Filed 9/20/16 In re L.C. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re L.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

REBECCA S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

F073315

(Super. Ct. Nos. 14CEJ300303-1, 

14CEJ300303-2, 14CEJ300303-3)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Mary Dolas, 

Judge.

Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant.

Daniel C. Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

 

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Franson, J.
2.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant Rebecca S. (Mother) challenges the Welfare and Institutions Code1

section 366.26 order terminating her parental rights and placing her minor children for 

adoption. She contends that a beneficial parent-child relationship existed and the juvenile 

court abused its discretion. We disagree and affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

On October 3, 2014, Mother’s infant daughter M. was admitted to the hospital 

because of failure to thrive. On October 4, 2014, the police department placed a 

protective hold on M. pursuant to section 300. A decision was made to file a section 300 

petition on behalf of Rebecca’s three children, L., I., and M. 

Fresno County Department of Social Services (department) records showed that 

there had been six prior referrals for possible physical abuse and neglect of the children. 

She previously had received voluntary family maintenance services in 2014. Services 

provided included emergency housing, transportation, parenting classes, public health 

nurse coaching, and referrals for public assistance. 

Medical records showed that M. had not been gaining weight, in fact, she had 

dropped in her percentile, was now at .2 percent of the growth chart, and had been losing 

weight. L. had been physically abused by the children’s father, Jacob M., who had a 

lengthy criminal history and was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment after being 

convicted of physically injuring L. 

Family members reported that mother was inattentive to the children; mother 

frequently had to be told to bathe or feed the children, and she was feeding M. 

improperly. 

The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction on October 27, 2014, pursuant to 

section 300, subdivision (b). The disposition report recommended that Mother receive 

 

1 References to code sections are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3.

reunification services and that no services be provided Father. A report that L. had been 

subjected to physical abuse and that the other children were at risk had been substantiated 

in October 2013. Several subsequent referrals alleging neglect were deemed unfounded 

or inconclusive. The referral for general neglect in October 2014 was substantiated. 

Mother had no criminal record. Father had criminal convictions for carjacking 

and the infliction of injury on L. The conviction for physically injuring L. was in 2013 

and father was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. 

Mother had been receiving voluntary family maintenance services at the time the 

children were placed in protective custody. The department questioned whether Mother 

would be able to benefit from reunification services, in light of the fact that she had been 

receiving family services. 

The disposition report noted that L. was not developmentally “on target.” I. was 

found to be not on target developmentally; in addition, he had some physical 

abnormalities with his ears and legs. M. had the same ear deformity as I., and had been 

gaining weight and appeared developmentally on target after being placed in protective 

custody. 

The department opined in the disposition report that the children would be at 

substantial risk if returned to the care of either of their parents. Mother had missed seven 

scheduled visits; and made inappropriate comments to L., making him cry. While in her 

custody, Mother had failed to provide adequate food and shelter, and did not meet the 

medical needs of the children. The department recommended out-of-home placement. 

At the January 14, 2015 disposition hearing, the children were removed from 

Mother’s custody. Reunification services were ordered provided to Mother, including 

parenting classes, domestic violence evaluation and services, substance abuse evaluation 

and treatment, and a psychological evaluation of Mother. Visitation was ordered to be 

supervised. Mother did not appeal from the jurisdictional findings or the dispositional 

order. 
4.

After removal, the children were all placed with a relative. The children “thrived” 

in the relative placement; the home met the medical, physical, social, emotional, and 

educational needs of the children. Further medical assessments had found M. had gastroreflux disease and needed medication. She also was not developmentally on target. I. 

was found to be healthy with no significant issues. L. had physical problems that 

required anti-seizure medication; L. also needed an inhaler and had a speech impairment. 

On November 4, 2015, reunification services for Mother were terminated. Mother 

filed a notice of intent to file writ petition. This court later dismissed the matter as 

abandoned, in case No. F072705. 

A section 366.26 hearing was scheduled. At the time of the initial section 366.26 

hearing on February 10, 2016, L. was four years old; I. was two years old; and M. was 

one year old. 

The social study prepared for the permanent placement hearing noted that Mother 

had been provided with supervised visits with the children. Mother had initially missed 

many of the scheduled visits. On those visits she participated in, Mother often made 

inappropriate comments to L., leaving him crying. Mother also frequently was using her 

cell phone during visits, instead of interacting with her children. Mother “struggled” to 

maintain safety and structure for the children during visits. 

The department referred Mother to an agency that could provide “therapeutic” 

supervised visitation, during which a licensed therapist could provide assistance to 

Mother during visitation to achieve goals that would improve her interaction with her 

children. Commencing in June 2015, visits were supervised by a therapist and Mother 

made “small progress.” L., however, sometimes displayed increased negative behavior 

following a visit with Mother. 

