1

Filed 3/15/13 In re H.T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re H.T. et al., Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

T.T. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

E056713

(Super.Ct.Nos. J230964 & J230965

& J230966 & J230967)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gregory S. Tavill, 

Judge. Affirmed.

Jacob Ivan Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant T.T.

Jesse Jack McGowan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant D.T.
2

Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Jamila Bayati, Deputy County Counsel, for 

Plaintiff and Respondent.

No appearance for Minors. 

Minors H.T. (born January 2010), G.T. (born August 2007), C.T. (born November 

2005), and M.G.1(born October 2000) (collectively minors) came to the attention of 

plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the 

department) when the younger three siblings‟ paternal aunt called law enforcement on 

January 17, 2010, to report defendant and appellant D.T. (father) had left the elder three 

siblings in her care with no provision for support and failed to return when promised. 

Defendant and appellant T.T. (mother) had just given birth prematurely to H.T. and tested 

positively for drugs several times while in the hospital.2 

The juvenile court removed minors from parents‟ custody and offered parents 18 

months of reunification services. After a contested 18-month review hearing on August 

16, 2011, the court terminated parents‟ reunification services and set the Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.3 On April 12, 2012, the juvenile court 

suspended parents‟ visitation with the three younger siblings, upon the department‟s 

 

1

 M.G.‟s biological father was never located and, thus, was never a party to the 

proceedings below and is not a party on appeal. 

2

 The department indicated in its reports that H.T. was taken into protective 

custody due to drug exposure in utero or at birth; however, the record also indicates H.T. 

tested negatively for drugs at birth.

3

 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
3

request, in order that they might “adjust and stabilize in their” new prospective adoptive 

placement. 

Mother filed a section 388 petition on May 29, 2012, requesting minors be 

returned to her custody or, in the alternative, reunification services be reinstated with 

unsupervised overnight and weekend visitation with minors. Father filed a section 388 

petition on July 5, 2012, requesting the same relief as mother. After a combined, 

contested sections 388 and 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court denied parents‟ section 388 

petitions, found adoption as the permanent plan, terminated parental rights as to the 

younger three siblings, and ordered a permanent plan of foster care placement for M.G. 

Parents appeal contending the juvenile court deprived them of constitutionally requisite 

due process in terminating their visitation with the three younger siblings and failed to 

correct that error during the section 388 hearing, thus depriving them of the ability to 

establish a parental benefit exception to termination of parental rights. We affirm the 

judgment. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The paternal aunt of the three younger siblings reported that on January 14, 2010, 

father called and asked her to come to the parents‟ home in Big Bear and watch the three 

eldest children for a day. Mother was in the hospital having just given birth to H.T. 

Paternal aunt noted there was no heat in the home and the temperature was below 

freezing. All the children were sick. There was only enough food for a day. There was 

an eviction notice on the table indicating the family must vacate the home by January 27, 

2010.
4

On January 15, 2010, when father did not return, paternal aunt called father, but 

he did not answer. On January 16, 2010, she called again to no avail. A neighbor took 

her and the children back to Corona where paternal aunt lived. Paternal aunt then called 

mother; mother told her she would not come get the children. Paternal aunt told mother 

that if someone did not come pick up the children she would call the department and the 

police. Mother told her to “„do what you have to do.‟”

On January 17, 2010, paternal aunt had still not heard from father. Since she only 

rented a room in another family‟s home, she could not continue to keep the children 

there. Therefore, she contacted law enforcement. By the time an officer arrived, mother 

had called and asked to speak with M.G. M.G. told paternal aunt that mother asked her 

to sneak out of the home and meet mother on the corner. Mother told her she was going 

to leave the two other children with paternal aunt. The officer called the hospital where 

mother had given birth; mother had been discharged, but was there visiting H.T. Mother 

told the officer she was not going to come get the children because it was not her idea to 

leave them with paternal aunt. She said it was father‟s doing and she would not get 

involved.

