Filed 12/4/23 In re V.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 V.C., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 B327756

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

 20CCJP05888A)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County. Stephen C. Marpet, Judge Pro Tempore. 

Affirmed.
2

Christopher Blake, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Jessica Buckelew, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________________

In this juvenile dependency appeal, M.C. (father) appeals 

the juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to his 

nine-year-old son, V.C. (son). Father argues the juvenile court 

erred when it refused to apply the beneficial parental 

relationship exception to termination of parental rights. Father 

claims, rather than terminating his parental rights and ordering 

adoption as son’s permanent plan, the court should have applied 

the exception and ordered a legal guardianship instead. As 

discussed below, we find no error and affirm.

BACKGROUND

1. The Family

Son is the only child of both mother and father. Mother 

and father are not married and are not in a relationship. They

each have an extensive history of substance abuse. Father also 

has anger issues, and mother suffers from mental health issues. 

Previously, father’s parents (son’s paternal grandparents) had a 

restraining order against father because, more than once, he 

tried to break into their home. At the start of the underlying 

proceedings, father was on probation for trying to break into 

paternal grandparents’ home.

Although prior to the start of these proceedings, son

primarily lived with mother, mother was in the habit of dropping 

son off at paternal grandparents’ home for one week to months at 
3

a time. Son never lived with father, who had played a very 

limited role in son’s life. Since June or July 2020, son had been 

staying with his paternal grandparents. Mother, father, and 

father’s sister believed it was best that son be placed in the care 

of paternal grandparents, who wanted to provide permanency for 

son.

2. Petition

In October 2020, mother abandoned son (who was seven

years old at the time) at a fast-food restaurant. Concerned 

restaurant employees called the police. Son was removed and 

detained from his parents and placed with his paternal 

grandparents, where he remained for the duration of these 

proceedings.

In November 2020, after an initial investigation, the Los 

Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services 

(Department) filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 

petition on behalf of son (petition).1 The petition alleged mother 

and father abused drugs, mother had mental and emotional 

problems, father failed to protect son, and mother endangered 

son by driving with him while under the influence of alcohol and 

by leaving him unattended at a fast-food restaurant.

In February 2021, the juvenile court sustained the petition

in part. The court sustained the allegations relating to mother’s 

conduct and father’s failure to protect son. The court dismissed 

the count alleging father’s drug abuse. The court declared son a 

dependent of the court under subdivision (b) of section 300. The 

court removed son from mother’s and father’s custody and care, 

ordered family reunification services for both parents, and 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
4

granted monitored visits for the parents. The court ordered 

father, among other things, to enroll in a parenting class and 

individual counseling, attend alcoholics anonymous meetings, 

and submit to random drug testing. If father tested positive for 

any drugs, he would have to enroll in a substance abuse program.

3. Reunification Period

a. Son

The Department consistently reported son was thriving in 

the care of his paternal grandparents, with whom he shared a

strong bond. Paternal grandparents met all of son’s needs and 

provided him with “ongoing emotional support and stability.”

While in paternal grandparents’ care, son made great strides 

both emotionally and academically. Son stated he “loves living 

with his grandparents and wants to live with them forever.” He 

wanted to be adopted by them. In February 2021, son handwrote

a letter to the court stating, “I like living here with my grandma 

and papa. I want to live here. I do not want to live somewhere 

else.” Son consistently stated “he only feels safe with his 

grandparents” and “he does not feel safe being alone with either 

parent.” He did not want overnight or unmonitored visits with 

his parents. At times, son talked about being abandoned and it 

was reported he had “trust issues.” Father’s temper worried son.

Similarly, during counseling sessions, son was reluctant to 

talk about his parents and indicated he did not want to reunify 

with them, but instead wanted to stay with paternal 

grandparents. In late 2021, son’s therapist wrote, “[Son] would 

like to inform the court and [the Department social worker] that 

he wants the custody arrangement to remain unchanged. He has 

stated that he wants to live with his paternal grandparents. 