In the social study, the social worker noted that Mother had never progressed 

beyond supervised visits with her children. I. and M. had lived more than half their lives 

outside Mother’s custody; L. had lived a significant portion of his life outside of 
5.

Mother’s custody. The social worker was of the opinion that any benefit from 

maintaining the parent-child relationship did not outweigh the benefits to the children of 

permanency and adoption. The children demonstrated “a high level of comfort” in their 

placement and “always appear to be safe, comfortable and well cared for in the 

prospective adoptive home.” 

At the continued, contested section 366.26 hearing on March 2, 2016, Dr. Timothy 

Cox, a clinical psychologist, testified. Cox supervised visits between Mother and the 

children from September 2015 until the section 366.26 hearing. Cox testified Mother 

fulfills a parental role, but he never completed a bonding study. Cox testified Mother had 

shown “significant progress” toward her goals. Cox also testified there was a “possibility 

that it could be detrimental exists” when asked about termination of Mother’s parental 

rights.

The juvenile court noted that Mother had received 12 months of services and 

although she had made progress, she failed to advance beyond supervised visits and had 

to have a therapist present at visits. Based on the evidence, the juvenile court found that 

“visits evolved” to “more of a friendly relationship” and there was only a “very limited” 

parental role by Mother that did not give rise to a “strong beneficial relationship.” The 

juvenile court concluded:

“the fact remains that there has not been sufficient evidence to show such a 

strong, positive, emotional, or beneficial attachment as between these 

children and their parents to the point that terminating parental rights would 

be detrimental due to such a strong parent/relationship or sufficient 

evidence that the children would benefit from continuing the parent/child 

relationship.” 

The juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights and set adoption as the 

preferred permanent plan. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal.
6.

DISCUSSION

Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in finding that termination 

of parental rights would not be detrimental to the children. Mother contends that she has 

maintained regular visitation and contact with the children and the children would benefit 

from continuing the relationship; therefore, pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision 

(c)(1)(B)(i), the juvenile court should not have terminated parental rights. We disagree.

We review a section 366.26 order for sufficiency of the evidence. (In re L.Y.L.

(2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.) An appellate court looks to see whether substantial 

evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports the juvenile court’s order. (In re 

Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193.) Substantial evidence is a difficult hurdle to 

overcome; if there is any substantial evidence we must affirm. (D.M. v. Superior Court

(2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1128.)

When a minor cannot be returned to a parent at the end of the reunification period, 

adoption is the preferred permanent plan. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 

573.) The juvenile court must select adoption as the permanent plan unless termination 

of parental rights would be detrimental. (In re Jamie R. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 766, 773.) 

Mother’s claim that a beneficial relationship existed between her and her children, 

as contemplated by section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), is not supported by the 

evidence. Mother never progressed beyond supervised visits after one year of 

reunification services. A relationship established through supervised visits amounts to 

“little more than play dates” with a “loving adult.” (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 

Cal.App.4th 1308, 1316-1317.) A parent must show “more than frequent and loving 

contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits,” to establish the beneficial 

relationship exception. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 229.)

Here, M. and I. spent more than half their lives outside Mother’s custody; L. spent 

a significant portion of his life not in Mother’s custody. The relationship between 
7.

Mother and her children, at the time of the section 366.26 hearing, had progressed to 

become pleasant visits. This simply is not enough to establish a beneficial relationship. 

In determining whether a beneficial relationship exists such that it would be 

detrimental to the children to terminate parental rights, a juvenile court “balances the 

strength and quality of the parent-child relationship in a tenuous placement against the 

security and sense of belonging that a stable family would confer.” (In re Dakota H., 

supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 229.) The children here were “thriving” in the placement of 

the prospective adoptive parents; the prospective adoptive parents were meeting all of the 

social, emotional, and other needs of the children; and the children were happy, healthy, 

and comfortable in the home. The juvenile court rightly concluded that maintaining a 

relationship with Mother that amounted to no more than pleasant visits, did not outweigh 

the benefits to the children of placement in a stable, loving home. 

The social worker opined that whatever benefit would be conferred on the children 

from maintaining a relationship with mother did not outweigh the benefit of permanency 

and adoption. Cox testified merely that the “possibility” of detriment to the children 

existed from termination of parental rights; not that it was a “positive yes” or even a 

probability. A juvenile court is entitled to give great weight to a social worker’s 

assessment and testimony. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53.) 

Maintaining parental contact will always confer some incidental benefit on a child; 

but frequent, pleasant visits, are not enough to establish the beneficial relationship 

exception. (In re Dakota H., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 229.) The juvenile court found 

that maintaining contact with Mother simply did not outweigh the benefits to the three 

children of adoption and permanency. 

The record discloses substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order and 

the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that termination of parental rights 

would not be detrimental to the children. 
8.

DISPOSITION

The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.