Filed 10/1/14 In re Sean T. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEAN T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B254583
(Los Angeles County

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

v.
PATRICIA F., et al.,
Defendants and Appellants. Super. Ct. No. CK88494)

APPEALS from orders of the Superior Co urt of Los Angeles County. Tony L. Richardson, Judge. Affirmed as to Pa tricia F.; dismissed as to Sean T. Janette Freeman Cochran, under appo intment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appella nt Patricia F. Neal B. Gold, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Sean T. John F. Krattli, County Counsel, Dawyn R. Harrison, Assistant County Counsel, and Tracey F. Dodds, Deputy County Co unsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 Patricia F. (mother) and Sean T. (fathe r) appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights over their son Se an (born April 2007). We dismiss father’s appeal and affirm the order termin ating mother’s parental rights.
BACKGROUND
Detention and sect ion 300 petition On June 3, 2011, the Los Angeles Coun ty Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) received a refe rral alleging that Sean was a victim of emotional abuse by mother, who had untreated mental health problems. Mother had been evaluated on May 27, 2011, after exhibiting psychotic symptoms. She had reportedly burned papers in her bedroom while Sean wa s present and kicked maternal grandmother Cecelia T. (maternal grandmother). Mother had not been hospitalized because she had agreed to seek psychiatric treatm ent. She later refused to do so. Mother initially presented well during a June 3, 2011 interview with the Department’s social worker at the home moth er shared with maternal grandmother and maternal great-grandmother. As the inte rview progressed, however, mother began exhibiting symptoms of paranoia. She admitte d suffering a “breakdo wn” in November or December of 2010 and being hos pitalized approximately six y ears ago, but denied having any current mental health issues. Mother said she had been prescribed medication but
refused to take it because it had not worked in the past. The social worker spoke with a Depart ment of Mental Health mobile response team worker named Andrea Simmons, who ha d visited the family on May 27, 2011, at maternal grandmother’s request. Mother was very agitated that day and was refusing to take her prescribed psychotropic medication. She agreed to seek treatment. When Simmons later followed up with the family, mother had not obtained treatment and was still exhibiting paranoid symptoms. Simmons called in the referral to the Department
after she witnessed an altercation between mo ther and maternal grandmother and mother
threatened to leave the home with Sean.
The social worker also spoke with Alison Manumaleuna, a case manager with
Children’s Institute Internati onal who had been working with mother since April 2011.3 Manumaleuna said that approximately two w eeks earlier, mother was exhibiting signs of depression after not sleeping for three da ys. Manumaleuna took mother to see a psychiatrist and then accompanied mother to obtain her prescribed medication. Mother
refused to take the medication. The social worker, accomp anied by Simmons, met with mother and maternal grandmother on June 23, 2011. Maternal grandmother confirmed that mother had attempted to start a fire in her bedroom while Sean was present. She said that at times mother does not get out of bed or leave the house and that mother had failed to keep multiple doctor appointments fo r Sean. Simmons attempted to persuade mother to seek treatment through the Department of Mental He alth. Mother refused to do so and stated
several times that she would not take her prescribed medication. Mother appeared to be in an active psychotic state during a team decision meeting held on June 24, 2011. She referred seve ral times to a book entitled “The Game” as the source of her problems, but she could not co herently explain how or why this was the case. Mother agreed during the meeting that she would take her prescribed psychotropic medication; however, she subsequently failed to do so. On June 29, 2011, the Department filed a petition on behalf of Sean under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (g), 1 alleging that mother had a history of engaging in violent altercations with maternal grandmother and had kicked maternal grandmother on a prior occasion in May 2011; that mother had mental and emotional problems rendering her incapable of providing Sean with regular care and supervision; that mother created a detrimenta l and endangering situation by attempting to
start a fire in the home in th e child’s presence; and that mother had a history of illicit drug use, including marijuana, rendering her incapabl e of providing Sean with regular care and supervision. The petition further alleged th at father, whose whereabouts were unknown, had failed to provide Sean with the necessities of life.

