1

Filed 1/4/24 In re E.B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 E.B. et al., Persons Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.B. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

E081976

(Super.Ct.Nos. J290686 & 

J290687 & J290688 & 

J290689 & J290690)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lynn M. Poncin, 

Judge. Affirmed.

Michelle D. Pena, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant B.B.

William D. Caldwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant J.R.
2

Tom Bunton, County Counsel, Pamela J. Walls, Special Counsel for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

Defendants and appellants J.R. (Mother) and presumed father B.B. (Father; 

collectively, Parents) are the parents of Br.B. (female born Nov. 2017), J.B. (female born 

Oct. 2020), E.B. (female twin born Sept. 2021), and G.B. (female twin born Sept. 2021; 

collectively, Twin Girls).

1 Mother has another child, A.G. (female born Feb. 2013).2 On 

appeal, Parents contend that the juvenile court’s findings and orders at the Welfare and 

Institutions Code3section 366.26 hearing terminating their parental rights to the Twin 

Girls must be reversed. For the reasons set forth post, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 26, 2021, the family came to the attention of San Bernardino County 

Children And Family Services (CFS) for allegations of emotional abuse to Br.B. and J.B. 

by Parents. Law enforcement was called after Father hit Mother.

On September 3, 2021, Mother “acknowledged that domestic violence took place. 

She reported that the only times that the father has been physically violent with her is 

when she is pregnant.” Mother was near the end of her pregnancy with the Twin Girls. 

1

In 2022, Mother gave birth to twin boys. They are not parties to this appeal; 

they are subjects of a separate dependency case in Riverside County.

2 A.G.’s biological father passed away in 2014.

3

 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise specified. 
3

Mother stated that Father chased her into the kitchen and slapped her after Mother 

confronted Father about getting a job. Mother reported that Father had previously served 

jail time for hitting Mother when she was pregnant. Mother denied that either she or 

Father had a history of drug abuse. Although Father did not reside in the home, Mother 

reported that she was unemployed so she “relied heavily on the father as he provided 

food, shelter and basi[c] necessities for herself and the children.” Mother stated that “her 

dilemma was having multiple children, being pregnant and no support, and that is why 

she felt required to stay in the relationship.” Mother admitted that “within the last ‘few 

months’ the father’s demeanor and personality had been changing,” but she denied father 

used illicit drugs or drank alcohol extensively. Mother called the social worker on 

September 14, 2021, and informed her that a court granted a temporary domestic violence 

restraining order against Father. 

On September 16, 2021, when the social worker was interviewing A.G., Br.B.

“interrupted and reported that the father spent the night at the house the previous night 

and the father had been arrested.” When A.G. was asked to confirm Br.B.’s statement, 

A.G. “was unwilling to do so.” When the social worker asked Mother, Mother denied 

that Father had been in their home. Mother eventually admitted that Father was at the 

home to help with the children and take A.G. to school. Mother then stated, “that the 

father had been arrested and taken to jail on an open warrant for the domestic violence 

incident that occurred on August 26, 2021.” Mother stated that she had not 

communicated with Father since his arrest.
4

On September 17, 2021, Father called the social worker “requesting to be 

interviewed and to verify what he need[ed] to do in order to comply with CFS.” Father 

stated that on August 26, 2021, Mother would not let him leave when Father tried to 

leave the house. Therefore, Father pushed Mother. “He denied hitting her.” Father then 

“acknowledged the previous incident of domestic violence but denied hitting [Mother]. 

He reported ‘it’s normal relationship stuff.’ ” Father declined services and reported being 

“sober from marijuana and alcohol for three months.” Father, however, would not 

provide details. The social worker ended the call when Father became verbally 

combative, condescending, and rude. “However, before terminating the call the [social 

worker] advised the father after he calmed down to call back or text if he wanted to 

continue the conversation.”

A few days later, Mother gave birth to the Twin Girls.

On September 23, 2021, the social worker “obtained a signed detention warrant” 

for the children. Law enforcement served the warrant at Mother’s home. Father was 

arrested for violating the restraining order while attempting to flee the home. Br.B and 

the Twin Girls were placed in a foster home; A.G. and J.B. were placed with the maternal 

grandparents.

On September 27, 2021, CFS filed section 300 petitions on behalf of the children. 

