1 Filed 2/28/13 In re B.B. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO In re B.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. N.B., Defendant and Appellant. E056793 (Super.Ct.Nos. J232716 & J232717)
OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B. Marshall, Judge. Affirmed. Seth F. Gorman, under ap pointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Ad am E. Ebright, Depu ty County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 I
INTRODUCTION 1
N.B. is the mother of three children bo rn between 2004 and 2 010. The two older children are D.A. and B.B., born in 2004 and 2006, and their fathers are M.A. and J.S. respectively. Mother was the subject of child welfare referrals in May and June 2004 and November 2009. The third child , L.V., an infant, died in Ma y 2010 of injuries inflicted by L.V.’s father, B.V. Mother appeals from orders denying her section 388 petition an d terminating her parental rights to B.B. under se ction 366.26. D.A. has been pl aced with M.A., her father. Mother asks this court to review the reco rd independently for an y cognizable issues involving D.A. Based on our independent review, we conclu de the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying mother’s request for a bonding study involving B.B. and we discern no issues affecting D.A.’s placement with her fa ther. Therefore, we affirm the orders of the juvenile court.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 In May 2010, after L.V. died, Children and Family Services (CFS) for the County of San Bernardino initiated juve nile dependency proceedings as to D.A. and B.B, then

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
2 The full previous history of this case is presented in E0533 19, pages 3 through 11.3 about six and four years old. In April 2011, the children were decl ared dependents under section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (f), (i), and (j). The juvenile court denied family reunification services for mother under sec tion 361.5, subdivisions (4), (6), and (7), and this court affirmed. D.A.’s father, M.A., was admonished for en gaging in an inappropriate relationship with mother. Nevertheless, a case plan was approved for M. A. Both children were placed with Mr. and Mrs. A., D.A.’s paternal grandparents. A. The October 2011 St atus Review Report The October 2011 status review report incl uded the information that mother was never married to D.A. or B.B.’s fathers. Both men were on their respective children’s birth certificates but J.S. ha d not supported B.B. or been in contact with him since infancy. CFS concluded that M.A. had failed to pr otect D.A. after learning that B.V. had treated her roughly before L.V. died. M.A. had been receiv ing therapy to learn how to set boundaries with mother a nd to parent his daughter. M.A. was cooperative and actively involved with both children. He was employed w ith suitable housing. He had completed a parenting course. M.A. unders tood why the children ha d been removed and could not be in mother’s company. If M.A. was granted custody of the children, he intended to live with his pare nts to provide parenting su pport. The prognosis for reunification with D.A. was good.4 J.S. had been attending parenting and substance abuse classes and had three negative drug tests. J.S. was also taking an active role in B.B.’s life. He was working and living with a friend. The prognosi s for reunification with B.B. was fair. When mother participated in monthl y visits of two hours, both children had reacted adversely. D.A.’s negative behavi ors included “defiance, talking back in disrespect, crying uncontrollably, yelling and screaming.” B.B. also became defiant and argumentative. D.A. was in first grade and B.B. was in kindergarten. They were both receiving therapy and enjo yed living with D.A.’s paternal grandparents. In the November 2011 addendum report, CFS recommended that D.A. be placed with M.A., B.B. remain with M.A.’s parents, and services for J.S. be terminated. CFS noted that, while previously M. A. had not been honest in therapy about his relationship with mother, he was making progress. He was also having successful unsupervised, overnight visitation with the children. C FS recommended D.A. be returned to M.A.’s care and family maintenance services be provided. J.S. had been erratic in participating in services and visitation. He had a positive drug test in February 2011. CFS recomme nded that his services be terminated and M.A.’s parents be considered for potential adoption. In January 2012, the court ordered D.A. returned to the cust ody of M.A. with family maintenance services. Mother continued to have mont hly supervised visitation for two hours. The court term inated J.S.’s services.5 B. Section 366.26 Reports In May 2012, CFS recommended that parental rights for B.B. be terminated. B.B., then age five, was a healthy child who required dental care to have numerous teeth capped due to “bottle rot.” He was conversa tional and had stopped stuttering. He still mentioned the circumstances of his sister’s murder but he demonstrated emotional resilience. He performed we ll in kindergarten and was dem onstrative and affectionate. Mr. A., a firefighter, and his wife, a hom emaker, have been married since 1971 and raised four children. Mr. and Mrs. A. ar e the paternal grandparents of B.B.’s halfsister, D.A. M.A. was living with his pa rents and the children. Mr. and Mrs. A. expressed great enthusiasm for adopting B.B. Meanwhile J.S. ha d engaged in a poor pattern of visitation and participation in reunification services. CFS recommended the parental rights for B.B. be te rminated and B.B. be placed fo r adoption with Mr. and Mrs.