Mother denied planning on picking up M.G., but asked to speak with her. The 

officer put M.G. on speaker phone with mother; mother started yelling at M.G. for 

disclosing their plan. Father then called paternal aunt and asked her “what the hell” she 

was doing calling the police; he said he was too busy to pick up the kids “„at her beck and 

call‟” and she would have to “„deal with it.‟”
5

Paternal aunt reported mother had just gotten out of jail for child abuse. M.G. did 

not want to return home. She said she needed a break from taking care of the children: 

she regularly changed their diapers, fed them, put them to bed, and kept them out of 

trouble. Minors were dirty, had filthy hair, and ill-fitting clothes.

On January 18, 2010, the social worker visited the Arrowhead Regional Medical 

Center‟s Neonatal Intensive Care Unit where H.T. was hospitalized. She had been born 

at 33 weeks of gestation (seven weeks early) and would require two to three more weeks 

of hospitalization due to being born premature and suffering continuing seizures.

Mother had been drug screened at the hospital, on admission, on January 7, 2010, 

and tested positively for opiates; on January 10, 2010, positively for cocaine and opiates 

after going missing from the unit for four hours; and on January 11, 2010, positively for 

opiates. Mother was discharged from the hospital on January 14, 2010, and last visited 

on January 16, 2010.

Mother had 19 prior dependency referrals occurring in San Bernardino, Imperial, 

Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties, of which eight were substantiated.4 Regarding the 

most recent dependency referral, the department had provided mother with $2,925 to pay 

back rent and $515 in vouchers to purchase winter clothes for minors on December 29, 

2009. Mother‟s criminal history consisted of 13 prior convictions for offenses including 

contempt of court, infliction of corporal injury on a spouse, false identification to a peace 

officer, six prostitution convictions, two convictions for possession of a controlled 

 

4

 A later report reflected a total of 27 referrals to various county departments with 

respect to mother, of which five resulted in removal of some or all of mother‟s children.
6

substance, and assault with a deadly weapon. Father‟s criminal history included seven 

convictions for theft of utility services, four robberies, driving with a suspended license, 

and possession of cocaine base for sale. 

The department filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging numerous allegations 

against parents including mother‟s substance abuse problems, parents‟ failure to protect 

and provide for minors, and parents‟ criminal histories. The juvenile court ordered 

minors detained on January 22, 2010. In the February 11, 2010, jurisdiction and 

disposition report, the social worker noted H.T. had been released from the hospital on 

February 5, 2010, and was placed in a certified medically fragile foster home. Mother 

had been evicted on January 27, 2010, reported living in a hotel in San Bernardino, and 

filed a JV-140 form indicating she was transient. The social worker reported M.G. had 

been the primary caregiver for her younger siblings for a long period of time.

The juvenile court continued the jurisdictional hearing to permit mediation. The 

mediator‟s report reflects the department agreed to dismiss some of the allegations, 

mother submitted on the report on other allegations, mother would contest some of the 

allegations, and the department agreed to dismiss the allegation of substance abuse if 

mother drug tested clean on the day of mediation, otherwise mother agreed to participate 

in substance abuse treatment if the result were positive.5

In an addendum report dated March 23, 2010, the social worker noted mother 

failed to drug test by March 11, 2010, as agreed in mediation. Mother had also been 

 

5

 Father was not present at mediation. Father reported working on an offshore oil 

rig and was unavailable for visitation or appearances.
7

arrested for vehicle theft on March 4, 2010. Mother canceled visitation on March 3, 

2010; declined to visit on March 11, 2010; arrived 65 minutes late for visitation on March 

16, 2010; and arrived 52 minutes late for visitation on March 17, 2010. Father missed all 

visits except the first one on February 18, 2010, to which he was 15 minutes late. 

