Filed 6/18/24 In re Mic.L. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re Mic.L. et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

B333195

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. Nos.

18CCJP07663A,

18CCJP07663B

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.A. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles 

County, Gabriela H. Shapiro, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Gina Zaragoza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant C.A.

Caitlin Christian, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M.L.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, Kelley G. Emling, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________

Mother C.A. and father M.L. appeal from the juvenile 

court’s orders terminating parental rights to their twin 

daughters, Mia.L. and Mic.L. Mother contends the juvenile 

court erred by declining to apply the parental-benefit exception 

to adoption. Father joins mother’s argument. We find no error 

and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

1. The investigation and petition

Mother and father have twin girls together—Mia.L. 

and Mic.L.—who were born in October 2018. Mother has 

three children from other relationships: A.A. (born in 2012), 

L.C. (born in 2015), and C.C. (born in 2016). L.C. and C.C. share 

the same father and are Indian children. This appeal concerns 

only the twins, Mia.L. and Mic.L.

In 2017, a dependency court sustained a Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 3002 petition and removed A.A., L.C., 

and C.C. from mother’s custody. The court found mother abused 

methamphetamine, which rendered her incapable of providing 

regular care for the children. Mother had yet to reunite

with the children by the time she gave birth to the twins.

1 Although both mother and father appealed, their 

arguments on appeal concern only mother’s relationship with 

the children. Therefore, we focus on the facts related to mother 

and do not summarize the facts related to father.

2 Undesigned statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
3

Mother told the Los Angeles County Department of 

Children and Family Services (the Department) she used 

methamphetamine daily from the age of 13 until she became 

pregnant with her first child, A.A. According to mother, 

she stopped using the drug, but she relapsed in 2016. When 

she found out she was pregnant with the twins, she entered 

a treatment program and stopped using drugs.

On November 30, 2018, the Department filed a petition 

asserting Mia.L. and Mic.L. are persons described by section 300. 

The petition alleged mother has a history of illicit drug use, 

including amphetamines and methamphetamine, which 

renders her unable to provide regular care and supervision 

for the children.

At a detention hearing on December 3, 2018, the court 

found a prima facie case showing the children are persons 

described by section 300. Nevertheless, the court ordered 

the children released to mother.

2. The children are placed with relative caregivers

Mother’s treatment center terminated her from the 

program sometime after the detention hearing. According to 

mother’s counselor, this was the third time mother had been 

terminated from the program, and she would not be allowed 

to return.

The Department also learned mother had been involved 

in two recent incidents involving the police. The first incident 

occurred eight days after mother gave birth to the twins. 

According to the police report, mother drove away when officers 

tried to pull her over. When mother eventually stopped, two men 

got out of her car and ran in opposite directions. Mother told 

the officers she had just met the men at a liquor store and they 
4

had invited her to a party. Mother was charged with felony 

evading a police officer and misdemeanor driving without 

a license.

During the second incident, mother was driving her friend 

while the twins were in the car. The police surrounded the car 

and arrested the friend. The Department learned the friend 

was a gang member, has a history of domestic violence, and had 

been charged with assault with a deadly weapon after beating 

someone with a baseball bat.

In light of these developments, the court removed the 

children from mother’s custody on February 22, 2019. The 

Department placed the children with a maternal aunt and 

her husband, whom we refer to as the relative caregivers.

3. The court takes jurisdiction over the children 

and returns them to mother

The court held a combined jurisdiction and disposition 

hearing on May 28, 2019. The court found true the allegations 

related to mother’s substance abuse, declared the twins 

dependents of the court, and removed them from their parents’ 

custody. The court ordered the parents to participate in 

counseling, parenting classes, and alcohol and drug programs. 

The court granted both parents monitored visitation.

The Department reported the children had bonded to 

the relative caregivers and were thriving in their placement. 

Mother visited the children regularly, and the Department 

eventually liberalized her visits to unmonitored. According 

to the Department, mother was affectionate, nurturing, and 

attentive during visits. Mother engaged with the children, 

fed them, talked to them, and changed their diapers.
5

The court ordered the twins be returned to mother’s 

custody on September 24, 2020. As of March 2021, the 

Department reported the children were doing well in mother’s 

care. Mother was participating in services and consistently 

tested negative for drugs and alcohol, although she was 

occasionally a “no show.”

4. The Department places the children with foster 

parents

On April 29, 2021, the Department removed the children 

from mother’s custody after discovering six of her negative drug 

tests had been diluted. Mother admitted occasionally drinking 

alcohol, including while the children were at home. She also 

admitted leaving the children in the care of her friend, whose 

home the Department had not cleared. Mother had never 

visited the home before allowing the children to stay there.