1 All further statutory references ar e to the Welfare and Institutions Code.4 The juvenile court ordered Sean detained from mother and pla ced with maternal grandmother. The court also issued a statewide jail removal order for father. In July 2011, the Department reported that mother had been admitted to Pacific Hospital on July 9, 2011, and discharged on July 15, 2011. Mother refused assistance with housing and said she wa s going to her cousin’s home. The Department’s social
worker obtained the cousin’s telephone number from maternal grandmother and left a message asking mother to contact the De partment. Mother did not call, and her
whereabouts were then unknown. Mother appeared at a July 20, 2011 hearing at whic h the juvenile court found father to be an alleged father. The court ordered mother to sign a release order with regard to her medical information and or dered the Department to prepare a report addressing mother’s mental health issues. Jurisdiction and disposition The Department’s August 12, 2011 jurisdiction/disposition report summarized interviews involving the soci al worker and mother, mate rnal grandmother, mother’s therapist, and father. Mother said she was diagnosed with ps ychosis when she was 21 or 22 years old and was hospitalized for four days. Disc harge documents from mo ther’s July 2011 hospitalization indicated diagnoses of depr ession and bipolar disorder, and recommended
that mother find a stable and structured livi ng arrangement and that she continue to take her prescribed medications. Mother said sh e had stopped taking medication because “it was messing me up.” Mother admitted to occas ional marijuana use in the past but said she had not used marijuana for at least a year. With regard to the alleged incident of domestic violence, mother said she had kick ed maternal grandmother after maternal grandmother slapped mother in the face. She said Sean was not present during the altercation. Mother denied setting any fire s in the home and said she had been using matches to light a candle. Mo ther said that father had be en incarcerated since she was four months pregnant, her relationship with him ended upon his in carceration, and she
did not know when he would be released.5 According to maternal gr andmother, mother had been diagnosed with psychosis, depression, and bipolar disorder and had been prescribed tw o different medications. She
said that mother was in denial about her illness and believed the medication was unnecessary. Maternal grandmother said th e domestic violence allegation was untrue.
She said that mother had kick ed her in the leg on one occas ion outside of Sean’s presence
and there had been no other physical altercations between them. Maternal grandmother said she had not witnessed mother setting fire to anything in the home but at the time could smell burning paper. Maternal grandm other stated she had never met father and that father had never provi ded any support for Sean. Mother’s therapist, Dr. Pete r Jay, said that he had seen mother on July 18 and 21, 2011. Mother presented as paranoid on Ju ly 18, and was “confus ed, suspicious, and argumentative” on July 21. He said that mother continues to appear psychotic. Father spoke with the soci al worker by telephone. He said he was unaware of any physical altercations between mother and maternal grandmother, mother’s mental or emotional health issues, or mother’s alleged dr ug use. He said he had been incarcerated
since 2006 as the result of a firearms convic tion and that his expected release date was
sometime in 2016. Father appeared at a hearing held August 10, 2011, and denied the allegations of the petition. The juvenile court ordered th e Department to arrange a team decision meeting with the paternal and maternal relatives to address visitation issues. Mother and father were both present at the August 12, 20 11 jurisdiction and disposition hearing at which mo ther submitted to an amende d petition and pl ed no contest to allegations that she had be en diagnosed with psychosis and bipolar disorder, limiting her ability to provide regular care and supervis ion for Sean, that sh e sometimes failed to take her prescribed psychotropic medication, placing him at risk of harm, and that she and maternal grandmother engaged in a verbal and physical altercati on while Sean was in the home. The juvenile court declared Sean to be a dependent of the court and ordered him removed from mother’s custody. The co urt ordered mother to participate in individual counseling to address case issues , including her relationship with maternal6 grandmother, parenting, and drug counselin g; to take all prescribed psychotropic medications; to follow up with the Department of Mental Health; to submit to six random or on demand drug tests; and to participat e in a drug rehabilitati on program if any drug tests were positive. The court accorded moth er monitored visits, as often as could be arranged, and gave the Department discretion to liberalize the visits. The juvenile court denied father reunifi cation services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (a) and accorded hi m monitored visits once a m onth after consultation with
minor’s counsel. Review proceedings In February 2012, the Department repor ted that Sean was doing well in maternal grandmother’s care. He was enrolled in pres chool and attended group therapy. Maternal grandmother said she was committed to caring fo r Sean and wanted Sean to remain with
her if he could not return to mother. Mother was in partial co mpliance with her case plan. She was meeting with her psychiatrist on a regular basis and was taki ng her prescribed medications. She also visited consistently with Sean, who appeared excited and happy to see her. However she had not completed random drug testing, was not currently enrolled in a substance abuse treatment program, and had not attended i ndividual therapy on a regular basis.
