Filed 9/26/22 In re D.R. CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Cal ifornia 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(a). This 

opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re D.R., et al., Persons

Coming Under the Juvenile 

Court Law.

B315904

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY 

SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

L.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No.

18CCJP02379A–B

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los

Angeles County, Hernan D. Vera, Judge. Affirmed.

Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.
2

Dawyn R. Harrison, Acting County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, 

Assistant County Counsel, Brian Mahler, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Leslie R. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order 

terminating her parental rights as to two of her children, D.R. 

and A.R. Mother argues the court erred in terminating her

parental rights because the court considered inappropriate 

factors when it found the beneficial parent-child relationship 

exception to adoption did not apply. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. Background

Two of mother’s children, D.R. (now 12 years old) and A.R.

(now five years old), are involved in this appeal.

1 The Department 

of Children and Family Services (Department) became involved 

with this family on March 12, 2018, after receiving an 

anonymous report that mother uses methamphetamines and 

hears voices. The caller expressed concern for the children’s 

safety in mother’s care. At the time, mother and the children 

were living with the maternal uncle, H.R., his partner, and 

several other extended family members.

On March 29, 2018, during the initial investigation period, 

mother and the children appeared at a Department office for an 

interview. Mother displayed signs of being under the influence 

during the interview but denied current or past drug use. With 

mother’s consent, the Department social worker contacted H.R., 

1 The children’s fathers are not involved in this appeal.
3

who agreed to participate in a safety plan for the children. The 

safety plan provided that H.R. would care for the children and 

mother would not be allowed to reside in his home. Further, H.R. 

was to obtain a restraining order against mother. Mother agreed 

to drug test.

Over the next several days, mother repeatedly appeared at 

the home of H.R. while intoxicated or under the influence of 

methamphetamines. Mother was belligerent and demanded 

custody of the children. On April 3, 2018, mother went to H.R.’s 

home while intoxicated and punched the front window, causing 

the glass to shatter. A child in the home was hit by flying glass 

and was mildly injured. Mother did not appear for drug testing as 

requested by the Department. On April 9, 2018, mother went to 

H.R.’s home again and appeared to be under the influence of 

methamphetamine and alcohol. H.R.’s family attempted to stop 

mother from putting the children in her car but were unable to do 

so. Law enforcement intervened. The following day, mother 

returned to H.R.’s home and was arrested for trespassing. The 

children were detained from mother on April 10, 2018, and placed 

with H.R. The court ordered monitored visitation by a neutral 

monitor. H.R. obtained a restraining order prohibiting mother 

from visiting his residence.

2. Jurisdiction and Disposition

The Department filed a petition under Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (a), (b), and (j),

2

alleging that mother’s substance abuse rendered her unable to 

2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
4

provide care for the children, that mother had physically abused 

D.R., that such physical abuse also placed A.R. at risk of abuse, 

and that mother has a history of engaging in violent conduct in 

the presence of the children.

In a report submitted on May 15, 2018, the Department 

stated that H.R., D.R., and other family members had observed

mother engaging in violent conduct with other family members 

including H.R., and had a history of methamphetamine and 

alcohol abuse. D.R. also reported that mother would hit him with 

a shoe or a belt on his bottom, back, and arms if he “did 

something [he’s] not supposed to do.” Other family members did 

not observe or see signs of physical abuse.

Mother was not in contact with the Department during this 

period and she was arrested on May 23, 2018, after going to 

H.R.’s home. During this reporting period, mother was allowed 

monitored visitation with the children for two hours twice a week 

in the presence of a Department-approved monitor. As of midMay, mother had had one in-person visit with the children at a 

Department office and the Department was working with the 

family to establish a regular visitation schedule.

On June 28, 2018, the court sustained the following 

amended jurisdictional allegations under section 300, 

subdivision (b):

“b-1: The children[’s] ... mother ... is a recent user of 

methamphetamine, which renders the mother incapable of 

providing the children with regular care and supervision. On 

prior occasions, the mother was under the influence of illicit 

drugs while the children were in the mother’s care and 

supervision. The child [A.R.] is of such a young age that the child 

requires constant care and supervision and the mother’s 
5

substance abuse inhibits the mother’s ability to provide constant 

care and supervision. Such substance abuse by the mother 

endangers the children’s physical health and safety and places 

the children at risk of serious physical harm, damage and danger.