A. In July 2012, M.A. was s till gainfully employed and living with his parents and the two children. D.A. was ha ppy and continuing to improve. C. Mother’s Section 388 Petition On May 15, 2012, mother filed a section 3 88 petition, asking for the return of the children to her custody. In the alternative, she requested that parental rights for B.B. not be terminated and the court order a bonding study. In addition, she requested a legal guardianship, rather than adoption, for B.B ., and reinstatement of reunification services for D.A., plus an increase in visitation to a two-hour weekly visit with both children.6 In support of her petition, mother acknowle dged that she had failed to protect her children from harm, resulting in L.V.’s death. Mother had been receiving private counseling at her own expense beginning in October 2011. Mother stated that she had learned how to be more active in caring for her children and diligen t in recognizing abuse and seeking medical care. Mother had disasso ciated from B.V. and had cooperated in the prosecution of him. B.V. ha d pleaded guilty and be en sentenced to 20 years in prison. Mother had secured a clean, safe home wher e she lives alone. Sh e had been employed since 2004 and had been promoted to a ssistant general manager. During regular visitation, she had behaved appropriately. Sh e asserted she was able to provide for her children’s emotional, medical, and financial need s and it would be in the best interest of the children because th ey wanted to live with her and they loved one another. In an interim review report, CFS reco mmended the court deny mother’s petition based on changed circumstances because moth er had previously denied knowing about the abuse of the children by B. V. and did not seek timely me dical care for L.V. before she died. CFS focused on how B.B. and D.A. were thriving in their placement with Mr. and Mrs. A. Both children had suffered trauma under their mother’s care but were overcoming its effects. CFS summarized moth er’s history of referra ls in May and June 2004 and November 2009 for abuse and negl ect, culminating in L.V.’s death in May 2010. CFS disagreed with the therapist’s assessment that mo ther had come to recognize her culpability. CFS acknowle dged mother loves the children and was appropriate in visitation but observed the children did not exhibit emotional distress when the visits ended. Therefore, CFS still recommended th at B.B. should be adopted and D.A. should7 be placed with her father, M.A., aided by his parents. CFS id entified no change in circumstances. In addition to CFS’s opposition, minor’s counsel for B.B. opposed the request for a bonding study on the grounds he had not be en in mother’s care since May 2010 and mother saw him only once a month for two hours. The trial court granted an evidentiary hearing on the section 388 petition but denied the request for a bonding study. D. Hearing on Sec tions 388 and 366.26 On July 26 and 27, 2012, the court conducted a combin ed hearing on the section 388 petition and the sec tion 366.26 pr oceeding. Gail York, mother’s therap ist, testified that she ha d begun treating mother in October 2011 for 15 sessions. Mother was not in contact with B.V. who had killed their daughter. The therapy focused on “protection issues” and mother’s need to recognize and be vigilant about danger to her children. Mo ther admitted her past faults in the care of her children, especially in no t recognizing B.V.’s abusive tr eatment of them even after they had disclosed it to her. Although York never met the ch ildren, in her opinion, the children had probably bonded with mother based on their history with her until their removal. York also asserted that mother did not pose a risk and could parent the children safely. Mother testified that, at one point, the family law court had or dered M.A. to have custody of D.A. for about a year. Mother also testified that she learned in therapy how to8 be an alert and active parent. She acknowledge d having a part in the death of L.V. and knowing about B.V.’s mistreatment of the children before L.V. died. Annette Femi-Grande, the children’s therap ist, testified that she treated them weekly and then every othe r week. Initially, the childre n experienced nightmares, flashbacks, crying, depression, and anger rela ted to L.V.’s death. They suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and difficulty sleeping. The children have improved but, after mother’s visits, their sy mptoms seemed to be aggrav ated. Femi-Grande’s opinion was that mother’s visits should be terminated and they should not be returned to her. Both children preferred placement w ith M.A. and Mr. and Mrs. A. The social worker testifie d the children enjoyed their vi sits with mother but were