A.G.’s petition alleged that Mother had a substance abuse problem and a history of 

domestic abuse under section 300, subdivision (b). The petitions on behalf of the other 

four children alleged that Parents had substance abuse problems and histories of domestic 

abuse, and Father had an extensive criminal history under section 300, subdivision (b). 
5

The petitions also alleged that Father left a loaded firearm within the reach of A.G., under 

section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j).

At the detention hearing on September 28, 2021, Parents and their attorneys were 

present. The court found a prima facie case established that the children came within 

section 300 and continued their detention. The court also ordered a same-day drug test 

for Parents, and told them that a refusal or failure to test would be deemed a positive test. 

The court then ordered supervised visitation.

Notwithstanding the court’s order, neither Mother nor Father drug tested after the 

detention hearing.

At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on October 19, 2021, Parents and their 

attorneys were present. At the hearing, the juvenile court found the following allegations 

true: (1) as to AG, that she came within section 300, subdivision (b); and (2) as to E.B., 

G.B., J.B. and Br.B., that they came within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j). The 

court removed the children from Parents’ custody, and ordered reunification services with

increased visitation between the Twin Girls and Mother.

On April 12, 2022, CFS filed a Status Review Report for the six-month review 

hearing. In the report, the social worker reported that Parents were still in a relationship 

and moved into a new apartment together. The children were assessed and they were 

determined not to qualify for any mental and emotional services. They appeared happy 

and comfortable in their placements.
6

The social worker provided that Mother participated in services. Her “individual 

counseling” counselor requested additional sessions. Mother missed several drug tests. 

Father also participated in services and missed several drug tests.

At the six-month review hearing on April 19, 2022, Parents and their attorneys

were present. The juvenile court granted unsupervised visits.

In a status review report for the section 366.21 12-month hearing, the social 

worker reported that Parents married. Mother gave birth to twin boys in September 2022. 

Parents continued to participate in court-ordered services.

The social worker reported that the children continued to be happy and 

comfortable in their placement. Moreover, the social worker noted no concerns regarding 

visitation.

At the October 5, 2022, 12-month review hearing, Parents and their attorneys were 

present. The juvenile court set the matter for mediation, followed by a further review 

hearing.

In a Mediation Report dated October 18, 2022, the social worker noted that 

Mother missed drug tests on September 7, September 26, and October 4, 2022. On 

September 15, 2022, however, Mother’s doctor provided a note stating that Mother 

would be unable to test due to her pregnancy. The social worker wrote that Mother 

would “start her random drug testing again after November 14, 2022.” The social worker 

also reported that since “[t]here were no concerns [regarding the twin boys,] Riverside 

CPS would not accept a referral.”
7

The social worker and Parents participated in the mediation. At the mediation the 

parties agreed “to begin unsupervised overnights and weekends after the next hearing,” 

and “[u]pon 4 successful weeks / visits to transition to a 29-day visit.”

At the hearing the following day, Father and attorneys for Parents were present. 

Mother did not attend. The court stated that at the mediation, “[t]here was a full 

agreement between the parties to begin unsupervised, overnights, and weekends after 

today’s date. And then upon four successful weeks, visits are to transition to a 29-day 

visit. [¶] The Court would be in agreement with setting the matter out 60 days to 

December 19 and granting authority for visitation as agreed to by the parties.”

After discussing the issue with counsel, the juvenile court scheduled a further 12-

month review hearing for December 19, 2022. The court then stated: “I’ll find good 

cause and in the best interest of the minors to continue the matter to transition them home 

to [Parents]. I’ll grant authority for [Parents] to begin unsupervised visits, overnights, 

and weekends. And then upon four successful weeks, the Court will grant authority for 

the children to have an extended visit with [Parents].”

In an Additional Information to the Court filed on December 14, 2022, the social 

worker reported that overnight and weekend visits proceeded with no issues. Thereafter, 

all five children began their 29-day trial visits. On November 7, 2022, however, Mother 

texted the social worker indicating that the family was being evicted from their 

apartment. Thereafter, Parents eventually worked out a payment plan and moved back. 