“b-2: On prior occasions, the children[’s] mother ... 

inappropriately physically disciplined the child [D.R.] striking 

the child’s body with belts. Such inappropriate physical discipline

was excessive and caused the child unreasonable pain and 

suffering. Such inappropriate physical discipline of the child by 

the mother endangers the child’s physical health and safety and 

places the child and the child’s sibling, [A.R.], at risk of physical 

harm.”

The court also ordered the children removed from mother’s 

custody with family reunification services. Mother’s case plan 

required her to complete a full alcohol and drug rehabilitation 

program with aftercare, a 12-step program, and weekly drug 

testing. The case plan also required mother to complete a 

parenting class and engage in individual counseling. Finally, the 

court ordered monitored visitation with discretion for the 

Department to liberalize.

3. Six-Month Review

The Department submitted a six-month review report to 

the court in late December 2018. The children were still placed 

with the maternal uncle, H.R., and his partner and were doing 

well. Mother, however, continued to violate the restraining order 

prohibiting her from visiting H.R.’s home and was arrested four

times during the review period. The Department confirmed that 

mother had enrolled in a drug rehabilitation program but was 

unable to confirm her compliance with the remainder of the case 

plan. Mother tested negative for substances twice in October but 
6

otherwise was a “no show” for court-ordered drug testing. She 

went to a Department office at one point, without a scheduled 

appointment, and appeared to be under the influence as she was 

foaming at the mouth, using profanity, and engaging in frequent, 

uncontrolled eye-rolling.

The Department reported that mother had visited with the 

children regularly when she was not incarcerated. Mother needed 

to be prompted not to discuss case issues and other inappropriate 

matters with the children during visits. During one visit, mother 

became enraged that the monitor would not allow her to speak 

with D.R. privately. Mother ended the visit early. Otherwise, 

mother was appropriate with the children.

At the six-month review hearing on March 7, 2019, the 

court found that mother was in partial compliance with her case 

plan and ordered continued jurisdiction over the children. 

4. Twelve-Month Review

In its 12-month review report, the Department indicated 

that the children had been placed with a foster family at H.R.’s 

request.3 Both D.R. and A.R. were thriving in their new 

placement. Mother continued to struggle with case plan 

compliance during the review period and relapsed with drug use. 

Her behavior was erratic during those times and, in addition to 

violating H.R.’s protective order, mother was frequently rude and 

aggressive with the foster mother and Department personnel.

Mother did complete a drug rehabilitation program and was 

participating in aftercare, drug testing, and an anger 

management class. She frequently tested negative for all 

3 The reason for the request is not disclosed in the record.
7

substances between mid-December 2018 and July 2019 but 

missed five test dates during that interval.

4 During this reporting 

period, mother visited the children regularly and was usually 

observed to be engaging appropriately with the children. One 

social worker commented that “the children appeared to be happy 

and well bonded” to mother. Due to mother’s progress in her 

programs and negative drug test results, the Department 

transitioned to unmonitored visitation in early August 2019. D.R.

conveyed that he would like to live with mother.

In two last-minute informations filed in October 2019, the 

Department expressed concern that mother had relapsed because 

she had not been attending her program and had not reported for 

drug testing that week. Mother had also alleged that the foster 

mother was mistreating the children, which D.R. and the foster 

mother denied. Mother’s visitation with the children reverted to 

monitored visitation sessions due to the Department’s 

uncertainty about mother’s sobriety.

The court found that continued jurisdiction was necessary, 

that mother’s compliance with the case plan was not substantial, 

and continued family reunification services for an additional six 

months.

5. Eighteen-Month Review

In late March 2020, the Department filed its initial 

permanency review report.5 At that time, the children remained 

at their foster home placement and continued to do well there. 

4 Mother was pregnant during some or all of this reporting period.

5 Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the 18-month review hearing did not 

take place until September 1, 2020.
8

Mother, however, continued to struggle. After the birth of her 

third child, mother was ordered to re-enroll in a drug treatment 

program but had only completed a few sessions. For the most 

part, mother was a “no show” for drug testing after August 2019. 

And mother had been arrested and incarcerated in late 

February 2020, after she assaulted her mother’s boyfriend with 

an unknown weapon and used a metal pole to damage his car. 