Sean had not visited with father becaus e neither father nor father’s counsel had requested visitation. In August 2012, the Depart ment reported that Sean wa s thriving under maternal grandmother’s care. He was attending therapy and maternal grandmother was completing a parenting program to help manage Sean’s sometimes aggressive behavior.
Sean’s behavioral issues worsened after some visits with mother. Mother continued to have weekly mon itored visits with Sean. She also had
unscheduled visits at ma ternal grandmother’s home where she often appeared unannounced. Maternal grandmother described mother’s visits as “ up and down.” Some visits went well, but when Sean acted out and mother had difficulty handling his aggressive behavior the visit was not su ccessful. Mother also became upset and7 argumentative when maternal grandmother asked her not to discuss case issues with Sean or to use physical discipline. Sean told the social worker that he enjoyed seeing mother but that sometimes mother did not play with him and spanke d him during visits. Given the ongoing conflict between mother and maternal grandmother, the social worker arranged for mother’s visits to ta ke place at the Department’s offices. A monitored visit at the Departme nt’s offices on August 8, 2 012, went well. Mother was affectionate and appropriate with Sean. Sean enjoyed the visit and did not want mother
to leave when it ended. Mother continued to be in partial compliance with court orders. She had completed parenting and anger management classes and was attending a substance abuse program. She failed, however, to appear fo r random drug testing and did not regularly attend individual therapy sessions. Mother told the social worker that she had stopped taking her prescribed medication, except for her anxiety medication. At the August 10, 2012 review hearing, the juvenile court ordered Sean to remain placed with maternal grandm other and ordered continued reunification services for mother. The court ordered the Department to assist mother in en rolling in a hands-on parenting class and accorded the Department di scretion to liberalize mother’s visits in a child-centered neutral setting. In January 2013, the Department reported th at Sean continued to thrive in the care of maternal grandmother, who was willing to ad opt him if he could not be returned to mother. Sean appeared happy, comfortable, and well adjusted. His behavioral issues had improved. Mother completed an outpatient substan ce abuse program and parenting and anger management classes. She was generally cons istent with her random drug testing but was not attending individual therapy sessions on a re gular basis. She had stopped taking her prescribed medication. The social worker expressed conc erns about moth er’s stability after maternal grandmother told her that mo ther had hit Sean with a shoe during an
unscheduled visit at mate rnal grandmother’s home.8 Mother’s monitored visits with Sean had become inconsistent. She missed several
scheduled visits and had no vi sits at all during the month of September 2012. The social
worker observed duri ng one monitored visit that Sean behaved aggressively toward mother, trying to hit her with his shoe and th en attempting to throw the shoe at her. Mother did not know how to respond to Se an’s aggressive behavior, and the social
worker had to term inate the visit. At a January 3, 2013 hearing, the juven ile court ordered the Department to provide a supplemental report on mother’s progress in programs and set the matter for a contested selection and implementation hearing. In March 2013, the Department reported that mother was not in compliance with her court ordered case plan. She was no lo nger attending individual therapy and had stopped taking her prescribed medication. Mother said she had discontinued her medication because she was pregnant and no long er needed it. Her visits with Sean had been inconsistent, and she cancelled seve ral weeks of visits. The Department
recommended termination of reunification services. In April 2013, the Department reported th at Sean continued to thrive in maternal grandmother’s care. He exhi bited anxiety and aggressive behavior, however, and these issues were being addressed in therapy. Mo ther had not resumed individual therapy, had not obtained a psychiatric rea ssessment, and was not taking her prescribed psychotropic
medication. In July 2013, the Department learned that mother was homeless and obtaining financial assistance from maternal grandm other. Mother was still not taking her prescribed medication or attendi ng individual therapy. She missed some monitored visits at the Department’s offices, and when she did, she appeared unannounced at maternal grandmother’s home asking to see Sean. Maternal grandmother reported that Sean was experiencing separation anxiety. He
did not want to leave maternal grandmother’s side after moth er told him that she would
take him home with her.9 At a hearing held on July 3, 2013, the juvenile cour t found that both parents had not consistently and regularly contacted and visited with Sean and had not made significant progress in resolving the problem s that led to his removal. The court
terminated reunification services and set the matter for a contested section 366.26 hearing. Section 366.26 proceedings In its October 30, 2013 section 366.26 repo rt, the Department stated that maternal grandmother remained committed to adopting Sean. She had an approved home study. Although Sean had a limited understanding of what adoption meant, he said that he wanted to remain with his grandmother forever. Father appeared in custody at the October 30, 2013 hearing and requested paternity testing. The juvenile court orde red DNA testing and continued the matter to
December 2013 for those test results. In December 2013, the Department’s social worker reported th at mother had not
maintained contact with her since reunificati on services were terminated. Mother called
the social worker once in Nove mber 2013 requesting visitati on with Sean but then failed to follow up. Maternal grandmother reported th at mother had not visited with Sean since the start of the school year.