C.T. had been found to be significantly behind in his inoculations; he had the 

immunization history of a two month old rather than that of the four and one half year old 

he was. He had also been diagnosed with rampant cavities including extensive oral decay 

and dental abscesses. A dental specialist recommended on March 16, 2010, that C.T. 

undergo nine extractions and have silver caps placed on his remaining teeth; four teeth 

were eventually removed and four crowns placed. 

After the contested jurisdictional hearing on April 6, 2010, the juvenile court 

found minors dependents of the court, removed them from parents‟ custody, ordered 

reunification services for parents, offered supervised visitation between mother and 

minors for one hour weekly, and two hours weekly with H.T.

The social worker‟s report filed September 23, 2010, as to the elder three minors, 

reflected mother tested positive for Methadone on July 20, 2010, but after insisting she 

had not used, a confirmatory test showed a negative result. Nevertheless, mother failed 

to show for drug tests scheduled for July 29, August 18, and 27, and September 13, 2010. 

Mother failed to show for a substance abuse outpatient treatment program intake 

appointment she scheduled for September 3, 2010, to which she was referred on June 16, 

2010.
8

Parents failed to show for about half the weekly visits scheduled. They were then 

requested to call 24 hours in advance to confirm visitation; however, after confirming 

visits they would still fail to show. Parents completed six individual therapy sessions.

A subsequent report filed September 29, 2010, with regard to H.T., reflected 

mother refused to participate in an outpatient substance abuse treatment program. 

Parents had now completed eight sessions of individual therapy; however, they had failed 

to participate in a parenting class. Mother visited with H.T. 22 times between March 9, 

2010, and August 21, 2010, but had missed 10 scheduled visits. Father visited with her 

on 19 occasions. Father now reported working in the construction industry until April

when he was reportedly diagnosed with diabetes. The department recommended 

terminating parents‟ reunification services as to H.T.

In a status review report filed March 25, 2011, the social worker recommend 

parents‟ reunification services be terminated as to all minors. Parents had been 

terminated from a parenting class in October. Parents both reported completing a 

parenting class at another facility, but the social worker did not recognized the entity.6 

Parents missed two of four scheduled visits with minors in January 2011.

Mother was denied entry into a substance abuse treatment facility due to her denial 

that she had a substance abuse problem. Meanwhile mother failed to show for drug 

testing scheduled for October 12, November 24, December 3, 2010, January 18, and 

February 2, 2011. Mother tested positively for Methadone on December 22, 2010, and 

 

6

 Parents provided the department with certificates of completion of a parenting 

course, but the certificates did not identify the organization providing the course.
9

January 4, 2011; confirmatory tests conducted at mother‟s insistence both confirmed the 

positive results. Mother tested positively for Methadone, opiates, and Oxycodone on 

February 22, 2011; a confirmatory test substantiated the results. Mother was under 

investigation for fraud for receiving social security benefits on behalf of her older boys 

while they were in juvenile hall.

At the 12-month review hearing on April 25, 2011, mother admitted missing drug 

tests and spending five days in jail for failing to appear on her vehicle theft case. Mother 

testified father had been taken into custody on February 14, 2011, and spent 30 days in 

jail. Mother testified she had completed 12 individual therapy sessions, a parenting 

program, and took a follicle drug test in October 2010 on her own, which reflected 

negatively for all illicit substances.7 

Father testified he had completed two parenting courses. Father conceded he had 

recently pled guilty to felony grand theft and was on probation after spending 39 days in 

jail. Father testified the last time he worked was on August 2, 2002, but that he does not 

now work due to his diabetes, which caused his vision to come and go.

The social worker testified she had confirmed parents‟ participation in a six-week 

parenting course at a facility of which she had never heard; the minimum number of 

weeks required by the department for a parenting program is eight weeks. She could not 

confirm whether the substance of the parenting program met the department‟s 

 

7

 No documentation of the follicle drug test results appears in the record. 
10

requirements either. Parents had only visited approximately half their allotted times. 

Mother most recently tested positive for Methadone on March 7, 2011.