The arrest report indicated that mother appeared to be under the 

influence of narcotics at the time. Mother was still incarcerated 

in late March, when the Department submitted its initial 

permanency review report.

As for visitation, the Department reported that the 

assigned social worker had attempted to increase mother’s 

visitation days (she was only seeing the children for two hours on 

Saturdays) but mother had not been in contact with the 

Department to confirm a monitor or a schedule. In addition, 

mother had been “inconsistent” with visitation. Mother was 

briefly employed in December 2019 and claimed that she missed 

visitation sessions due to her work schedule. But she continued to 

miss scheduled visits after her employment was terminated and 

provided explanations such as, “I overslept,” and “Something 

came up.” When mother did visit with the children, she 

interacted well with them, and they were happy to see her. D.R.

still reported that he wanted to live with mother. The 

Department recommended terminating family reunification 

services for mother.

The Department submitted an interim review report in 

mid-August 2020 and reported that the children continued to do 

well in the foster placement. Mother had not yet completed her 

second drug rehabilitation program and missed all ordered drug 
9

tests during the previous six-month period. Mother seldom 

visited the children and on several occasions confirmed visitation 

but then did not appear for the visit. But when mother did visit 

with the children, they appeared happy and well bonded to her. 

The Department again recommended that the court terminate 

family reunification services for mother. Also during this period, 

the maternal uncle, H.R., and his partner contacted the 

Department and asked to have the children placed back in their 

home.

6. Termination of Parental Rights and Permanency 

Planning

On September 1, 2020, the court ordered mother’s 

reunification services terminated and set the matter for a 

permanency planning hearing under section 366.26.

In early February 2021, the Department filed a 

permanency planning review report. The children had been 

placed back with H.R. since November 2020 and were happy and 

comfortable in the home and living with their extended family. 

D.R. expressed that he would like to continue to live with H.R.

The Department filed a permanency selection and 

implementation report on February 11, 2021. At that time, H.R. 

and his partner had expressed an interest in adopting the 

children. D.R. said he was very happy in the home and wanted 

H.R. and his partner to adopt him and his sister. The 

Department had initiated the appropriate evaluations and 

recommended adoption as the permanent plan for D.R. and A.R.

During the review period, prior to the children’s placement 

with H.R., mother seldom visited the children. On several 

occasions, she confirmed a visitation session with a Department

monitor but then did not follow through with the visit. When 
10

mother did visit with the children, her interactions with them 

were positive and nurturing. After the children were placed back 

with H.R., mother had only two in-person visits but visited the 

children frequently via video chat. H.R., who was to monitor 

mother’s visits with the children, expressed that it was difficult 

to accommodate her visits due to his work schedule. The 

Department social worker indicated that she could assist but that 

she did not have a phone number for mother. Mother had also not 

contacted the Department to arrange visitation.

On March 2, 2021, the court ordered adoption as the 

permanent plan for D.R. and A.R. and continued the permanency 

planning hearing for 60 days to allow the Department to 

complete its adoption assessment. The Department subsequently 

reported that H.R. and his partner had completed all 

requirements and were cleared to adopt the children. During an 

in-person visit, a Department social worker “observed that the

relationship between A.R. and D.R. and the two applicants [H.R. 

and his partner] is strong, loving and characteristic of a healthy 

parent/child relationship.”

In its final report, filed in early August 2021, the 

Department reported that D.R. and A.R. were thriving and happy 

in the home of H.R. The children had had a few phone calls with 

mother but did not have any visits with her in person. Mother 

had been incarcerated for several months. D.R. stated that he 

wanted to continue living with H.R. The Department continued 

to recommend adoption by H.R. and his partner as the 

permanent plan for the children.

On August 30, 2021, the court conducted a permanency 

planning review hearing and ordered adoption as the permanent 

plan. On September 22, 2021, the court conducted the final
11

hearing under section 366.26. The Department asked the court to 

terminate mother’s parental rights and move forward with 

adoption as the permanent plan. Minors’ counsel joined in the 

Department’s request. Mother’s counsel urged the court not to 

terminate mother’s parental rights due to the beneficial 

relationship between her and the children, especially D.R. But 

mother presented no evidence or testimony at the hearing.