Although the doctor’s note excusing Mother from drug testing expired on November 14, 

2022, Mother failed to drug test on November 18, 2022. Father also missed his drug test.
8

At the December 19, 2022, continued hearing, Mother and attorneys for Parents 

were present. Father was not present. The court continued the hearing to review the 29-

day trial visit. The juvenile court ordered that Children’s Advocacy Group and CFS were 

to have unannounced access to the children. The juvenile court explained to Mother, 

“[s]ince the children remain in your care on an extended visit, I’m ordering that you 

allow Children’s Advocacy Group—the attorneys that represent the children and their 

social worker—have access to your home to assess the children while they remain with 

you on an extended visit. . . . [¶] . . . [¶] . . . The children’s attorney and the children’s 

attorney’s social worker. They may make announced visits to speak to their clients and 

see the children in your home.”

In the January 11, 2023, Additional Information to the Court, the social worker 

reported that Mother missed her only drug test in December. Father missed two drug 

tests. Mother stated that she forgot to test because the children were in her home, and 

Father stated that he was sick. The social worker attempted to make unannounced visits 

but no one answered or responded, even though the social worker heard the television on 

one attempt and saw the family car on another attempt. In addition, Parents failed to 

respond to the social worker’s calls and texts. When the social worker was finally able to 

see the family at an unannounced visit, the social worker discussed the importance of 

complying with the juvenile court’s orders to complete random drug tests. Subsequently, 

Father tested negative but Mother missed another drug test.

At the January 11, 2023, hearing, Father and attorneys for parents were present. 

Mother did not attend the hearing. The court set the matter for a contested 12-month 
9

review hearing. The court also terminated the trial visit and reverted Parents’ visitations 

to supervised visits. The court further ordered Parents to drug test that day. The court 

again reminded Parents that failing to test would be considered a positive result.

CFS filed an addendum report on January 31, 2023. In the report, the social 

worker provided that J.B. and A.G. were placed with their maternal grandparents again. 

The Twin Girls and Br.B. were placed in a new foster home.

On January 19, 2023, Riverside CPS contacted Parents regarding the twins boys. 

Riverside CPS requested that Parents take saliva drug tests. Father’s results were 

inconclusive, and Mother refused to test. Later that day, Mother confronted Father; it led 

to a physical alternation. Father “busted” Mother’s lip. Father was subsequently arrested 

for spousal abuse. Riverside CPS removed the twin boys on January 20, 2023.

On January 23, 2023, Mother “completed a random drug testing for Riverside 

County which was negative.” The Riverside social worker, however, believed that 

Mother “may have ‘taken something’ ” so was “talking about obtaining a hair follicle 

test.” Riverside CPS reported that Mother refused to take a hair follicle drug test. 

Mother took numerous drug tests for both cases in Riverside and San Bernardino. She 

tested negative for several tests but tested positive for amphetamines on January 20, 

2023.

During this time, Mother moved into a friend’s home, and then to her aunt’s home 

in Los Angeles.
10

At the contested review hearing on February 2, 2023, Father and Parents’ 

attorneys were present. Mother was not present at the beginning of the hearing but 

eventually appeared telephonically after several attempts to reach her.

After counsel for Parents, the children, and CFS presented their arguments, the 

juvenile court found that neither parent benefitted from services. The court stated, “the 

Court cannot find that [Parents] have demonstrated capacity and ability to complete the 

objectives of the treatment plan and provide for the children’s safety, protection, physical 

and emotional health. It’s clear that while they may have completed their classes, they 

have failed to benefit from those classes.” The juvenile court then stated that “over the 

objection of [Parents], the Court will adopt the findings and orders set forth in the 

addendum report of today’s date.”

The court ordered the children as continued dependents of the court, terminated 

reunification services to parents, and set the matter for a contested section 366.26 

hearing.

On May 19, 2023, CFS filed its Section 366.26 WIC Report. In the report, the 

social worker reported that the Twin Girls, who were one year old, were happy in their 

placement with their prospective adoptive parents. The Twin Girls were placed with the 

foster parents on September 23, 2021, and then again on February 16, 2023. “When 

asked to describe their relationship with the children, [the foster mother] stated, ‘I feel 

like they are mine, they don’t know anyone else but me and my husband, when they went 

home for the trial period, they had a hard time and so did we’. [The foster parents] 

stated, ‘They are the princesses and have brought so much joy into our household.’ ” The 
11

social worker noted that the foster parents look “affectionate and nurturing to [the Twin 

Girls].” Moreover, both foster parents wished “to legalize their parental relationship with 

he children and [were] very committed to providing them permanency through adoption.”