On the second day of the hearing, parents‟ previous social worker, who had 

previously been a certified drug recognition expert as a Los Angeles police officer and 

worked five years in counter narcotics operations as a research officer for the National 

Interagency Counterdrug Institute under the National Guard Bureau, testified that, 

contrary to mother‟s assertions, mother‟s taking of prescription medications could not 

have resulted in her positive drugs tests. Father testified the parenting program that he 

and mother completed consisted of two hours weekly for six weeks; thus, meeting the 

department‟s time requirement of a minimum of eight weeks.

The juvenile court found parents “haven‟t benefitted from services. Mom is in 

total denial.” “I don‟t believe that they complied with the spirit [of] the requirements.” 

The court concluded that it wanted parents to take an approved parenting course, mother 

to enroll in and complete a substance abuse class, mother to sign a release for her medical 

records, and mother to engage in conjoint counseling with M.G. Therefore, the court 

continued reunification services for parents as to all minors.

In an interim review report filed June 17, 2011, the social worker noted mother 

had enrolled in a 90-day outpatient substance abuse program on May 5, 2011. As of June 

16, 2011, mother had missed 10 out of 18 sessions. As of the same date, parents had only 

attended three parenting classes. M.G. had stopped attending visits after May 4, 2011, 

after complaining she no longer wished to engage in them; the department was 

disinclined to force her to participate in the visits. M.G. was likewise not open to 
11

conjoint counseling with Mother and her therapist recommended against it advising that 

M.G. needed further individual counseling first.

Parents last visited with the younger minors on May 18, 2011, having missed 

every scheduled visit since. Parents provided the department with a new certificate dated 

April 20, 2011, of their previous completion of the six-week parenting course, which now

indicated the facility administering the program. The department was also provided 

letters dated October 15, 2010, and January 26, 2011, confirming the substance abuse 

treatment program would not enroll an individual who did not admit to a drug problem, 

or who did not have non-hospital positive drug test results.

In the July 7, 2011, Status Review Report, the social worker recommended a 

planned permanent living arrangement for M.G., termination of reunification services for 

parents as to all minors, and the setting of the section 366.26 hearing. The department 

had received a child abuse referral on parents on June 21, 2011, regarding mother‟s two 

older sons. Mother tested positively for Methadone, opiates, and PCP on June 13, 2011. 

As of June 22, 2011, mother had so many absences from her outpatient substance abuse 

treatment program that she would be required to attend six classes for the ensuing month 

with no absences just to get caught up in order to complete the six-month program on 

time.8

Parents continued to miss approximately half of their scheduled visits with minors. 

Parents had enrolled in a 12-week parenting class on May 19, 2011; they attended their 

 

8

 The program did not permit enrollees to surpass the six-month deadline.
12

first class on May 25. 2011. As of June 30, 2011, they had attended five classes and 

missed one.

In an addendum report filed July 13, 2011, the social worker noted mother failed 

to show for drug testing scheduled for June 24, 2011. Mother had been arrested for 

inflicting corporal injury on father on July 5, 2011.

At the continued, contested 18-month hearing on August 16, 2011, father testified 

he was separated from mother and had not seen her in a month. He had two more classes 

left to complete his 12-week parenting course.9 He had not visited minors since July 

2011. The juvenile court terminated parents‟ reunification services and set the section 

366.26 hearing. The court ordered father have two hour weekly visitation with minors, 

with father to call 24 hours in advance to confirm visitation. 

Mother‟s substance abuse progress report dated August 16, 2011, reflected mother 

had missed four sessions in May, eight sessions in June, four sessions in July, and three 

sessions in August. Mother tested negatively with the program on June 27, and July 11, 

and 14, 2011.

In the section 366.26 report filed December 1, 2011, the social worker requested a 

120-day continuance in order to find a new home for M.G., whose foster home had been 

 

9

 The social worker testified she had spoken with the program facilitator the day 

before, who told her father had three remaining classes.
13

decertified. Parents had not visited with minors since June 2011;10 minors had not 

mentioned parents at all. The juvenile court granted the continuance. 

