1

Filed 9/5/24 In re R.R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 R.R. et al., Persons Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

E082936

(Super.Ct.Nos. J283196, J283197, 

& J285218)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cara D. Hutson, 

Judge. Affirmed.

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

Appellant.

Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Dawn M. Martin, Deputy County Counsel, for 

Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

A.R. (father) lost custody of his children R.R., D.R., and S.R., (collectively, 

children) all of whom were under the age of three, in 2019 due to chronic domestic 

violence. The domestic violence was reported by A.M. (mother) who also had mental 

health and substance abuse problems that led to the intervention by the San Bernardino 

County Children and Family Services (CFS) and the institution of proceedings pursuant 

to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1).

1 Services were 

provided to both parents, to whom the children were returned temporarily during the 

course of the dependency, but they were re-removed after a new incident of domestic 

violence in which mother was the instigator, and a supplemental petition (§ 387) led to a 

finding that the services had been ineffective in overcoming the domestic violence issue. 

Father’s progress was otherwise noted, such that even at that point, return of the 

children to his custody was considered as a permanent plan. However, when the children, 

who had been placed with a nonrelative extended family member (NREFM), had to be 

moved from that placement, they were placed with a relative in Texas, impacting father’s 

ability to visit face-to-face. Later, the children were moved to a foster home in 

California, where father was not provided with regular visitation. At the section 366.26 

hearing to select and implement a permanent plan of adoption, the court found there was 

no beneficial parent-child relationship between father and the children, and it terminated 

father’s parental rights. Father alone appeals.

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

otherwise indicated.
3

On appeal, father argues the trial court erred in permanently severing the parentchild relationship where he had established a beneficial parent-child relationship pursuant 

to section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i); alternatively, father argues reversal is required 

because CFS failed to provide him with adequate visitation. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

On November 16, 2019, mother brought 15-month-old D.R. and six-month-old 

R.R. to the hospital for a cough, disclosing to the staff that there was domestic violence at 

home during the visit. She described both physical and verbal altercations with father,

including multiple incidents of rape by father; she also indicated she was currently 

pregnant and was having suicidal thoughts. Hospital staff placed mother on a section 

5150 hold, and an emergency response referral was made. 

While the children were being examined, hospital staff also observed her 

‘“dicing”’something with a card and bringing the paper up to her nose. Mother was 

hostile to staff and made statements about not wanting D.R. Mother also admitted that 

despite the violence and being raped, she returned to father because she had no family or 

other means to be on her own. She acknowledged mental health diagnoses of depression 

and anxiety but was not on medication. 

Respecting the children, the emergency response social worker noted that R.R.’s 

head was flattened and that he was unable to sit up on his own or hold his head up. 

Mother indicated possible Cherokee ancestry on her mother’s side. Mother reported the 

paternal grandmother watched R.R. but left him in his crib because she did not want the 

child to become attached to her. The emergency response social worker interviewed the 
4

father and paternal grandparents; father denied mother’s allegations of domestic violence, 

asserting she was lying in order to have him arrested. The father and paternal 

grandmother claimed mother is bipolar and abuses drugs, indicating that the maternal 

grandfather buys drugs for mother. The paternal grandmother indicated she is the 

primary caretaker for the children. 

Based on the circumstances presented, a detention warrant was requested and 

issued to pick up the children. The children were placed with a NREFM. On 

November 19, 2019, a dependency petition was filed, alleging the children came within 

the description of dependent children under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1), and (g). 

Specifically, the supporting facts of the petition alleged the children were at risk due to 

mother’s substance abuse problem (B-1), mother’s history of domestic violence (B-2), 

her history of mental health problems (B-3), and her failure to meet the children’s basic 

needs, insofar as R.R. could not sit up on his own and has a flattened head, placing the 

children at risk. As to father, the supporting facts of the petition included allegations 

relating his history of domestic violence (b-5), his mental health history (b-6), and his 

failure to meet R.R.’s basic needs. The allegation under section 300, subdivision (g), 

related to the fact mother left the children without providing for their care when she was 

involuntarily placed in a section 5150 hold. 