Currently, he is comfortable and secure in his environment. It is 
5

evident by his adjustment with his school performance, his broad 

social network, no longer have exhibits [sic] slept disturbance, 

improved appetite, and open to address his feelings. He can 

articulate clearly who he wants to live with but [is] reticent to 

acknowledge feelings of hurt or sadness. . . . I would like to 

stress that this minor has been truly clear with wanting to 

continue to live with his paternal grandparents.” Again in 

April 2022, son’s therapist reported son’s “major worry is whether 

he will be taken away from his grandparents which he views as 

his safety net. . . . [Son] has consistently reported his feelings of 

not wanting to be alone with either parent or live with either 

parent, and [that] has not wavered or changed.” Son’s therapist 

said, son “has made it very clear that when he says he wants to 

live with his grandparents, he means it.” Son’s therapist noted

father’s temper worried son, who feared father “is not able to 

maintain his composure.” She said son “does not feel safe with 

father because of his father’s temperament.” Son’s therapist

stated it would “ ‘not be beneficial to [son]’s mental health to be 

unsupervised with either parent, especially father’ ” and she felt 

strongly that son was “ ‘flourishing and thriving because he is 

staying with his grandparents,’ ” who have always been in his life 

“and they have been his safety net.”

By May 2022, after working with son for 19 months, his 

therapist reiterated son did not want to reunify with his parents. 

He wanted to stay with his paternal grandparents, with whom he 

had spent much of his life. In fact, at that time, son’s therapist 

advised against conjoint counseling, stating “to incorporate 

conjoint counseling with the parents will create a decomposition 

and regression within the child.” One month later, son’s 

therapist noted son “consistently regresses with his sleep and 
6

exhibits anxious attachment before a court date.” The therapist 

believed son would “develop secure attachments and meet his 

developmental growth within normal limits if he remains 

permanently with his paternal grandparents.”

b. Father

By May 2021, father had been attending parenting classes

and alcoholics anonymous meetings and had attended an intake 

for individual counseling. Father had submitted to five random 

drug tests, all of which were negative. Father acknowledged 

learning important coping, communication, and parenting skills 

through his court-ordered programs. He intended to focus on 

son’s “wellbeing, keeping [him] safe, and will be the best role 

model for [him].” A social worker involved with father’s 

parenting program described father as “ ‘one of the better parents 

we have had in a long time. He rarely misses a class. His level of 

self-awareness is far beyond other fathers. He is very 

transparent and open about his case, family, [son], and siblings.’ ”

Father continued to do well in his programs and to test negative 

(albeit with two missed tests) through August 2022.

Father wanted to reunify with son, but by early 2022, 

father admitted son would not like living in father’s shared studio 

apartment with no kitchen. Although father planned to work 60 

to 80 hours a week, he did not have a childcare plan for son. 

Father stated he would “ ‘figure it out.’ ” Paternal grandmother 

believed father had improved his parenting skills over time, but 

by March 2022, she did not believe father was ready to care for

son fulltime or meet his emotional needs. In May 2022, father 

felt he was building a strong bond with son. Father loved visiting 

with son and was “really trying to do the right things.” In 

September 2022, however, the Department reported father 
7

wanted the case to end and planned “to eventually seek full 

custody of [son] when father feels he is able to care for the child 

independently (without the assistance of [paternal 

grandmother]).”

In April and July 2022 reports for the court, the 

Department stated father was compliant with, doing well in, and 

“fully engaged with” his court-ordered programs and services. 

Nonetheless, the Department reported father had been unable “to 

ensure safety and trust with [son]” or “to alleviate the 

apprehension [son] has to be alone with father.” The Department 

noted, “Father also acknowledges that [son] does not feel safe 

with father, but he has no plan to promote safety if [son] were 

returned to his care, nor had he articulated a plan of basic care if 

he were to reunify with [son].” The Department reported father 

had “demonstrated changes in his life such as sobriety, maturity, 

employment, and has a car of his own for the first time in 7

years.” Father stated he did not like that son did not want to 

reunify with father, but father understood and did not blame son 

for his choice. If he failed to reunify with son, father supported a 

legal guardianship for son with paternal grandparents.

c. Visits

Visits between son and father were consistent and 

generally went well. Visits were always monitored. As of May 

2021, it was reported father called son every day and visited with 

him every week. Son began to call father “dad,” whereas before 

son referred to father by his first name.

During a December 2021 visit, father and paternal 

grandmother argued over father’s previous life choices. Father 

stated he would be getting physical custody of son and could pick 

son up from paternal grandparents’ home whenever he wanted. 
8

Paternal grandmother described father’s temper as “explosive.” 

The episode made son cry and caused him increased anxiety. Son 

told paternal grandmother he did not want to live with father. 

Father expressed remorse for the incident. He brought it up in 

his parenting class to seek guidance. Later, during an April 2022 

visit, father again became upset with paternal grandmother and 

repeatedly cursed at her. Father wanted to speak with son 

privately, but paternal grandmother would not allow it and ended 

the visit. After that visit, son was afraid father would speak to 

him the same way.