In an addendum section 366.26 report, the social worker requested a 60-day 

extension to allow younger siblings to “adjust and stabilize” in their new prospective 

adoptive placement. Parents had started visiting twice monthly in January 2012, although 

the juvenile court‟s orders permitted weekly visitation. Father did not stay for the entire 

duration of the visits he did attend.

The department canceled visitations with parents on April 5, 2012, to facilitate 

placement of minors in an adoptive home. The social worker wrote that “Continued 

visitations with the birth parents during this time of transition into permanency will 

continue to confuse the children.” The social worker requested “visits be suspended in 

order to support safety of the children and confidentiality of the adoptive family.”

At the hearing on April 12, 2012, father‟s attorney posited, “The report seems to 

suggest that the Court should suspend my client‟s visits.” The department‟s attorney 

confirmed, “That is the request.” After argument the juvenile court ordered visits for 

M.G. “once a month for one hour. If M.G. wants to visit more than that, the social 

worker has authority to accommodate M.G.‟s desires.” The court further suspended 

visits with the younger siblings finding the visits detrimental to minors.

On May 29, 2012, mother filed a JV-180 petition requesting minors be returned to 

her or, in the alternative, reunification services be reinstated and she be provided with 

 

10

 Though a later report reflected parents had last visited in July 2011.
14

visitation, including unsupervised overnight and weekends visits. Mother noted she had 

completed a 12-week parenting class and was participating in an outpatient substance 

abuse program. Mother enrolled in the substance abuse program on February 16, 2012, 

had completed 20 sessions, had four absences, and had tested negatively for controlled 

substances on March 15, and 28, 2012. Mother contended the change was in minors‟ best 

interests because “I love my children and believe that it would be in their best interest to 

be raised by their mother.”

In a subsequent report filed May 31, 2012, the social worker observed, “M.G. has 

had very sporadic contact with her mother and step-father. She has stated that she does 

not like her step-father and does not want to visit him at all. She has attended some of the 

visits that resumed between January and April 2012, and some visits she has chosen not 

to attend.” On July 5, 2012, father filed a JV-180 petition requesting relief identical to 

mother‟s. Father reported he had completed a 12-week child abuse prevention and 

parenting course. He contended he had a safe, stable home and was now employed. He 

asserted the relief requested was in minors‟ best interest because “I love my children very 

much. I can and will provide them with a safe, stable home.”

At the combined, contested sections 388 and 366.26 hearing on July 16, 2012, 

mother testified she had completed her six-month substance abuse program. She now 

lived in a home with father; father had inherited $1.5 million dollars with which they 

planned to open a “99-cent store.” Mother testified she and father got back together the 

day after the domestic violence incident. She did not participate in a domestic violence 
15

program, because one was unnecessary. She never provided the social worker with a 

release regarding her substance abuse program because that information was confidential.

Father testified he had a good relationship with minors. C.T. and his daughters 

always ask when they will be going home to him. Father did not get back with mother 

until about a month after the domestic violence incident. He did not visit minors between 

July 2011 and January 2012 because he believed visitations had been terminated.

The social worker testified parents had visited once in June 2011, and then on July 

11, 2011. Their next visit did not occur until January 6, 2012, and the following visit 

occurred on February 7, 2012; this despite the court‟s order that parents have visitation 

weekly during the entire period. Mother refused to sign a release regarding her 

participation in a substance abuse treatment program.

The juvenile court found “that the parents have not benefitted from the services 

that they have received. There has been no change in circumstances[.] [¶] . . . [I]t is not 

in the best interest of the children to grant the [section] 388 [petitions]. As such, both of 

them are hereby denied.” The court found adoption as the permanent plan for C.T., H.T., 

and G.T. It therefore terminated parents‟ parental rights as to the younger siblings. With 

respect to M.G., the court ordered a permanent plan of foster placement.