On November 20, 2019, the parents appeared for the detention hearing and denied 

the allegations of the petition; the court found that a prima facie case had been 

established and ordered the children detained with the NREFM. 
5

The jurisdiction report contained additional information about the domestic 

violence history of father and mother, including a 2018 incident in which father struck 

mother’s face so hard that it was temporarily paralyzed on one side. The paternal 

grandparents, with whom the parents and children resided, indicated that mother was the 

instigator in the violent episodes. Regarding the allegations that the parents failed to 

provide for R.R.’s basic needs, mother indicated they had taken the child to a pediatrician 

regarding his flattened head, who advised them to place him on his stomach more; 

additionally, a special helmet had been ordered, but the parents did not follow through 

with the treatment. In the meantime, the foster mother indicated R.R. was able to sit up 

and roll on his side. 

In preparing for the jurisdiction report, the social worker requested to see the room 

where the parents slept at the paternal grandparents’ home. There were numerous holes 

in the walls and in the door of the room. Father indicated that mother punched the walls 

and that other people had used the room, thereby having the opportunity to cause damage, 

but he continued to deny responsibility. 

On January 28, 2020, the court conducted the contested jurisdictional/dispositional 

hearing, when it sustained the petitions as to each child under section 300, subdivision 

(b)(1),

2 ordered reunification services for both parents and separate supervised visits for a 

minimum of one time per week for two hours. 

2 The court dismissed the allegation in paragraph b-6 as to father (relating to 

father’s alleged mental health history), as well as the allegation pursuant to section 300, 

subdivision (g). 
6

The parent’s third child S.R. was born in May 2020, and became the subject of a 

sibling petition under section 300, subdivision (j). At that point, mother indicated she 

was not smoking marijuana, although the reporting party indicated mother tested positive 

for methamphetamine use, although she had participated in services. Mother’s services 

provider indicated she had tested negative for drugs consistently, had completed her life 

skills and parenting programs, and had attended an additional parenting class. The social 

worker for R.R. and D.R. confirmed mother’s progress, indicating that a recommendation 

would be made to transition her to family maintenance services for R.R. and D.R. 

Father reported he had completed anger management, domestic violence education 

and parenting classes. However, father had to redo his counseling because he needed to 

understand why his children were removed from his care. The social worker for R.R. and 

D.R. also confirmed that father had to redo his counseling, due to his inability to 

acknowledge the reasons why they were removed from his care. At the detention hearing 

for S.R. the court ordered S.R. to be removed from father’s custody, but maintained S.R. 

in mother’s care. The jurisdiction report for S.R. recommended maintenance of S.R. in 

mother’s care, but that S.R. be removed from father’s custody with reunification services. 

The status review report recommended that R.R. and D.R. remain in their out-ofhome placement, with an order for continued services. That report also indicated mother 

informed the social worker she was an enrolled member of a tribe. Mother had made 

good progress on her plan, was working as a custodian, completing parenting, domestic 

violence and therapy, had been compliant with CFS and had attended all visits. Father 

was working at Amazon and was also participating in services, having completed 
7

parenting, anger management, and domestic violence; he was also testing negatively for 

drugs, completing his therapy. Additionally, he visited the children regularly and 

interacted with them. Father brought food to the children, played games with them and 

was patient with the children; D.R. was described as “Daddy’s girl.” The social worker 

recommended transitioning to unsupervised visits slowly. 

As to R.R., he was now wearing a helmet due to concerns about his cranial 

formation and was delayed in speech, as well as with his ability to grasp things. As to 

D.R., she appeared to suffer from anxiety and stress and compulsively ate to the point of 

vomiting. D.R. was described as active and subject to tantrums. In a separate 

jurisdiction report respecting S.R., father’s visits with S.R. were also found to be positive 

with the notation that father took good care of S.R., he changed her diaper, made her a 

bottle, and held her with affection. 

On July 27, 2020, the petition filed on behalf of S.R. was amended so that the 

allegations pursuant to section 300, subdivision (j), referred to the fact that each parent 

had an open reunification case respecting R.R. and D.R. CFS continued to recommend a 

disposition of removal of S.R. from father with maintenance of S.R. in mother’s custody. 

On July 28, 2020, the six-month review hearing was called, and the matter was set 

for a contested hearing as to R.R. and D.R. R.R. and D.R. were ordered maintained in 

their current placement, with authorization to allow mother to have a 29-day visit with 

R.R. and D.R., while also authorizing (separately) a 29-day visit for father after two 

successful overnight visits. That same day, the court conducted the 

jurisdiction/disposition hearing for S.R. The parents entered denials as to the amended 
8

petition, and the matter was set as a short cause, with the same authorizations for separate 

extended visits for each parent. 