A contested section 366.26 hearing was held on January 27, 2014. The juvenile court denied father’s request to continue the hearing because fath er’s DNA test results had not yet been received. The court received the Department’s reports into evidence and heard testimony from mother, Sean, maternal grandmother, and father. Mother testified that she had been seeing Sean every day, and that she walked him to school every morning. Sh e also spent weekends with him. Moth er said maternal grandmother interfered with the way she discip lined Sean and would not let her into the
home.
Sean testified that mother came to s ee him Friday and Satu rday and “sometimes”
came to visit him in the morni ng. He said both mother a nd maternal grandmother walked
him to school. Sean testified that he did not know what it meant to be adopted. When10 counsel explained to him that if he were ad opted, mother would no longer be his mother,
Sean said he did not want that because he lo ved mother and he woul d be sad if he could never see her again. Maternal grandmother testified that Sean , who was then six and a half years old,
had lived with her his entire life. She said she would allow mother to continue to visit with Sean even if mother’s parental rights were terminated, but that she would continue to monitor those visits. Maternal grandmot her confirmed that mother came to her home almost daily. She had not allowed mother to visit the previous Fr iday because mother had put Sean in the closet as a form of discipline.
Father testified that he was incarcerated before Sean’s birth and that he would not
be released for another 31 mont hs. He last saw Sean in Ja nuary 2008. He sent cards, letters, and photos when he could. He did not want Sean to be adopted. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juve nile court found that Sean was adoptable and that returning him to the parents would be detrimental. The court found that the exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) did not apply and terminated mother’s and father’s parental rights. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION I. Father’s appeal Father’s appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, indicating an inability to find any arguable issues. We advised father that he had 30 days in which to submit any arguments he wished us to consider and subsequently
accorded him an additiona l 31-day extension in which to do so. Father submitted a letter brief in which he contends the juvenile c ourt erred by denying him a continuance of the section 366.26 hearing pending the results of a DNA test that would allow him to establish biological and presumed father st atus and by denying him reunification services based on the length of his incarceration. Father further contends the court erred by terminating his parental rights after all alle gations against him had been dismissed and there was no finding that he was an unfit parent.11 “An appealed-from judgment or order is pr esumed correct. [Citation.] Hence, the appellant must make a challenge. In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and ‘present ar gument and authority on each point made’ [citations]. If he does not, he may, in the court’s discretion, be deemed to have abandoned his appeal. [Citation.] In that ev ent, it may order dismissal. [Citation.]” ( In
re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.) Father has established no error in the pr oceedings below, nor any legal basis for reversal. Substantial evidence supports th e juvenile court’s conclusion that Sean was adoptable, and that adoption was in the child ’s best interest. We accordingly dismiss father’s appeal. II. Mother’s appeal A. Applicable law an d standard of review Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), provides for the termin ation of parental rights if family reunification services have been term inated and the juvenile court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child is likely to be adopted. Once reunification
services have been terminat ed, “‘[f]amily preservation cease s to be of overriding concern . . . the focus shifts from the pa rent’s interest in reunificati on to the child’s interest in permanency and stability. [C itation.]’ [Citation.]” ( In re Richard C. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1195.) “Adop tion, where possible, is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature. [Citations.]” ( In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573 ( Autumn
H. ).) Although the statutory preference is in favor of adoption, section 366.26 lists certain exceptions that may precl ude termination of parental ri ghts, if the juvenile court finds “a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).) The juvenile court’s ruling on whether an exception applies to terminating parental rights pursuant to section 366. 26 is reviewed under the subs tantial evidence standard. ( In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425; Autumn H., supra , 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) Under this standard, an appellate c ourt must affirm the juvenile court’s order if there is evidence that is reasonable, credible , and of solid value to support the order ( In re12 Christina A. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1073, 1080), and the evidence must be considered “in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in support of the order. [Citations.]” ( Autumn H. , at p. 576.) Mother contends the order terminating her parental rights should be reversed because the exception to term inating parental rights set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) applies. That exception provides as follows: “The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the ch ild would benefit from continuing the relationship.” The parent bears the burden of pr oving that this exception applies. ( In re L. Y. L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 952-954.) “[T] he exception does not permit a parent who has failed to reunify with an adoptable child to derail an adoption merely by showing the