The Department explored placing the children with the 

relative caregivers who had previously cared for them. However, 

the caregivers had recently started caring for two of mother’s 

other children—L.C. and C.C.—and their house was not large 

enough to accommodate more children. Therefore, the 

Department placed the children with foster parents.

The Department reported the foster parents were meeting 

the children’s needs on a consistent basis. The children were 

well-adjusted and “thriving” in their placement. However, 

both children started to display aggressive behavior that 

required intervention.

Mic.L. also experienced severe health issues while living 

with the foster parents. The child underwent brain and heart 

surgery, suffered frequent severe nosebleeds, and broke out 

in hives for unknown reasons. A specialist prescribed Mic.L. 
6

an EpiPen to prevent anaphylaxis, and an ophthalmologist 

directed her to wear glasses at all times.

Mother consistently visited the children while they were 

in foster care. The visits reportedly went well, and the children 

were happy to see mother. Mother was nurturing, provided 

appropriate snacks, and focused on the children. The 

Department eventually liberalized mother’s visits to 

unmonitored.

Although mother generally acted appropriately during 

visits, the Department remained concerned about the children’s 

safety while under her care. According to the caregiver, mother 

did not always have an EpiPen on hand, and she did not make 

Mic.L. wear her glasses at all times. During one visit, mother 

gave Mia.L. over-the-counter cough medicine, despite the child’s 

doctor warning that such medications could have adverse side 

effects. At another visit, mother drove the children a significant 

distance without securing them in car seats.

5. The court reverts mother’s visits

In November 2022, the Department discovered photographs 

of mother drinking alcohol, handling nitrous oxide, and allowing 

the children to visit father, in violation of a court order. The 

Department also discovered text messages in which mother 

coached father to lie to the Department about the visit. In other 

messages, mother warned maternal uncle not to tell anyone she 

had been drinking for fear it would get back to the Department.

Based on those photographs and messages, the Department 

filed a petition to revert mother’s visits to monitored. The court 

considered the petition at a review hearing on February 8, 2023. 

Minors’ counsel urged the court to grant the petition and 

terminate mother’s reunification services. Counsel argued 
7

the new evidence undermined everything mother had been 

telling the court about her progress.

The court granted the petition and reverted mother’s 

visits to monitored. However, the court continued mother’s 

reunification services, noting she had made some progress by 

participating in services.

The Department reported the children were happy and 

“thriving” in the foster parents’ home. The foster parents met 

the children’s needs and attended all their medical appointments. 

In contrast, mother did not show up to every appointment and 

had not attended an EpiPen training class. A social worker 

remarked that mother did not seem to realize the children’s 

behavioral issues were the result of past trauma.

Mother continued to visit the children regularly. During 

one visit, mother became angry when Mia.L. referred to the foster 

parent as “ ‘[m]ommy.’ ” Mother insisted the foster parent was 

not the child’s mommy. Mia.L. became upset and responded, 

in a “firm voice, ‘No. I have two [m]ommy’s.’ ”

During another visit, Mic.L. became upset when mother 

would not let the child’s older sister help her put on shoes. 

Mother responded by firmly holding Mic.L. in her arms while the 

child struggled to get free, called mother names, and hit mother. 

It took 45 minutes for Mic.L. finally to calm down. The social 

worker characterized the incident as a “ ‘power struggle’ ” over 

the child recognizing mother as an authority figure.

The foster parents reported that, as of May 2023, Mic.L. 

started to express not wanting to attend visits. Around the

same time, she started throwing tantrums during visits, although

she would eventually refocus and cooperate. According to a 
8

social worker, Mia.L. would “become quiet” when asked about 

visits with mother, which was out of the norm for the child.

6. The children return to the relative caregivers’ home

On July 12, 2023, the court found mother had made only 

partial progress toward alleviating the causes necessitating 

placement, and it terminated her reunification services.

About a month later, in August 2023, the Department 

placed the children back in the relative caregivers’ home. The 

relative caregivers continued to care for the children’s siblings

—C.C. and L.C.—as well. Although the caregivers originally 

had not been able to care for all four children at the same time, 

they had recently purchased a larger home specifically for 

that purpose.

According to the relative caregivers, the children continued 

to exhibit aggressive behavior and struggled to control their 

anger while in their home. Among other things, they would hit

one another, shout, and use obscene gestures. Both children 

were referred to behavioral therapists to address their issues.

Mother continued to visit the children, typically for six 

hours per week. The visits reportedly went well, and the children 

were happy to see mother. The caregiver said the children were 

ready to leave at the end of visits and did not struggle to say 

goodbye. The children rarely mentioned mother during the week. 