DISCUSSION

Father contends the juvenile court erred in denying his section 388 petition, 

because it failed to correct its error in previously terminating visitation such that father 

was effectively barred from raising the beneficial parental relationship exception to 

termination of parental rights. Mother joins in the issues raised in father‟s briefs. We 
16

hold that any appellate contention with regard to the juvenile court‟s order discontinuing 

visitation on April 12, 2012, is untimely because parents failed to timely file a notice of 

appeal or notice of intent to file a writ petition from that order. 

Likewise, parents forfeited any issue regarding the court‟s termination of visits by 

failing to object on that basis in their section 388 petitions, or at the hearing on the 

petitions. Moreover, we hold on the merits that parents received constitutionally 

appropriate due process prior to having their visitation terminated. Finally, any error was 

harmless because parents could not have established the requisite relationship with 

minors in the last three months of the dependency sufficient to satisfy the beneficial 

parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights. 

A. TIMELINESS

All orders in a dependency proceeding subsequent to the dispositional order, 

except orders setting a section 366.26 hearing, are directly appealable. (In re Meranda P.

(1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1150; In re S.B. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 529, 531-532; 

§ 395(a)(1).) “„“A consequence of section 395 is that an unappealed . . . postdisposition 

order is final and binding and may not be attacked on an appeal from a later appealable 

order.” [Citation.]‟ [Citations.]” (In re S.B., at p. 532.) A party seeking to file a petition 

for extraordinary writ from an order setting a section 366.26 hearing must file a notice of 

intent to seek such review within no more than 37 days of the order challenged, 

depending on the circumstances. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.450(e)(4).) A party seeking 

to appeal a postdisposition order must file a notice of appeal within 60 days of the order 

being appealed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.406(a)(1).)
17

The April 12, 2012, order terminating parents‟ continued visitation with minors 

was a postdispositional order because it postdated the dispositional order on April 6, 

2010. Thus, the order was separately appealable. Father filed his notice of appeal in the 

instant case on August 30, 2012, long after the 60 days permissible for appeal had 

expired. Similarly, mother filed her notice of appeal on July 18, 2012, after expiration of 

the time to appeal. In re Lance V. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 668 (Lance V.), one of the cases 

primarily exposited by father itself underscored the direct appealability of 

postdispositional orders changing visitation. (Id. at p. 673.) Therefore, any contention 

the juvenile court erred in suspending visitation has been forfeited by the failure of 

parents to timely appeal that order. 

B. FORFEITURE

To the extent parents maintain the order terminating their visitation was 

challengeable via their section 388 petitions, which effectively requested a modification 

of that order, we hold parents forfeited the issue by failing to raise it below. “[A] 

reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could 

have been but was not made in the trial court. [Citation.] The purpose of this rule is to 

encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be 

corrected. [Citation.]” (In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, fn. omitted.) 

Although it is true parents were effectively attempting to negate the order 

terminating visitation with their section 388 petitions, the section 388 petitions in this 

case were not specific challenges to that order, but requested the status quo in its entirety 

be modified. (See In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 685-686; In re Kimberly 
18

F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 528; In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309; In re 

Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) Here, parents did not mention the April 12, 

2012, order terminating visitation in their petitions or at the hearing on those petitions. 

Moreover, parents‟ petitions did not merely request expiation of the order terminating 

visitation, but requested return of minors to their custody, in which case the order 

terminating visitation would have been irrelevant. 

Furthermore, parents requested alternative relief consisting of reinstatement of 

reunification services and unsupervised overnight and weekend visitation. Thus, parents‟ 

section 388 petitions did not seek to return parents‟ visitation to that in existence prior to 

the order of April 12, 2012, but sought extensively more than the once weekly visitation 

permitted before the order terminating visitation. Therefore, parents forfeited any 

argument the court erred by terminating visitation by failing to raise the issue in their 

section 388 petitions or at the hearing on those petitions. Indeed, parents were not 

arguing the juvenile court erred in terminating their visitation; rather, parents contended 

circumstances had since changed to such a degree that modification of that order, and 

other previous orders, was now in the best interests of minors. 