On September 22, 2020, the social worker submitted an additional information 

report (also referred to as Form 6.7) to the court. The social worker noted the parents’ 

positive changes and indicated that the current plan was for father to have the children 

during the week, while mother would have them on the weekends due to her recent 

surgery, as well as her schedule of working and going to school during the week. Based 

on these positive developments, on September 23,3 at the contested six-month review 

hearing the court ordered R.R. and D.R. placed in the custody of the parents separately, 

on separate maintenance plans, with authorization for the parents to reside together and 

for dismissal of the dependency by approval packet. At the same time, the court ordered 

S.R. placed in the custody of both parents separately, on separate maintenance, with the 

same authorizations for the parents to reside together and for the matter to be dismissed 

upon approval packet. 

On March 12, 2021, the social worker’s 12-month review report recommended 

dismissal of the dependency and that the children remain with the parents. Father 

continued to live with his parents, working at night, while his parents cared for the 

children. Mother was working during the week in Los Angeles, but on the weekends the 

children were with her at a hotel. The parents were in a relationship, but lived separately 

3 On that same date, the trial court made written findings that ICWA (Indian Child 

Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.)) did not apply because notice had been 

given to the tribes and no response had been received after 65 days. There is no 

indication of follow up after mother stated she was an enrolled member of a tribe.
9

for a year without any domestic violence and the families of each parent have been 

working well together. They all wanted to be together as a family. 

However, matters took a turn for the worse before the case could be closed, when 

a section 387 supplemental petition was filed as to the children on March 23, 2021. The 

supplemental petition alleged mother was using drugs, continued to engage in domestic 

violence with father, and that father continued to engage in domestic violence, indicating 

the previous disposition had been ineffective. The detention report indicated the parents 

and the children were residing with the paternal grandmother and paternal aunt (where 

they had lived since August 2020), until the parents became involved in a domestic 

dispute and were kicked out of the home. Mother reported the family moved into a motel

for a few days when father informed mother that he intended to take the children back to 

the previous foster mother, but instead he took them to the home of paternal grandmother. 

Mother reported that father threatened to take the children to Texas. Mother reported 

there had been incidents of domestic violence throughout the parents’ relationship, with 

the last incident occurring a few weeks prior to the current dispute when she sustained 

bruised ribs. 

During the investigation of this referral, father denied the current allegations of 

domestic violence and also denied being in a relationship with mother. He denied going 

to a motel with mother and the children, indicating the children had been with him in the 

home, where they stayed with him from Monday through Thursday, and he had been 

waiting for mother (who has the children Friday through Sunday) to pick up the children, 

but that mother had not contacted him. On March 20, 2021, a detention warrant was 
10

obtained due to mother’s homelessness, the reports of domestic violence, and the 

possibility the parents were not being forthcoming about their relationship and housing 

situations. The children were removed from father, placed in a confidential foster home

(the home of the previous NREFM placement), and following a contested detention 

hearing were ordered detained from father. The court ordered weekly visits of two hours 

duration at the hearing. 

In the jurisdiction report respecting to the supplemental petition, the social worker 

recommended dismissal of some of the allegations, but that there was sufficient evidence 

to sustain the petition as to the first allegation (respecting mother’s drug use). For the 

remaining allegations, the social worker recommended true findings and a disposition 

order of removal of custody from the parents with no reunification services. Attached to 

the jurisdiction report were the concurrent planning/adoption assessments for the 

children, indicating that the allegations fit the criteria for an order for no reunification 

services and concluding the children were adoptable. The report indicated mother had 

not complied with the existing drug testing orders and admitted to heroin use. Mother 

informed the social worker the parents had been living together at the paternal 

grandmother’s home in violation of previous court orders. The foster parent (who is part 

of the parents’ support network) disclosed that prior to this referral, mother had showed 

up at the foster parent’s home and appeared to be using drugs. Additionally, mother 

stated to the foster parent that she had reported father for different things in order to get 

the children removed from him.
11

Father disclosed that there had been an argument but that only mother had been 

kicked out of the paternal grandmother’s home after provoking the paternal aunt. He 

stated he took the mother and the children to a hotel where he left the children with her 

because it was her visit time. However, he did not feel comfortable leaving the children 

in the room while mother smoked marijuana in a parked car. He then took the children 

from the hotel room to the home of the support person. According to father, mother had 

not lived with him since August 2020, prior to the detention hearing to cover for her. The 

report indicated that father’s visits were going well and when the visits ended D.R. cried 

because she did not want the visit to end. 