Occasionally, they would throw tantrums and say they missed 

her.

The children said visits with mother were both good and 

bad. They enjoyed spending time with mother, eating with her, 

and hugging her. However, the visits could be bad because 

they would play rough and mother would get mad at them 

for misbehaving.
9

Mother said she was “100% bonded” with the children. 

However, a social worker observed the children were not very

bonded with mother, noting they seemed to view her as a

“ ‘weekend mother.’ ”

The Department reported that mother did not consistently 

and timely respond when the children became aggressive with

each other. Instead, mother waited to intervene until the

situation escalated. The caregiver remarked that mother did

not set rules during visits. As a result, after visits, the children 

would struggle to adjust to their routine at home and had 

difficulty keeping their hands to themselves.

7. The court terminates parental rights

The court held a section 366.26 permanency planning 

hearing on November 8, 2023. The Department recommended 

terminating parental rights and pursing adoption with the 

relative caregivers.

Mother urged the court instead to apply the parentalbenefit exception to adoption. According to mother, the exception 

applied because she had maintained regular visitation and 

contact with the children, the children would benefit from 

continuing their relationship with her, and termination of

that relationship would be detrimental to them.

Minors’ counsel joined mother in arguing for the parentalbenefit exception to adoption. Counsel said she was torn on 

the issue, because adoption would seem to be the best plan for 

the children. However, the twins’ siblings—L.C. and C.C.—are 

Indian children, and their tribe objected to adoption. Counsel 

said she was concerned that, at some point in the future, mother 

might file a section 388 petition seeking to reunite with L.C. 

and C.C. If so, Mia.L. and Mic.L. might be confused as to why 
10

they do not have a similar opportunity to reunite with mother. 

Under these unique circumstances, counsel argued, the benefits

of adoption are marginally outweighed by the harm of losing 

a connection to mother.

The court terminated parental rights, finding mother 

had not shown the parental-benefit exception to adoption. The 

court noted the children had spent most of their lives outside 

mother’s custody, and they had never articulated a strong 

desire for mother to remain in their lives. The court rejected as 

speculative minors’ counsel’s argument concerning the possibility 

that mother would seek to regain custody of the children’s 

siblings.

Mother and father timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

Mother’s sole contention on appeal is the juvenile court 

erred by failing to apply the parental-benefit exception to 

adoption at the section 366.26 hearing. Father joins mother’s 

argument. He does not raise any independent grounds for relief.

“The sole purpose of the section 366.26 hearing is to select 

and implement a permanent plan for the child after reunification 

efforts have failed.” (In re J.D. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 833, 

851–852 (J.D.); In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 304; 

see also § 366.26, subd. (b).) At that stage, the “focus shifts 

from monitoring the parents’ progress toward reunification 

to determining the appropriate placement plan for the child.”

(Marilyn H., at p. 305.) “The dependency statutes embody 

a presumptive rule that, after reunification efforts have failed, 

parental rights must be terminated in order to free a child 

for adoption.” (J.D., at p. 852, citing In re Caden C. (2021) 

11 Cal.5th 614, 630–631 (Caden C.).) The juvenile court must 
11

select adoption as the permanent plan and terminate parental 

rights unless it finds doing so would be detrimental to the child 

under one of several statutory exceptions. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); 

Caden C., at pp. 630–631.)

Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) codifies one of 

those exceptions to adoption, which is commonly referred to as 

the parental-benefit exception. (See Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th 

at p. 625, fn. 2.) The exception applies where “[t]he parents have 

maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the 

child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, 

subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); J.D., supra, 70 Cal.App.5th at p. 852.) The 

exception has three elements, each of which the parent must 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) regular visitation 

and contact with the child, taking into account the extent of 

visitation permitted; (2) the child has a substantial, positive, 

emotional attachment to the parent; and (3) terminating 

that attachment would be detrimental to the child even when 

balanced against the countervailing benefit of a new, adoptive 

home. (Caden C., at p. 636.)

In assessing whether termination of parental rights would 

be detrimental to the child, the juvenile court must perform 

a “case-specific inquiry,” asking, “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?]’ [Citation.] 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.” (Caden C., supra, 11 

Cal.5th at pp. 633–634.) To decide the issue, courts may consider 
12

“[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child’s life spent in the 

parent’s custody, the ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ effect of interaction 

between parent and child, and the child’s particular needs.” 

(In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575–576 

(Autumn H.).)

Here, the juvenile court found mother satisfied the first 

element of the parental-benefit exception by maintaining regular 

visitation with the children. As to the second element, the 

court found a substantial positive emotional attachment from 

mother to the children, but not from the children to mother. 