C. DUE PROCESS

Father argues that he was deprived of constitutionally requisite due process in the 

juvenile court‟s termination of his visitation three months before it terminated his 

parental rights. We disagree.

“Parents have a fundamental interest in the care, companionship, and custody of 

their children. [Citation.] [M]inimal due process requirements [apply] in the context of 
19

state dependency proceedings. „Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the 

rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the State support its 

allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence.‟ [Citation.] „After the State has 

established parental unfitness at that initial proceeding, the court may assume at the 

dispositional stage that the interests of the child and the natural parents do diverge.‟ 

[Citation.]” (In re Gladys L. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 845, 848.)

“After termination of services, the focus shifts from the parent‟s custodial interest 

to the child‟s need for permanency and stability. [Citation.] „Whether a previously made 

order should be modified rests within the dependency court‟s discretion, and its 

determination will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of discretion is clearly 

established.‟ [Citation.] The denial of a section 388 motion rarely merits reversal as an 

abuse of discretion. [Citation.]” (In re Amber M., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at pp. 685-

686.) 

Here, the department canceled visitation scheduled for April 5, 2012, in order to 

facilitate placement of minors in an adoptive home. “The juvenile court cannot 

impermissibly delegate to the [department] . . . unlimited discretion to determine whether 

visitation is to occur. [Citation.]” (In re Hunter S. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1505.) 

Thus, the department‟s cancellation of the visitation scheduled for April 5, 2012, violated 

parents‟ due process because the department failed to obtain court approval for what 

amounted to a violation of the court‟s previous order granting weekly visitation. 

Nonetheless, this record reflects the department canceled only one visit without 

court approval. The department‟s supplemental report filed April 11, 2012, noting the 
20

cancellation of that one visit, observed, “Continued visitations with the birth parents 

during this time of transition into permanency will continue to confuse the children.” 

The social worker recommended “visits be suspended in order to support safety of the 

children and confidentiality of the adoptive family.” Thus, parents were provided notice 

of the department‟s request that visitation be terminated. Indeed, at the hearing the next 

day, father‟s counsel observed, “The report seems to suggest that the Court should 

suspend my client‟s visits.” The department confirmed father‟s counsel‟s observation: 

“That is the request.” Thus, parents were notified prior to the hearing the department was 

seeking termination of visitation. 

Moreover, parents were given the opportunity to argue the issue prior to the 

court‟s order terminating visitation. Therefore, parents were not deprived of due process 

by the court‟s order terminating visitation because they were notified of the department‟s 

request and given the opportunity at the hearing to challenge that request. 

Father notes the report requesting termination of visitation was issued the day 

before the hearing. Thus, father argues parents were not given adequate notice of the 

request. Moreover, father observes counsel below noted the unavailability of the social 

workers for cross-examination. Furthermore, father argues the only proper method for 

requesting a change in the visitation order is the filing of a section 388 petition; hence, 

the department‟s failure to file a section 388 petition requesting termination of visitation 

deprived the juvenile court of authority to hear the request. (Lance V., supra, 90 

Cal.App.4th at p. 675 [“When a change in orders is being sought and the pertinent 
21

statutes do not otherwise provide a method for change, the proper method is a motion 

pursuant to section 388.”].) 