At the contested section 366.26 hearing on August 16, 2023, Parents and their 

respective attorneys were in attendance. After hearing from the attorneys for Parents, the 

children, and CFS, the juvenile court found that the Twin Girls were likely to be adopted. 

Moreover, after analyzing the elements of the parental benefit exception to adoption 

under In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 (Caden C.), the court found that the 

exception did not apply. Thereafter, the court terminated the parental rights of Parents to 

the Twin Girls.

On August 16, 2023, Father filed a timely notice of appeal, and on August 18, 

2023, Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

THE JUVENILE COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT THE BENEFICIAL 

EXCEPTION TO ADOPTION DID NOT APPLY

On appeal, Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in finding that the 

parental benefit exception to adoption did not apply. Mother states: “The judgment 

terminating parental rights must be reversed: In light of [the Twin Girls’] relationships 

with their parents and the consequences of severing those relationships—as well as the 

children’s relationships with their older sisters, younger brothers, and extended family—

the juvenile court abused discretion in deciding against applying the parent-children 

relationship exception to terminating parental rights.”
12

“Father joins Mother’s argument in her appellant’s opening brief that the juvenile 

court abused its discretion when it found the parent-child relationship did not apply and 

the order terminating Mother’s parental rights must be reversed; if the judgment 

terminating Mother’s parental rights is reversed, the judgment terminating Father’s rights 

must also be reversed.”

At a section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court selects and implements a permanent 

plan for the child. If a child cannot be returned to his or her parents and is likely to be 

adopted if parental rights are terminated, a court must select adoption as the permanent 

plan unless one of the exceptions provided in section 366.26, subdivision (c), applies. (In

re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 946; In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53

(Celine R.).)

In order to invoke an exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), “the

moving parent must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, each of the following

elements: (1) that the parent has regularly visited with the child; (2) that the child would

benefit from continuing the relationship; and (3) that terminating the relationship would

be detrimental to the child.” (In re Katherine J. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 303, 316

(Katherine J.).) This exception “to the general rule that the court must choose adoption

where possible—‘must be considered in view of the legislative preference for adoption

when reunification efforts have failed.’ ” (Celine R., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 53.)

We review the juvenile court’s findings on the first two elements under the 

substantial evidence standard of review. (In re LA-O (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 197, 206 

(LA-O).) “But ‘the ultimate decision—whether termination of parental rights would be 
13

detrimental to the child due to the child’s relationship with his parent—is discretionary 

and properly reviewed for abuse of discretion.’ ” (Id., at p. 206.) “ ‘A court abuses its 

discretion only when “ ‘ “the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by 

making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination.” ’ ” ’ ” (LA-O, at pp. 

206-207.) 

In this case, the juvenile court analyzed the parental benefit exception under

Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th 614 and In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567. After

discussing both Caden C. and Autumn H., the juvenile court stated: “Stated otherwise,

the trial Court must determine whether terminating parental rights serves the child’s best

interest. The Court acts in the child’s best interest in a specific way by deciding whether

the harm of severing a relationship outweighs the security and the sense of belonging in

[a] new family would confer. [¶] In looking at the relationship between [Parents] and the

children, the Court is cognizant that the relationship between parents and children may be

shaped by . . . set factors that include the age of the children, the portion [of the]

children’s life spent in the parent’s custody, whether there are positive or negative effects 

of interaction between the parent and child, and whether a child has a particular need. [¶] 

In this case, as [CFS’s counsel] stated, and as set forth in the report that was received into 

evidence, [the Twin Girls] were born [in September 2021]. They came into protective 

custody on September 23rd, 2021, and they were in their first foster care placement for 

just over 14 months when they were returned home on January 11, 2023. And then on 

February 16, 2023, they were removed again and placed in the previous concurrent 

planning home of the current prospective adoptive parents.”
14

The court then went on to discuss the elements of Caden C., as they applied to the 

current case: “As [Mother] indicated, the twins lived with her about one and a half 

months. Both [Mother] and [Father] satisfied the first element of In re Caden C. It 

appears both have visited on a regular basis and are visiting within the confines of the 

Court’s order. The visits have been one time per month for two hours. According to the 

.26 report of June 2nd, [Parents] have had monthly supervised visits, which are separate, 

and the visits have been going well. The mother testified she has not missed any visits. 

She described what takes place during the visits, including playing with the twins, 

feeding them, and spending time together.”