Nevertheless, the court explained that “for purposes of my ruling, 

I will find that prong 2 may exist in this case as well, though 

I do think the evidence is somewhat lacking in this regard.”

Based on this comment, it appears the court declined to 

apply the parental-benefit exception based solely on mother’s 

failure to satisfy the third element. That element required 

mother to show termination would be detrimental to the children 

even when balanced against the benefit of a new, adoptive home.

(Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 636.) The court’s decision 

on the issue is discretionary, and we review it for abuse of 

discretion. (Id. at p. 640.) An abuse of discretion occurs when 

the juvenile court exceeds the bounds of reason by making a 

determination that is arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd. 

(See In re N.M. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1090, 1094.)

Considering the relevant factors here, the juvenile court 

did not abuse its discretion by concluding any detriment to 

the children from losing their relationship with mother did not 

outweigh the benefits of adoption. The children were five years 

old when the court terminated parental rights. Over the course 

of those five years, the children spent less than a year in mother’s 
13

care. In contrast, the children spent four years—the vast 

majority of their young lives—out of mother’s home.

Although mother maintained consistent and regular 

visitation during that time, it is not apparent the children 

received any significant benefit from those visits. Mother’s visits 

typically lasted only a few hours per week, and many of them 

were monitored. The caregivers reported the children generally 

enjoyed their time with mother, but they had no trouble saying 

goodbye at the end of visits. Nor did the children frequently 

talk about mother when she was not around. In fact, at one

point, Mic.L. expressed not wanting to attend visits at all. 

This strongly suggests any benefit the children received from

the visits was minimal. 

Mother also failed to show her relationship with the 

children provided significant benefits outside of visits. The

children experienced severe medical and behavioral issues, 

for which they likely would have benefited from additional 

parental support and care. However, mother’s involvement in 

those aspects of the children’s lives was minimal. According to 

the foster parent, mother often did not show up to the children’s 

medical appointments. Nor did mother seem to appreciate fully 

the seriousness of the children’s medical needs, as evidenced by 

her delay in attending an EpiPen training and failure to ensure 

Mic.L. wore her glasses at all times. On this record, the court 

reasonably could have determined mother is unlikely to provide 

the children meaningful support and care in the future.

In addition to the lack of significant benefits from the 

relationship with mother, the court reasonably could have found 

there was a risk that continuing the relationship would actually 

be detrimental to the children. The Department reported that 
14

mother did not consistently and timely respond to the children’s 

aggressive behavior. According to a caregiver, mother’s lack 

of rules resulted in the children struggling to readjust to 

their routines after returning home from visits. The caregiver

specifically noted the children had more difficulty keeping 

their hands to themselves. This suggests visits were worsening 

the children’s aggressive behavior, which already was an area 

of significant concern.

There also is evidence the visits were causing the children 

to suffer emotional harm. During one visit, the Department 

observed a “ ‘power struggle’ ” between mother and Mic.L. over

whether the child recognized mother as an authority figure. 

During another visit, Mia.L. became upset when mother insisted 

the child not refer to the caregiver as “ ‘[m]ommy.’ ” The court 

reasonably could have found mother’s insistence that the children 

recognize her as their parent—despite not always fulfilling 

that role in their lives—would be confusing and ultimately 

detrimental to their emotional well being.

Mother contends the children would have benefited from 

continuing the relationship because they were bonded to her, 

showed her affection, considered her to be their parent, enjoyed 

spending time with her, and claimed they missed her. While 

all that may be true, a “showing the child derives some benefit 

from the relationship is not a sufficient ground to depart from 

the statutory preference for adoption.” (In re Breanna S. (2017) 

8 Cal.App.5th 636, 646, disapproved on another ground in 

Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 637–638, fns. 6–7.) Rather, 

a parent has the burden to show the 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 new, 
15

adoptive parents.” (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) 

Although the evidence mother points to would tend to support 

that finding, it does not compel it.

Mother also points to evidence that the children displayed 

aggressive behavior and difficulty transitioning between 

placements. She argues, because she was the only stable 

presence in the children’s lives, they will suffer greatly from 

losing their relationship with her. While we agree with mother 

that the children struggled with the lack of stability in their 

lives, we do not agree that forgoing adoption is the answer. To 

the contrary, it would seem adoption is the option most likely to 

provide the children the security and stability they so desperately 

need. At the very least, we cannot say the juvenile court abused 

its discretion in finding the benefits of adoption outweigh any 

detriment from terminating the children’s relationship with 

mother.

DISPOSITION

We affirm the orders.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EGERTON, J.

We concur:

LAVIN, Acting P. J. ADAMS, J.