The supplemental petition was amended on April 23, 2021, and the parents entered 

denials. The hearing on the supplemental petition scheduled for June 10, was continued 

to allow CFS to assess the home of the maternal grandmother, who lived in Texas, 

pursuant to the Interstate Compact for Placement of Children (ICPC). 

The social worker’s addendum report indicated father had been compliant with 

services and maintained communication with CFS. The social worker indicated father’s 

visits went well, that he was incorporating the foster mother’s parenting suggestions, and 

he was able to work with the children at one time. Father was unhappy that the maternal 

grandmother was being evaluated for placement of the children due to her lack of interest 

in the children before CFS intervened. Mother continued to do poorly, used drugs, and 

did not participate in any services. Mother attended visits regularly, and, while her ability 

to control the children was wanting, they were excited to see her and sad when visits 
12

ended. Mother also disapproved of the proposal to evaluate the maternal grandmother for 

placement. 

Nevertheless, the maternal grandmother visited the children regularly, although

they did not appear to have a bond with her, in that they did not appear to feel 

comfortable around her, were reserved, shy, and uncommunicative. Further, the social 

worker had reservations about whether the maternal grandmother was an appropriate 

placement option for the children. Nevertheless, the ICPC process was under way. In the 

meantime, the children were well bonded with the NREFM caretaker/foster mother, who 

was willing to provide long term care for the children. The foster mother indicated she 

suspected the maternal grandmother was making false reports of abuse or neglect in order 

to strengthen her application for placement, and this was confirmed after the Children’s 

Assessment Center conducted an examination of R.R. following a referral by the 

maternal grandmother and found no evidence of abuse or neglect. 

On August 9, 2021, the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on the supplemental 

petition was continued with orders authorizing CFS to initiate the ICPC evaluation and to 

permit in-person visits between the children and the maternal grandmother, in Texas, as 

appropriate. 

On October 18, 2021, the social worker submitted a Form 6.7 to the court, 

addressing the assessments of other relatives for placement of the children; a paternal 

uncle was ruled out due to his unwillingness to have the children placed with him, and a 

maternal aunt was deemed an inappropriate placement due to the history of animosity 

between her and the mother. During this reporting period, father continued to cooperate 
13

with CFS, submitted drug tests, and began attending meetings at Al-Anon to better deal 

with mother’s substance abuse issues. In addition, he continued to visit regularly and to 

improve his parenting style with the children. The Form 6.7 indicated the NREFM 

caregiver was no longer a concurrent planning home and recommended a plan of 

placement with the NREFM with a permanent plan of return of the children to father’s 

custody. 

On October 19, 2021, the contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing on the 

supplemental petition was completed. The court made true findings on all the allegations 

of the amended supplemental petition, found the previous disposition had not been 

effective in alleviating the causes that led to the dependency, removed custody of the 

children from the parents, terminated reunification services, except for a one-time 

discretionary set of six months of services as to the father, and continued the

authorization for the ICPC evaluation of the maternal grandmother’s home for placement 

of the children.

4 However, the court agreed that the previous permanent plan was no 

longer appropriate and adopted the recommendation for placement of the children with 

the NREFM and a permanent plan of return of the children to father. Additionally, the 

court ordered that the children’s visits with the maternal grandmother will be supervised, 

with the possibility of being reverted to unsupervised if referrals were unsubstantiated. 

The court ordered a further contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing as to S.R.’s 

4 Because S.R. was born after initiation of the dependency proceedings related to 

R.R. and D.R., the orders on the supplemental petition do not include information about 

her permanency planning.
14

dependency to address some unrecognized legal issues, specifically, there had not been a 

finding of jurisdiction as to S.R.5

On October 28, 2021, a new dependency petition was filed respecting S.R., with 

allegations relating to mother’s substance abuse and the ongoing dependency of S.R.’s 

siblings involving both parents. The detention report recommended detention with the 

NREFM caretaker of the children, but the removal cited only the events preceding the 

adjudication of the supplemental petition. The parents denied the petition at a special 

hearing. 