child would derive some benefit from con tinuing a relationship maintained during periods of visitation with the parent.” ( In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal. App.4th 1339, 1348.) For the exception to apply, the parent must have maintained regular visitation with the child, and the juvenile court must dete rmine that the paren t/child relationship “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 ne w, adoptive parents. In other words, the court balances the strength and quality of th e natural parent/child relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and th e sense of belonging a new family would confer.” ( Autumn H., supra , 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) A parent must establish more than merely some benefit to th e child by continuing the pare nt/child relationship. That relationship must be “a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed” if the relationship were severed. ( Ibid. ) To overcome the
benefits associated with a stable, adoptive family, the pa rent seeking to continue a relationship with the child must prove that se vering the relationship will cause not merely some harm, but great harm to the child. ( In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 853.) Factors that the juvenile court should consider when determ ining the applicability13 of the exception include “[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child’s lif e spent in the parent’s custody, the ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child’s partic ular needs . . . .” ( Autumn H., supra , at p. 576.) B. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that the parental exception to terminating parental rights did not apply. Mother did not visit consistently with Sean throughout th e case. When her monitored visits with Sean were moved to the Department’s offices, mother missed several vi sits. She had no visits during the month of September 2012. She cancelled several weeks of visits during the first few months of
2013. Mother continued to miss some mon itored visits during th e summer of 2013, and when she did, she appeared unannounced at maternal grandmother’s home asking to see Sean. She did not visit at all, either at the Department’s offices, or at maternal grandmother’s home, during mo st of the fall of 2013. The quality of mother’s visits with Se an was not always positive. Maternal grandmother described mother’s visits as “up and down.” During one unscheduled visit at maternal grandmother’s home, mother hit Sean with a shoe . Two monitored visits at the Department’s offices had to be terminated because mother did not know how to respond to Sean’s aggressive behavior. Maternal grandmother refused to allow mother an unscheduled visit during the week pr eceding the section 3 66.26 hearing because mother had put Sean in a clos et as a form of discipline.
Sean’s behavioral issues worsened follo wing visits with mother. He exhibited separation anxiety and did not want to leave maternal grandmother’s side. Mother argues that Sean’s testimony duri ng the section 366.26 he aring that he did not want to be adopted becaus e he loved mother “a lot” was evidence that a strong and beneficial parent-child relationship existed be tween them. The existence of “[i]nteraction between natural parent a nd child will always confer some in cidental benefit to the child.” ( In re Autumn H., supra , 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) In determining whether the parent/child relationship gives rise to an ex ception to terminating parental rights, the juvenile court must determine that the rela tionship “promotes the we ll-being of the child14 to such a degree as to outweigh the well-bei ng the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents. In other words, the court bala nces the strength and quality of the natural parent/child relationship in a te nuous placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer.” ( Ibid. ) To demonstrate that the parent/child relationship exception applies, “t he parent must show more than that the relationship is ‘beneficial.’” ( In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52, fn. 4.) Substantial evidence supports the juven ile court’s finding that the benefits of continuing mother’s relationshi p with Sean did not outweigh the benefits and permanence of adoption by his maternal grandmother. Du ring more than the two and a half year duration of the case, mother lacked stable housing, faile d to take her prescribed psychotropic medication, failed to participate in court ordered indi vidual therapy, failed to maintain regular contact with the Depart ment’s social worker, and failed to progress beyond supervised visits with Sean. Sean was thriving in the home of his maternal grandmother, with whom he had lived his enti re life. Maternal grandmother, in turn, wished to adopt Sean in order to continue to provide him with a sa fe, stable, loving, and nurturing home. She had allowe d mother to have daily visits with Sean throughout the case and she was willing to allow mother to have a continued pr esence in the child’s life. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile co urt’s determination that mother failed to establish that the exception set forth in sec tion 366.26, subdivisio n (c)(1)(B)(i) precluded the termination of her parental rights.15 DISPOSITION Father’s appeal is dismissed. The orde r terminating parental rights is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

_______ _______________ ______, J. CHAVEZ

We concur:

________________ __________, Acting P. J. ASHMANN-GERST

___________________ _______, J.* FERNS

___________________ __________________ __________________ _________________ * Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chie f Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.