The court found the beneficial parent-child relationship 

exception did not apply and terminated mother’s parental rights. 

The court ordered adoption to continue as the permanent plan 

and designated H.R. and his partner as the prospective adoptive 

parents.

Mother appeals.

DISCUSSION

Mother asserts the court erred by finding the beneficial 

parent-child relationship exception to adoption does not apply. 

We disagree.

After a juvenile court terminates a parent’s reunification 

services, “ ‘the focus [of the proceedings] shifts to the needs of the 

child for permanency and stability.’ ” (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 

Cal.4th 45, 52.) At that point, adoption becomes the preferred 

permanent plan for the child, and the court should order it 

“unless exceptional circumstances exist.” (In re Casey D. (1999) 

70 Cal.App.4th 38, 51, disapproved on an unrelated point by In re 

Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 636, fn. 5 (Caden C.).) Indeed, 

section 366.26 requires the juvenile court to terminate parental 

rights if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child is 

likely to be adopted. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).)

A parent may avoid termination of parental rights, 

however, by establishing that a statutory exception exists. 
12

(Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 617.) One exception exists 

where there is a beneficial relationship between the parent and 

the child. (Ibid.) To establish the beneficial parent-child 

relationship exception, the parent must show, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, that she has “maintained regular 

visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit 

from continuing the relationship” and the relationship provides a 

“compelling reason for determining that termination [of parental 

rights] would be detrimental to the child.” (§ 366.26, 

subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)

In Caden C., the California Supreme Court clarified how 

this exception works. “The language of [the beneficial parentchild relationship] exception, along with its history and place in 

the larger dependency scheme, show that the exception applies in 

situations where a child cannot be in a parent’s custody but 

where severing the child’s relationship with the parent, even 

when balanced against the benefits of a new adoptive home, 

would be harmful for the child.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at 

p. 630.) To determine whether the beneficial parent-child 

relationship exception applies, “the court acts in the child’s best 

interest in a specific way: it decides whether the harm of severing 

the relationship outweighs ‘the security and the sense of 

belonging a new family would confer.’ [Citation.] ‘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. [Citation.] That subtle, case-specific inquiry is what the 

statute asks courts to perform: does the benefit of placement in a 

new, adoptive home outweigh ‘the harm [the child] would 
13

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.” (Id. at pp. 633–634.)

The Supreme Court also clarified that a parent’s failure to 

make adequate progress with her case plan or to address the 

issues that led to the child’s dependency does not disqualify a 

parent from seeking to establish this exception. The parent’s 

conduct during the period of supervision may be relevant to the 

quality of the parent-child relationship and the consequences of 

severing the relationship. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 

637–638.) But the critical question is whether the child’s 

relationship with the parent is so significant that it outweighs 

the benefits of adoption, not whether the parent has satisfactorily 

addressed the issues that led to the child’s proceedings. (Id. at 

pp. 635–636.)

Thus, to show the beneficial parent-child relationship 

exception applies, the parent bears the burden of establishing 

three elements: (1) regular visitation and contact with the child, 

taking into account the extent of visitation permitted; (2) the 

existence of a substantial, positive, emotional attachment 

between the child and the parent—the kind of attachment 

implying that the child would benefit from continuing the 

relationship; and (3) that terminating the parent-child 

relationship would be detrimental to the child even when 

balanced against the countervailing benefit of a new, adoptive 

home. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 636.) To evaluate

whether the exception applies, courts should look to several 
14

factors, including the age of the child, the amount of time the 

child spent in the parent’s custody, the quality of interaction 

between parent and child, and the child’s particular needs. (In re 

Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.) If the parent 

establishes all three elements, the exception applies, and the 

court should select a permanent plan other than adoption. 

(Caden C., at pp. 636–637.)

We review the court’s findings on the first two elements—

regular visitation and whether the child would benefit from 

continuing the relationship—for substantial evidence. (Caden C., 

supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 639–640.) As for the third element, we 

review factual determinations for substantial evidence and the 

weighing of the relative harms and benefits of terminating 

parental rights for an abuse of discretion. (Ibid.) But where, as 

here, a parent contends the court below erred in finding she did 

not meet her burden of proof,6 we must determine whether the 

evidence compels a finding in favor of the parent as a matter of 

law. (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528, disapproved of 

on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 

989, 1010, fn. 7.) “Specifically, the question becomes whether the 

[parent’s] evidence was (1) ‘uncontradicted and unimpeached’ and 

(2) ‘of such a character and weight as to leave no room for a 

judicial determination that it was insufficient to support a 

finding.’ [Citation.]” (I.W., at p. 1528.)

