Filed 8/31/15 In re D .P. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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). Th is opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I n re D

. P

. , a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

_____________ ________________________ SAN DIEGO HEALTH AND HUMAN SER V I C ES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent ,

v. BROOK C

. , Defendant and Appellant

. D067879

(Super. Ct. No. EJ3700 )

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, G ary M. Bubis , Judge. A ffirmed

. Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Patrice Plattner

- Grainger , Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.2

Brook C

. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights to her daughter D

. P

. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. ( U ndesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code .) Moth er contends the insufficient evidence support ed the juvenile court ' s finding that the beneficial relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) , appl ied

. We affirm the order

.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mother and Thomas P. ( Fa ther ) started using drugs as young teenage rs . In early August 2013, when D

. P . was about two year s old, Mother injected heroin residue from cotton balls , contracted blood poisoning and was hospitalized. F ather was arrested for being under the influence an d was unavailable to care for D.P. The San Diego Health and Human Services Agency (A gency ) took D.P. into protective custody . A few days later, the A gency filed a petition alleging D.P. was at substantial risk of harm due to her parents ' heroin use. The Agency placed D

. P . in the home of the maternal great

grandmother. In September 2013, the juvenile court sustained the petition, declared D

. P

. a dependent and maintained her placement with the maternal great

- grandmother. It ordered reunification services be provided and set a six

- month review hearing. At the six

- month review hearing in April 2014, the court found return ing D.P. to parental custody would be detrimental and the services provided had been reasonable. It ordered six more months of services f or M other , but terminated court

- mandated services
to F ather and continued D .P. as a dependent. During the dependency proceedings Father failed to address his substance abuse issues and suffered multiple arrests. At the 12

- month permanency hearing i n Octo ber 2014, the court terminated court

- mandated3

services to M other, finding she had not made substantive progress with the provisions of the case plan and scheduled a hearing under section 366.26 to select and implement a permanent plan.
A t the contested sec tion 366.26 hearing in April 2015, the court found by clear and convincing evidence D.P. was likely to be adopted and none of the statutory exceptions to adoption existed. It terminated parental rights and referred D.P. to the Agency for adoptive placemen t. Mother timely appeal ed

. DISCUSSION Parental rights may be terminated if there is clear and convincing evidence of adoptability (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)); however, an exception exists where a parent has

" maintained regular visitation and contact with th e child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship. " (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) A beneficial relationship is one that promotes the well

- being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the well

being the child would gain in a per manent home with adoptive parents. ( In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) The parent must show that the parent

- child relationship is such that the child will be greatly harmed by the termination of parental rights, so that the presumption in f avor of adoption is overcome. ( In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 853

- 854.) Implicit in this standard is that " a parental relationship is necessary for the exception to apply, not merely a friendly or familiar one. " ( In re Jasmine D. (2000)
7 8 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350.) The existence of this relationship is determined by taking into consideration " [t]he age of the child, the portion of the child ' s life spent in the4

parent ' s custody, the ' positive ' or ' negative ' effect of interaction between par ent and child, and the child ' s particular needs . . . . " ( In re Autumn H. , supra , 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) There is a split of authority regarding whether an appellate court reviews a challenge involving the beneficial relationship exception for substa ntial evidence, abuse of discretion, or a combination of the two. (See In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614,
621

- 622.) We need not weigh in on this debate as our conclusion is the same under any of these standards. Mother concedes there were gaps in he r visitation, but claims she " partially satisfied " the first prong of the beneficial relationship exception . We disagree.
In September 2013 , about a month into the dependency proceeding, Mother tested positive for methamphetamine

. The following month, s he was arrested after law enforcement found heroin and drug paraphernalia in the vehicle that she and F ather were
in

. The parents were arrested for being under the influence. In October and November 2013, Mother attended three of four scheduled visits. I n early December 2013, t he criminal court issued a protective order prohibiting Mother from having contact with D.P. About two weeks later, the criminal court modified the order and the parents were offered weekly supervised contact.
From Jan uary 2014 to July 2014, there is little in the record regarding Mother ' s visitation with D.P

. A report dated April 2014 indicated that in early April 2014, M other enrolled in " CRASH " long

- term inpatient treatment and that visitation ha d not be en consistent

. Mothe r self

- discharged from CRASH the following month. In A ugust 2014 , Mother ' s visits became more frequent. Again, from September 2014 to January 2015,5

there is little in the record regarding Mother ' s visitation. In February 2015, the social worker reported that Mother did not maintain contact with the Agency and has not had Agency supervised visitation with D.P. since January 2015 . In early April 2015, the month of the section 366.26 hearing , the social worker again reported that Mother ' s last visitation h ad been i n January 2015. This record shows sporadic visitation which is insufficient to satisfy the first prong of the parent

- child relationship exception to adoption. ( In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 554.) We also conclude that substantial evi dence supports the juvenile court ' s determination that M other did not meet her burden of establishing the second prong of the beneficial parent

- child relationship exception

. Satisfying the second prong requires the parent to prove that " severing the natur al parent

- child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed. [Citations.] A biological parent who has failed to reunify with an adoptable child may not derail an adoptio n merely by showing the child would derive some benefit from continuing a relationship maintained during periods of visitation with the parent. " ( In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 466.)
A lthough D.P. enjoyed her supervised visits with Mother , in t he professional opinion of the social worker who prepared the Agency ' s section 366.26 permanency planning ass essment report , the relationship M other had with D.P. did not rise to the level of a significant parental role

. The social worker noted that D.P. " demonstrated the ability to thrive in the absence of her parents " and that her caregivers wanted to adopt her. Mother points out that the section 366.26 report contains a n error, stating that D.P. lived6

with her parents until she was seven months old, ra ther than two years and seven months. Given the balance of the record, particularly the parents ' long

- term drug use and their resistance to drug treatment, this error is of little import.
We uphold the juvenile court ' s conclusion that no beneficial relati onship existed such that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to D.P. Rather, D.P. ' s prospective adoptive parents were providing her with the stability and affection she needed for her well

- being

. D elaying the selection of a permanent home for D.P. does not promote her best interests. ( In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal

. App.4th 38, 47.)
DISPOSITION The order i s affirmed

.

McINTYRE, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

O ' ROURKE, J.

AARON, J.