Although son generally enjoyed visits with father, son did 

not want to live with or reunify with him. Son also stated he did 

not want overnight or unmonitored visits with father. A 

Department social worker described father’s relationship with 

son as “more of a big brother little brother relationship instead of 

father and son.” In January 2023, it was reported son “still 

thinks of father . . . more as a big brother as opposed to a father 

figure.”

4. Termination of Parental Rights

By April 2022, the Department recommended terminating 

parents’ reunification services. Son’s therapist strongly 

supported termination of reunification in order for son to receive 

permanency. In September 2022, the juvenile court terminated 

parents’ reunification services and set the matter for a 

permanency planning hearing.

The Department believed adoption by paternal 

grandparents was in son’s best interest and recommended that as 

son’s permanent plan. Paternal grandparents wanted to adopt 

son and son wanted to be adopted by them. After the juvenile 

court terminated reunification services for parents, son’s 
9

therapist reported son was “doing exceptionally well” and 

“presented as relaxed, open and happy in sessions.” The 

therapist explained son “feels that he doesn’t have to ‘worry 

about his safety’ as he knows that if he is adopted by [paternal 

grandparents] he will always feel loved and be safe.”

On February 28, 2023, more than two years after the 

underlying proceedings began, the juvenile court held the 

permanency planning hearing. At the hearing, father testified 

regarding his relationship with son, how it began and developed 

over the course of the underlying dependency case. Father 

explained he spoke by phone with son every night for 

approximately 30 minutes and visited in person once a week for

approximately three to four hours. Father testified he works on 

his bond with son by “show[ing] up. I make the phone calls 

consistent. I just show him that I’m not going anywhere.” Father 

stated his visits, both telephonic and in-person, were monitored.

Counsel for father asked the court not to terminate 

parental rights, arguing the beneficial parental relationship 

exception applied. Counsel stated father “has been able to build 

a relationship from scratch, maintain a constant visitation 

schedule and relationship, and has learned to continue to make 

that relationship stronger.” Counsel for father argued the court 

should maintain father’s parental rights and order a legal 

guardianship for son with paternal grandparents. In contrast, 

both counsel for son and the Department argued no exception to 

the termination of parental rights existed and the court should 

terminate parental rights and order adoption as son’s permanent 

plan. Counsel for the Department noted son has “always been 

consistent [with] what he wants.” “He wants stability. He wants 

security. He wants to stay with his grandparents.”
10

After hearing father’s testimony and argument from 

counsel, the juvenile court held the beneficial parental 

relationship exception to the termination of parental rights did 

not apply. In making its ruling, the juvenile court found, 

assuming father maintained regular visitation, “there was no 

bond.” Moreover, the court held, “even if there were a bond, it’s 

clear from the child’s statements alone, . . . that the relationship 

with his parents do [sic] not outweigh the benefit of this child 

having a new home.” The juvenile court terminated parental 

rights and ordered adoption by paternal grandparents as son’s 

permanent plan.

Father appealed.

DISCUSSION

1. Applicable Law

At the permanency planning hearing, the juvenile court 

may terminate parental rights only upon finding the child is 

likely to be adopted and no statutory exception to adoption 

applies. (§ 366.26, subds. (b) & (c)(1).) Here, it is undisputed son 

was likely to be adopted. Thus, our focus is whether a statutory 

exception to adoption and the termination of parental rights 

applies.

The exception father raises is the beneficial parental 

relationship exception. This exception is set forth in section 

366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), which provides: “[T]he court shall 

terminate parental rights unless . . . [¶] . . . [¶] (B) The court 

finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would 

be detrimental to the child due to one or more of the following 

circumstances: [¶] (i) The parents have maintained regular 

visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit 

from continuing the relationship.”
11

To establish this exception, the parent must prove the 

following three elements: “(1) regular visitation and contact, and 

(2) a relationship, the continuation of which would benefit the 

child such that (3) the termination of parental rights would be 

detrimental to the child.” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 

631 (Caden C.).) “[I]n assessing whether termination would be 

detrimental, 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.] By making this decision, the trial court determines 

whether terminating parental rights serves the child’s best 

interests.” (Id. at p. 632.) “ ‘If severing the natural parent/child 

relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive 

emotional attachment such that,’ even considering the benefits of 

a new adoptive home, termination would ‘harm[ ]’ the child, the 

court should not terminate parental rights.” (Id. at p. 633.) The 

“ ‘statutory exceptions merely permit the court, in exceptional 

circumstances [citation], to choose an option other than the norm, 

which remains adoption.’ ” (Id. at p. 631.)