6 In Caden C., unlike here, the juvenile court found the mother met her 

burden to establish the beneficial parent-child relationship exception, 

but the appellate court reversed the juvenile court’s ruling. (Caden C., 

supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 628–629.)
15

We begin our analysis with the first element: regular 

visitation and contact with the children. Mother provides no 

meaningful discussion on this issue, as she claims the court 

“found that Mother had visited the children.” The record, 

however, is ambiguous on this point.

As mother notes, the court provided only a brief

explanation of its ruling. Of course, the court was not required to 

make express findings when it concluded the beneficial parentchild relationship exception to adoption did not apply. (See In re 

A.L. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1156 [noting juvenile court not 

required to recite specific findings when it concludes terminating 

parental rights would not be detrimental to the child].) But the 

comments the court did make do not lead to the conclusion 

mother advances, namely, that the court found she had 

consistently and regularly visited the children during the threeand-a-half year-long dependency proceeding. Specifically, in 

announcing its ruling that the beneficial parent-child 

relationship did not apply, the court stated, “Although the mother 

has visited, visits have not over the years risen as required by the 

law to a parental role that is needed for the exception to apply. 

And that even if it did, any benefit accruing to the children from 

the relationship to the [parent] is outweighed by the physical and 

emotional benefit the children will receive in the permanency and 

stability of adoption.”

The court’s statement that “mother has visited,” taken in 

context, does not appear to be a finding in mother’s favor on the 

first element. And in the face of an ambiguous record, we are 

bound to construe the court’s ruling on “the visitation element in 

a manner that supports its order terminating [the parent’s]

parental rights.” (In re Eli B. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1061, 1069; 
16

see also Winograd v. American Broadcasting Co. (1998) 68 

Cal.App.4th 624, 631 [noting a trial court’s ruling is presumed 

correct and ambiguities are resolved in favor of affirmance].) 

Thus, we must presume the court found mother did not establish 

the regular visitation element.

Substantial evidence supports that implied finding. During 

the first few months of supervision, mother was allowed 

monitored visitation with the children for two hours twice a week 

but only had one in-person visit with the children. The 

Department’s attempts to arrange additional visits were 

hampered by mother’s refusal to provide a reliable telephone 

number and her frequent arrests and incarceration arising from 

violations of H.R.’s protective order. From mid-2018 to mid-2019, 

the Department reported that mother did visit the children 

regularly and had positive interactions with them—so long as she 

was not incarcerated, which happened with some frequency. In 

the fall of 2019, the Department suspected mother had a relapse 

regarding her drug use. After that point, mother’s visitation was 

“inconsistent,” according to the Department, and she frequently 

missed visits without a valid explanation, even after she had 

confirmed a visit with the monitor. For a time in late 2020 and 

early 2021, mother visited with the children virtually on a 

regular basis, but she almost never saw them in person. Although 

the Department offered to facilitate in-person visits, mother still 

did not have a reliable contact number and did not return calls or 

follow up with the Department regarding additional visitation. 

And in mid to late 2021, when the court terminated her parental 

rights, mother was having only occasional phone contact with the 

children due to her incarceration.
17

As noted, mother provides no analysis or discussion 

concerning the first element, other than to say, incorrectly, that 

the court found in her favor. She also provided no evidence at the 

hearing to support her argument that the beneficial parent-child 

relationship exception should be applied. Given that it is the 

parent’s burden to establish the existence of an exception to 

adoption, we must conclude the court did not err in finding the 

beneficial parent-child relationship exception inapplicable in the 

present case.

7

7 Because we find mother failed to establish the first element of the 

beneficial relationship exception, we need not consider the other 

elements. (See In re Eli B., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 1068 [noting 

that where father failed to establish regular and consistent visitation, 

it was unnecessary to analyze the remaining elements of the 

exception].) 
18

DISPOSITION

The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

LAVIN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

EGERTON, J.

ADAMS, J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.