The court noted that Parents testified that “the children are shy at first” until they 

wanted to play. Therefore, the juvenile court found that “both [Parents] have established 

the first prong of the elements set forth in In re Caden C.” 

However, the court went on to state that Parents have failed to establish “proof of 

a relationship the continuation of which would benefit the children such that termination 

of parental rights would be detrimental to the child.” The court stated that the Twin Girls 

“have only lived with [Parents] for a month and [a] half or six weeks at best. There’s 

been no indication that there is any emotional dysregulation at the end of the visits, no 

crying.” The court went on to note that there were “no temper tantrums, nothing to 

indicate that the separation between the children and [Parents] cause[d] anguish to the 

children.: Instead, the court noted that Father stated the Twin Girls looked serious at the 

end of the visits and wanted “to keep playing.”
15

Therefore, the juvenile court found “that [Parents] have not met the burden of 

proof under In re Caden C. There has been insufficient evidence presented to allow the 

Court to deviate from the legislative preference for adoption, and this is not a case in 

which exceptional circumstances exist to allow the Court to deviate from the legislative 

preference for adoption.”

Therefore, for the Twin Girls, the court adopted “the findings and orders that have 

been submitted,” and terminated “the parental rights of [Parents] and all unknown 

fathers.” The court also found that adoption was “the children’s permanent plan.” 

Furthermore, the court stated: “The Court is finding that the children’s placement is 

necessary; the children’s placement is appropriate; the children remain dependents of the 

Court.”

We agree with the juvenile court’s reasoning and findings. There was no evidence 

of any emotional attachment the Twin Girls had for their parents. The Twin Girls were 

placed in the prospective adoptive home just days after being born and spent only one 

and a half months with Parents when they were infants. Hence, we agree with the court 

due to the limited time the Twin Girls spent with Parents, Parents have failed to establish 

“proof of a relationship the continuation of which would benefit the children such that 

termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child.”

However, even if we could find that there was some benefit to maintaining the 

relationship between the Twin Girls and their parents, we find that there would be no 

detriment to the Twin Girls with the termination of their relationship with Parents. This 

court recently explained that “ ‘in assessing whether termination would be detrimental, 
16

the trial court must decide whether the harm from severing the child’s relationship with 

the parent outweighs the benefit to the child of placement in a new adoptive home.’ 

[Citation.] The court must ask, ‘does the benefit of placement in a new, adoptive home 

outweigh “the harm [the child] would experience from the loss of [a] significant, positive, 

emotional relationship with [the parent?]” ’ ” (LA-O, supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 206.)

Here, the juvenile court did just that. There is no evidence that severing the 

relationship between the Twin Girls and Parents would be detrimental to them. As noted 

above, the Twin Girls were removed from their home when they were just days old. 

Although Parents visited regularly, and the visits went well, there was no evidence of any

parent-child relationship, significant or not. 

“ ‘[T]he beneficial relationship exception demands something more than the 

incidental benefit a child gains from any amount of positive contact with her natural 

parent. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 229 [a parent must demonstrate 

something ‘more than frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or 

pleasant visits’]; In re Angel B. (2002) 08 Cal.App.4th 454, 458 [‘for the exception to 

apply, the emotional attachment between the child and parent must be that of parent and 

child rather than one of being a friendly visitor or friendly nonparent relative, such as an 

aunt’].)” (Katherine J., supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 316.)

In this case, there is no evidence that the Twin Girls would be “greatly harmed” by

the termination of their natural parent-child relationship with Mother. (In re Angel B.,

supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 466.) The Twin Girls are barely two years old and lived with

parents for a brief time, the girls never asked for Parents and did not react emotionally
17

when visits with Parents ended. As the juvenile court stated, Parents “have not

established proof of a relationship the continuation of which would benefit the children

such that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to he child. The children

have only lived with [Parents] for a month and [a] half or six weeks at best. There’s been

no indication that there is any emotional dysregulation at the end of the visits, no crying. 

There’s no temper tantrums, nothing to indicate that the separation between the children

and the mother and father causes anguish to the children.”

Therefore, we conclude Parents failed to show that the juvenile court’s findings

lack the support of substantial evidence or that its exercise of discretion rested on an

unsupported factual basis. The juvenile court properly found the parent-child relationship 

exception to adoption did not apply.

DISPOSITION

We affirm the findings and orders of the juvenile court. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

FIELDS

J.