2. Standard of Review

When reviewing an order terminating parental rights and 

rejecting application of the beneficial parental relationship 

exception, we apply a hybrid standard of review. On the one 

hand, “[a] substantial evidence standard of review applies to the 

first two elements [of the exception]. The determination that the 

parent has visited and maintained contact with the child 

‘consistently,’ taking into account ‘the extent permitted by the 

court’s orders’ [citation] is essentially a factual determination. 

It’s likewise essentially a factual determination whether the 
12

relationship is such that the child would benefit from continuing 

it.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 639–640.)

On the other hand, the juvenile court’s determination on 

the third element is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. As to the 

third element, the juvenile court “makes the assessment by 

weighing the harm of losing the [parent-child] relationship 

against the benefits of placement in a new, adoptive home. And 

so, the ultimate decision—whether termination of parental rights 

would be detrimental to the child due to the child’s relationship 

with his parent—is discretionary and properly reviewed for abuse 

of discretion.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 640.)

“In reviewing factual determinations for substantial 

evidence, a reviewing court should ‘not reweigh the evidence, 

evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve evidentiary 

conflicts.’ [Citation.] The determinations should ‘be upheld if

. . . supported by substantial evidence, even though substantial 

evidence to the contrary also exists and the trial court might have 

reached a different result had it believed other evidence.’ ” 

(Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 640.) “Review for abuse of 

discretion is subtly different, focused not primarily on the 

evidence but the application of a legal standard. 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.’ ” ’ [Citation.] But ‘ “ ‘[w]hen two or more 

inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the 

reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for 

that of the trial court.’ ” ’ ” (Id. at p. 641.)

“At its core,” this hybrid standard of review “embodies the 

principle that ‘[t]he statutory scheme does not authorize a 

reviewing court to substitute its own judgment as to what is in 
13

the child’s best interests for the trial court’s determination in 

that regard, reached pursuant to the statutory scheme’s 

comprehensive and controlling provisions.’ ” (Caden C., supra, 11 

Cal.5th at p. 641.)

3. No Error

Father argues the juvenile court erred when it determined 

the beneficial parental relationship exception did not apply. 

Father claims he satisfied all three elements of the beneficial 

parental relationship exception. We assume father satisfied both 

the first element (regular visitation and contact with son) and the 

second element (a bond or relationship with son, the continuation 

of which would benefit son). We conclude, however, the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion in determining father failed to 

establish the third element.

As noted above, the third element requires the juvenile 

court to “decide whether it would be harmful to the child to sever 

the [parental] relationship and choose adoption.” (Caden C., 

supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 633.) The court must determine “how the 

child would be affected by losing the parental relationship—in 

effect, what life would be like for the child in an adoptive home 

without the parent in the child’s life.” (Ibid.) Although the loss 

of a parental relationship, including the one in this case, may 

certainly cause detriment to the child, the question for the 

juvenile court is whether the countervailing positives the child 

gains in a permanent, stable home outweigh any such detriment. 

(Ibid.) “When the relationship with a parent is so important to 

the child that the security and stability of a new home wouldn’t 

outweigh its loss, termination would be ‘detrimental to the child 

due to’ the child’s beneficial relationship with a parent.” (Id. at 

pp. 633–634.)
14

Here, the record is clear adoption with paternal 

grandparents outweighed any detriment caused to son by losing 

his relationship with father. It is undisputed son loved living 

with paternal grandparents and wanted to be adopted by them. 

Son was thriving with his grandparents. It is also beyond 

dispute that, although son enjoyed visits with father, son 

consistently and clearly indicated he did not want to reunify with 

father or even spend time with him unless someone else was 

there to monitor the visit. Son repeatedly expressed concern over 

father’s temper and worried he might be the object of it one day. 

Son feared being abandoned and had trust issues. Despite 

father’s best and laudable efforts, son did not feel safe being 

alone with father. Son’s longstanding therapist opined son 

craved and required security and stability. The therapist 

believed son’s developmental growth would be on track if he 

stayed permanently with his paternal grandparents. On this 

record, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in 

concluding the benefits of adoption by paternal grandparents 

outweighed any detriment son might experience from the

termination of his relationship with father.

We are not persuaded by father’s arguments addressing the 

age and fitness of paternal grandparents or the fact that family 

members are the adoptive parents. These points are speculative 

and not supported by legal citation. Finally, because we affirm 

the juvenile court’s decision, we do not address father’s request 

for a bonding study on remand.
15

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s February 28, 2023 order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

LUI, P. J.

We concur:

CHAVEZ, J.

HOFFSTADT, J.