Filed 1/23/14 In re Anna M. CA2/6 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION SIX 

In re ANNA M., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law. 

2d Juv. No. B250445 

(Super. Ct. No. J069092) 

(Ventura County) 

VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN 

SERVICES AGENCY, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

ANTHONY M., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 Anthony M. (father) appeals from the juvenile court orders terminating 

parental rights to his daughter, Anna, and establishing adoption as her permanent plan 

(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26).1 Father contends that the finding of Anna's adoptability 

is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm. 

 1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise 

stated. The court also terminated the parental rights of Anna's mother, Shelly G. She is 

not a party to this appeal. 
2 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 In October 2012 mother gave birth to Anna, and the Ventura County 

Human Services Agency (HSA) removed Anna from her care. Father was in custody. 

On October 30, 2012, HSA filed a petition alleging that mother and father were unable to 

protect and support Anna. (§ 300, subds. (b), (g).) HSA placed Anna with prospective 

adoptive parents in late October. 

 Beginning in December 2012, father had weekly one-hour supervised visits 

with Anna. On January 22, 2013, the juvenile court ordered a bypass of reunification 

services for father because he had failed to reunify with other children "due to [his] 

unaddressed drug addiction" and a history of domestic violence. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10), 

(11), (13).) Father continued attending supervised visits with Anna. The HSA personnel 

who observed their visits did not detect any significant relationship between them. 

 On June 20, 2013, the juvenile court conducted contested section 366.26 

proceedings to select Anna's permanent plan. It admitted the section 366.26 report in 

which HSA recommended that the court terminate the parental rights of both parents and 

select adoption as her permanent plan. HSA reported that Anna was still in the home of 

the prospective adoptive parents who had cared for her for most of her life. The social 

worker described Anna as a happy baby with an upbeat personality who has "met all of 

her educational milestones." 

 Father testified he had visited Anna consistently. During their visits, she 

smiled and was excited to see him. He cared for her, talked to her, comforted her, and 

played with her. She reached for him at the beginning and end of each visit. 

 The juvenile court found that father failed to establish that the parental 

benefit exception precluded its selecting adoption as the preferred plan for Anna. The 

court terminated the parental rights of both parents, found that Anna was adoptable, and 

ordered adoption planning services. 
3 

DISCUSSION 

 Father contends there is not sufficient evidence to support the juvenile 

court's finding that he failed to establish the "parental benefit" exception to the statutory 

preference for adoption. We disagree. 

 Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), requires the juvenile court to terminate 

parental rights if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that a child is likely to be 

adopted, unless "the court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination 

would be detrimental to the child" due to an enumerated statutory exception. The 

"beneficial parental relationship" exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A), 

requires a showing of "regular visitation and contact" and "benefit" to the child from 

"continuing the relationship." (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 466.) Only in 

the "extraordinary case" can a parent establish the exception because the permanent plan 

hearing occurs after the court has repeatedly found the parent unable to meet the child's 

needs. (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350.) 

 The exception requires proof of "a parental relationship," not merely a 

relationship that is "beneficial to some degree but does not meet the child's need for a 

parent." (In re Jasmine D., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1350.) The existence of a 

beneficial relationship is determined by the age of the child, the portion of the child's life 

spent in parental custody, the quality of interaction between parent and child, and the 

child's particular needs. (In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 689 [beneficial 

relationship exists where children in mother's care the majority of their lives].) 

 The juvenile court found that father did not show he had a parental 

relationship with Anna, in the limited time he spent with her. Under any standard of 

review, the juvenile court's finding is proper because father did not meet his burden of 

establishing the "extraordinary case" of the beneficial parental relationship exception. (In 

re Jasmine D., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1350; In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 

212, 229 ["To meet the burden of proof, the parent must show more than frequent and 

loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits"].) For nearly all of 
4 

Anna's life, she lived with prospective adoptive parents who satisfied her daily needs for 

protection, guidance, food, shelter and medical care. She never lived with father. His 

one-hour supervised visits with Anna may have been beneficial to some degree, but they 

did not meet her need for a parent. (In re Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 466.) As 

the court observed, her prospective adoptive parents had met that need. Father has not 

established that terminating his parental rights "would deprive [Anna] of a substantial, 

positive emotional attachment such that [she] would be greatly harmed." (Ibid.) 

DISPOSITION 

 The orders finding Anna to be adoptable and terminating parental rights are 

affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 PERREN, J. 

We concur: 

 GILBERT, P. J. 

 YEGAN, J. 
5 

Ellen Gay Conroy, Judge 

Superior Court County of Ventura 

______________________________ 

 Jamie A. Moran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 Leroy Smith, County Counsel, Linda L. Stevenson, Assistant County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.