Although father‟s observations withstand scrutiny, father‟s obvious remedy was to 

request a continuance so the issue of visitation could be determined at a contested 

evidentiary hearing sometime in the near future. Neither parent requested such a 

continuance. Moreover, we do not read Lance V. as narrowly as father such as to permit 

a change in ordered visitation solely upon the filing of a section 388 petition. The change 

in visitation order at issue in Lance V. took place after the disposition order, but prior to 

any termination of the parents‟ reunification services. (Lance V., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th 

at p. 673.) Here, the order terminating visitation occurred at a further section 366.26 

hearing after parents‟ reunification services had already been terminated, when the focus 

had shifted “to the needs of the child for permanency and stability.” (In re Marilyn H., 

supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 309.) Thus, to the extent parents contend the late notice of the 

request and the lack of an evidentiary hearing violated their due process, they forfeited 

that right by failing to object or request a continuance. 

D. HARMLESS ERROR

Even assuming the juvenile court erred in denying parents‟ section 388 petitions 

by failing to revisit its previous order terminating their visitation with minors, we find 

such error harmless. 

“If the outcome of a proceeding has not been affected, denial of a right to notice 

and a hearing may be deemed harmless and reversal is not required. [Citation.]” (In re 

James F. (2008) 42 Cal.4th 901, 918.) Under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) an 
22

exception to termination of parental rights exists where “[t]he parents have maintained 

regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing 

the relationship.” The parent has the burden of proving termination would be detrimental 

to the child. (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350; In re Jerome D. 

(2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1207.)

Here, father initially left the elder minors with the paternal aunt ostensibly for one 

day, but in actuality for at least three days, without provision for support in a home 

without heating and from which the family would be evicted within two weeks. Father 

informed the department he was unavailable for visitation during the initial stages of the 

dependency proceedings because he worked on offshore oil rigs in various states. 

However, he later informed the department he had been working in construction until 

diagnosed with diabetes in April 2010. Still later, father testified he had last worked on 

August 2, 2002.

Parents cancelled visitation on March 3, 2010. Mother declined visitation on 

March 11, 2010, and arrived 65 minutes late to a two hour visit on March 16, 2010. 

Mother arrived 52 minutes late for visitation on March 17, 2010. As of March 23, 2010, 

father had missed all visits except the first on February 18, 2010, to which he was 15 

minutes late. Through April 25, 2011, parents still missed half their scheduled visits even 

when they confirmed by phone 24 hours earlier that they would make visitation. 

Father missed all visitation between February 14, 2011, and March 24, 2011, 

while in jail. Father visited with minors on May 18, 2011, but missed every scheduled 

visit between then and June 17, 2011. M.G. had stopped attending visitation, informing 
23

the social worker she no longer wished to visit with parents, but particularly with father. 

Parents did not visit minors at all between July 11, 2011, and January 6, 2012. Minors 

did not even mention parents during this six-month absence. 

When visits resumed in January 2012, C.T. and G.T. became defiant and 

disruptive afterward. Parents still only visited two to three times monthly, when the court 

had permitted weekly visitation, and visited only once in February 2012. Father did not 

even stay for the entirety of the visits he then did attend. The social worker reported C.T. 

and G.T. were “„no more bonded to [parents] than any of their other foster parents.‟” The 

social worker had determined that M.G. had been the younger siblings‟ primary caregiver 

“for a long period of time” prior to the instant dependency proceedings.

Under these circumstances, where parents apparently did not have a beneficial 

parental relationship with minors before the instant dependency proceedings, it is difficult 

to see on this record how they would have demonstrated one even with an additional 

three months of visitation. Parents here missed approximately half the visitation they 

were allotted even when they did visit. Parents missed six months of visits entirely. H.T. 

was essentially born into the dependency proceeding and M.G. wanted a break from 

parenting her younger siblings. 

Parents did not maintain the requisite regular visitation and contact with minors, 

could not establish detriment to minors by the termination of parents‟ parental rights, and 

the department established detriment to minors if visitation continued. Thus, had the 

juvenile court denied the department‟s request for termination of visitation, and had 

parents attended every visit permitted during that three month period, it is simply 
24

unfathomable to discern how they could have established and maintained a relationship 

with minors that they never had before. Thus, any error was harmless. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

J.

We concur:

RICHLI

Acting P. J.

KING

J.