definitive reason given to her as to why the visits cannot be liberalized at some point

.12

And I’m not sure why a [section] 388 [petition] wasn’t filed previously to address this issue earlier than at this point. [¶] So, unfortunately, I have to leave it up to the court in terms of where we are with visitation for the mother, but simply str ess that I believe the mother has an extremely strong bond with this child, and I do have available her
visitation monitor who would testify to that bond.” The juvenile court noted that case law required a parent to have a significant parenting role in a child’s life, which was not possible with monitored visitation. Then, it denied mother a contested hearing. S. ’s counsel joined in the ju venile court’s decision. The juvenile court found that S. was adoptable and that it was detrimental for her to be returned to parental custody. It terminated pa rental rights. Appeal
M other’s timely appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION Mother argues that the juvenile court violated her due process rights by denying her a contested hearing.
At the section 366.26 hearin g, the juvenile court must make a permanent plan for the minor child. ( § 366.26, subd. (b).) The preferred permanent plan is adoption. ( In re
Marina S. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 158, 164.) If the juvenile court finds a child to be adoptable, it must termi nate parental rights absent specified circumstances in which it would be detrimental. ( § 366.26, subd. (c) (1).) “After the parent has failed to reunify and the court has found the child likely to be adopted, it is the parent’s burden to show exception al circumstances exist ” to circumvent the termination of parental rights. ( In re
Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4t h 567, 574; see also In re Tabatha G. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4t h 1159, 1164.) At the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court may require an offer of proof before allowing a contested hearing on the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights. ( In re Tamika T. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4t h 1114, 1122.) Such an offer of proof serves to “clearly identify the contested issue(s) so [the court] can determine whether a parent’s representation is sufficient t o warrant a hearing involving13

presentation of evidence and confrontation and cross

- examination of witnesses.” ( I bi d .) Due process requires that a contested hearing be held only if the parent’s offer of proof shows that the parent has “ ‘ relevant evidence of significant probative value to the issue
before the court. ’ ” ( Ibid .) “A proper of fer of proof gives the trial co u r t an opportunity to determine if, in fact, there really is a contested issue of fact.” ( Id . at p. 1124.) “The offer of proof must be specific, setting forth the actual evidence to be produced, not merely the facts or issues to be addressed and argued.” ( Ibid .) Where a parent has not made a
sufficient offer of proof, the denial of a contested hearing does not violate the parent’s due process rights. ( Id . at p. 1116.) While mother had regular visitation with S. , that visitation never progressed past monitored and only occurred twice a week. Under those circ umstances, the juvenile court properly determined that mother failed to make an adequate offer of proof that she

occup ied a parental role. ( In re Andrea R. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1108; In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1418

– 1419 ; In re Ca sey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 51 .) Even if the juvenile court erred in failing to hold a contested hearing, sufficient
evidence establishes that the outcome would have been the same

— mother’s parental rights would have been terminated. (Cal. Const., ar t. VI, § 13 [reversal only if error results in a miscarriage of justice].) Mother did not, and could not, establish that the parental benefit exception to termination of parental rights applied. ( § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i) ; see, e.g., In re Autumn H. , supra , 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575 .) Again, although mother maintained regular and consistent visits with S. , she failed to demonstrate that any benefit S. received would outweigh the benefit conferred by adoption

. ( In re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4t h 1145, 1155

– 1156; In re Autumn H. , supra , 27 Cal.App.4th at

p. 575.) From the time she was three months old until she was 17 months old, she lived with her paternal grandparents under a legal guardianship. ( In re S

. Q. , supra , B251773, at pp. 2

– 3.) One month after the legal guardianship was terminated and mother regained custody of S. , S. was detained in the paternal grandparents’ home, where she has
remained. S. is bonded to her paternal grandparents and, while she has shown that she is14

ex cited to see mother, there is no evidence that she is bonded to mother as her parent. Thus, mother did not, and could not, prove that termination of parental rights would have
been detrimental to S. ( In re Jasmine D

. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350; In re Jerome
D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1207 .) Mother contends that she was deprived of her right to visitation because DCFS did not liberalize her visits. Aside from the potential proced ural obstacles to this argument
, the appellate record does not support this claim. Early, mother asked that Michael monitor her visits, but Michael failed to contact the social worker about signing the requisite forms. After Michael failed to be responsive, the social worker suggested that mother’s boyfriend monitor the visits; mother resisted this idea. Also, the visitation changed in location, from the DCFS office, to the building lobby, to the museum across the street and local parks. And the visits increased, from once a week to twice a week

. In re Brandon C. ( 1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530 does not compel reversal

. Certainly, that case recognized that a court may consider the relationship between a parent and a child in the context of a dependency setting, e.g., the amount of visitation permitted and whether the pa rent was ever the child’s primary caretaker. ( In re
Brandon C. , at pp. 1537

– 1538.) But , as set forth above, the overriding concern is whether the benefit gained by continuing the relationship between the biological parent and the child outweighs the bene fit conferred by adoption. ( In re Lukas B

. , supra , 79 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1155

– 1156; In re Autumn H. , supra , 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.)
Mother has not shown that here.15 DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s order i s affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIA L REPORTS

.

______________________________, J. ASHMANN

- GERST We concur:

_______________________________, P. J.

BOREN

_______________________________, J.

CHAVEZ