not upset when they ended. She recommended that B.B. be adopted by Mr. and Mrs. A. and have no more contact with mother and that M.A. have sole custody of D.A. and mother have monthly, supervised visitation. At the conclusion of testimony, mother’s lawyer argued that if the section 388 petition was denied, she should have increase d unsupervised visitation with D.A. and joint legal custody and that an altern ative to adoption be ordered for B.B. The court denied the section 388 petition as not establishing changed circumstances or the best interests of the children. As to B.B., the court granted termination of parental right s, finding by clear and convin cing evidence that it was likely he would be adopted and that termination of parental rights would not be detrimental and the beneficial relationship exce ption was not established. As to D.A., the court ordered M.A. to have legal custody and mother to ha ve monthly supervised visitation. The court9 terminated dependency jurisdiction and ordere d that any further proceedings regarding custody of D.A. should be conduc ted in the family law court.
III THE BONDING STUDY Mother argues the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her request in May 2012 for a bonding study involving her and B.B. The court denied the bonding study, because it was not “appropriate or reasonable under the circumstances.” The parties initially argue about whether the issue involving the bonding study was forfeited or waived on appeal. In this instance, we conclude the right of appeal should be liberally construed to protect the appellant. ( In re Joshua S. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 261, 272; In re Madison W. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4t h 1447, 1149-1451.) Even so, we still decide the issue on the merits against mother. In In re Lorenzo
C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330 , 1341, the appellate court discussed the standard of review for the denial of a bonding study and commented: “[ I]t is difficult to envision how the court abused its discretion by not ordering a bonding study in this case. The applicable standard of review is whether, un der all the evidence view ed in a light most favorable to the juvenile court’s action, the juvenile court could have reasonably refrained from ordering a bonding study. [Cit ation.] Here, the undisputed evidence was that there was some bonding between the fath er and Lorenzo but that the child had a stronger bond with the foster pa rents. [Fn. omitted.] Also, the child was on ly two years old at the time of the section 366.26 hearing a nd had had no contact w ith his father during the preceding five months . Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that a bonding study10 would have been useful to the juvenile cour t. The juvenile court did not err in not ordering a bonding study.” A later case repeated the holding that ther e is no requirement in statutory or case law that a court must secure a bonding stud y as a condition precedent to a termination order. Family preservation ceases to be of overriding concern if a dependent child cannot be safely returned to parent al custody and the juvenile court terminates reunification services. Then, the focus shifts from the parent’s interest in reunification to the child’s interest in permanen cy and stability. ( In re Richard C. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1198, citing In re Lorenzo C., supra, 54 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1339-1340. The same reasoning applies here, as in Lorenzo C. and Richard C. , for the reasons discussed above in detail in th e statement of facts, section II, D and E. In summary, B.B. had developed an intense emotional bond with Mr. and Mrs. A. who wanted to adopt him and keep him in their home with his sister and her father. B.B. was only three years old when he was removed from his mother. He ha d been out of her ca re for two years in May 2012 and he saw her only once a month. As the ju venile court expressly found, the mother’s therapist had no sound basis for her opinion that B.B. may still have maintained an attachment to mother because the mother’s therapist never observed their interaction. Instead, the children’s therapist described how any contact with mother seemed to aggravate and renew the trauma the children had already suffered and continued to be harmful to them. Under these circumstances , as recognized by the juvenile court, it simply was not an abuse of discretion to de ny mother’s request for a bonding study and the denial presented no prejudice to her rights concerning B.B.11 IV DISPOSITION We affirm the orders of the juvenile court.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:

HOLLENHORST Acting P. J.

McKINSTER J.