The jurisdiction report recommended true findings on the allegations of the 

petition respecting S.R., removal of custody from both parents, and reunification services 

to both parents. S.R. was placed in a foster home separate from R.R. and D.R. after the 

NREFM indicated she was not interested in caring for S.R. The jurisdiction/disposition 

report described father’s progress and his cooperation with CFS as good, and his visits 

were deemed great. The social worker noted father had a couple of unsupervised visits 

5 Although an original dependency petition had been filed, S.R. was removed only 

from father, but never detained away from mother, and her case trailed the six-month 

status review hearings of her older siblings, R.R. and D.R. At the siblings’ six-month 

review hearings, the matter was continued, and the parents were granted separate 

extended visits. S.R.’s case, set for a jurisdiction/disposition hearing was also continued. 

In August 2020, the parents’ separate extended visits with R.R. and D.R. was continued 

again, as was the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on S.R. On September 23, R.R. and 

D.R. were ordered returned to the parents’ separate custody, with authorization for the 

parents to reside together, while S.R. was maintained with mother and returned to father. 

However, the minute order for S.R. did not include jurisdictional or dispositional findings 

or orders; instead, it is captioned a six-month review hearing at which the court ordered 

S.R. continued to be a dependent, and maintained in the custody of both parents, 

separately. So jurisdiction was never established as to S.R. prior to the initiation of the 

section 387 proceedings.
15

and that the children enjoyed their time with him. Regarding the maternal grandmother, 

the social worker reported that she had not requested visits with the children since 

October 20, 2021. Prior to that date, the maternal grandmother’s visits had gone well, but 

the children had not bonded with her. 

On November 19, 2021, the court conducted the further jurisdiction/disposition of 

S.R. in conjunction with a special hearing, as to referrals regarding the maternal 

grandmother. The court reinstated the maternal grandmother’s unsupervised visits and 

dismissed the section 387 petition as to S.R. S.R. was then adjudicated a dependent 

child, removed from her parents’ custody and placed in foster care. Reunification 

services were ordered for both parents as to S.R. Father was granted unsupervised visits 

one time per week, for eight hours each, as to all three children. 

On December 10, 2021, a supplemental petition pursuant to section 387 was filed 

as to R.R. and D.R. when the NREFM was no longer willing or able to care for the 

children.6 The NREFM’s decision was due to the escalating behaviors of D.R., whose 

behavior had deteriorated into throwing more tantrums, acting aggressively against R.R. 

and S.R. and damaging property in the home. The children were moved together to a 

new foster home. Relatives were not considered for placement due to the nature of the 

children’s needs. On December 13, the parents denied the allegations of the 

supplemental petition and the court ordered the children removed from the home of the 

6 The supplemental petition alleges this need for a higher level of care applied to all 

three children, although S.R. had initially been in a separate placement.
16

NREFM. Visitation for father remained the same, one time per week, for eight hours, 

unsupervised.

On January 11, 2022, the social worker submitted to the court Form 6.7 in 

connection with the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on the supplemental petition. That 

report indicated that father’s unsupervised visits, which included overnight visits, went 

well, and that D.R. asked if she could stay with her father, upon returning to the foster 

home. At the hearing, the court made a true finding on the supplemental petition, relating 

to the need for a new placement. It removed custody from the NREFM and ordered the 

children placed in a foster family agency home. However, it authorized an extended visit 

for father with the children. 

By January 31, 2022, after only 20 days the extended visit came to an abrupt halt 

when, as described in an addendum report Form 6.7 filed on April 19, father was arrested

for domestic violence after hitting mother and causing a broken nose. The social worker 

reduced father’s visits to once per week for two hours, supervised, and instructed father 

to do his services again. The social worker recommended that father’s services be 

terminated as to R.R. and D.R. and that a section 366.26 hearing be set. 

That same day, a postpermanent plan status review report (§ 366.3) was filed, also 

recommending that services be terminated for father as to R.R. and D.R. and that a 

section 366.26 hearing be set for termination of parental rights. However, the report also 

acknowledged there were several relatives interested in placement of the children, 

including the maternal grandmother in Texas who was awaiting completion of the ICPC

evaluation. 
17

The report noted that father was still engaged in drug testing, which interfered 

with his employment, causing job changes, but that his family still provided support and 

his visits with the children were consistent and positive, with the children enjoying their 

time with him. In discussing the basis for his arrest in January 2022, father initially 

claimed to police that mother had lied and denied having contact with her, until the 

officer confronted father with a message on mother’s phone in which mother had attached 

a photo of her injury, to which father responded, “sorry.” He then admitted to the officer 

he had struck mother. 

