Filed 1/23/14 In re Anna M. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) appe als from the juvenile court orders terminating parental rights to his daughter, Anna, and es tablishing adoption as her permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26). 1 Father contends that the finding of Anna's adoptability is not supported by substan tial evidence. We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Welf are 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 PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND In October 2012 mother gave bi rth to Anna, and the Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) removed Anna from her care. Father was in custody. On October 30, 2012, HSA file d 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 juve nile court ordered a bypass of reunification
services for father because he had failed to reunify with other ch ildren "due to [his] unaddressed drug addiction" and a history of dom estic violence. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10), (11), (13).) Father continued attending superv ised visits with Anna. The HSA personnel
who observed their visits did not detect any significant relations hip between them. On June 20, 2013, the juvenile c ourt 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 terminat e 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. Duri ng 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 a nd end of each visit. The juvenile court found that father failed to establish that the parental benefit exception precluded its selecting adop tion as the preferred plan for Anna. The court terminated the parental rights of both pa rents, found that Anna was adoptable, and ordered adoption plan ning services.3 DISCUSSION
Father contends there is not suffici ent evidence to su pport 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), requi res the juvenile court to terminate parental rights if it finds by clear and convin cing evidence that a ch ild is likely to be adopted, unless "the court finds a compellin g reason for determining that termination
would be detrimental to the child" due to an enumerated statutory exception. The "beneficial parental relationship" excep tion of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A), requires a showing of "regular visitation a nd contact" and "benef it" 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 estab lish 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 degr ee 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 por tion of the child's life spent in parental custody, th e quality of interaction betw een parent and child, and the child's particular needs. ( In re Amber M . (2002) 103 Cal.App.4t h 681, 689 [beneficial relationship exists where child ren in mother's care the ma jority of their lives].) The juvenile court found that fath er 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 be neficial 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 vis its"].) For nearly all of4 Anna's life, she lived with pr ospective adoptive parents who satisfied her daily needs for protection, guidance, food, shelter and medica l 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 pa rents had met that need. Father has not established that terminating his parent al 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 adopt able 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.