Nevertheless, the report indicated father’s visits with R.R. and D.R. went well, that 

the children were sad when they had to leave father, and that D.R. especially, was 

attached to father. The maternal grandmother also visited with the children, and the 

children returned from those visits with no behavioral issues. In her assessment, the 

social worker recommended adoption of the children by the maternal grandmother. Yet, 

on March 8, 2022, CFS submitted a concurrent planning/adoption assessment indicating 

that there were compelling reasons why termination of parental rights would be 

detrimental to R.R. and D.R. 

At the postpermanent plan review hearing held on April 19, 2022, the court 

terminated father’s discretionary services, authorized unsupervised weekly visits of 12-

hours for the maternal grandmother, with authorization to increase her visits to include 

overnights or weekend visits. It further authorized, CFS to place the children with the 

maternal grandmother under the ICPC, adopting a permanent plan of guardianship for 

R.R. and D.R., with her. 
18

On May 18, 2022, the social worker submitted a six-month status review report

relating to S.R., recommending that reunification services for the parents be terminated

and that a section 366.26 hearing be conducted as to that child. Although father’s visits 

had been reduced, effective March 30, father continued to visit regularly, and the visits

were positive. The social worker noted that S.R. had a good relationship with father. The 

social worker expressed the view that father’s domestic violence issue with mother posed 

a risk to the children, insofar as he and mother did not have a safe relationship because he 

could not keep himself or the children away from mother. The social worker 

recommended that S.R. be placed with the maternal grandmother in Texas upon ICPC 

approval. On May 19, the court adopted the recommendations of the social worker, 

terminated the parents’ reunification services respecting S.R., and adopted a permanent 

plan of placement of S.R. with a relative and with a goal of adoption. The court also 

indicated that a paternal aunt had been evaluated for placement but had been found to be 

inappropriate. 

On July 8, 2022, father filed a request to change court order (Form JV-180)

(§ 388), checking the box indicating a request for reinstatement of reunification services. 

However, in his request, father requested that the court consider placement of the children 

with the paternal aunt, asserting that such a placement was in their best interests because 

placement with the maternal grandmother was detrimental. Subsequently, a similar 

request for placement was made in a section 388 request submitted by the paternal aunt. 

Mother also filed a section 388 request to change court order, joining in the request for 
19

placement of the children with the paternal aunt because placement with the maternal 

grandmother would be detrimental. 

CFS responded, recommending that the requests be denied. Despite concerns by 

father and the paternal relatives that the maternal grandmother would impede visitation 

by father and his relatives, CFS reported the maternal grandmother indicated that was not 

the case; rather, she was open to working with the father and his family. The maternal 

grandmother supervised mother’s virtual visits, but admitted she did not feel comfortable 

supervising visits with the father or his relatives.7 The social worker noted that the 

children’s bond with the maternal grandmother was improving, and that they seemed 

comfortable in her home. She wished to adopt the children. 

At the section 388 hearing held on September 27, 2022, father informed the court 

that one hour of video call with the children was insufficient, and he felt he was losing 

the bond he once had with them. At that time, the court denied an evidentiary hearing for 

the separate section 388 requests for change of placement, ordering that the children 

remain placed with the maternal grandmother in Texas. 

On October 14, 2022, the social worker submitted a postpermanent plan review 

report, recommending a permanent plan of placement in foster care, with the goal of 

adoption. The report referred to the ICPC approval of the maternal grandmother’s home, 

7 The maternal grandmother expressed concern that father and his relatives might 

make false reports against her, something the maternal grandmother had done in the past 

with NREFM. 
20

and the children’s transfer to her home in July 2022.8 The report indicated that D.R. still 

has behavioral problems and was aggressive towards R.R. and S.R. D.R. had difficulty 

adjusting to the change of placement for the first few weeks, because she missed her 

previous caretakers and her paternal relatives. But as of the time of the report, she had 

made progress and was developing a bond with her maternal grandmother. The maternal 

grandmother reported that D.R.’s tantrums could last over an hour when she does not get 

her way, it was necessary to monitor her closely due to her aggressive behavior toward 

the other children; it was overwhelming. The children participated in virtual visits with 

the parents and the paternal relatives for one hour, one time per week. The social worker 

indicated an intention to recommend adoption as soon as D.R. is connected to services for 

her behavior. 

At the hearing held on October 14, 2022, father requested increased visitation in 

order to maintain his bond with the children, because one hour per week over video call

was insufficient, and that he had not been able to visit over the past two weeks. The court 

ordered that one hour per week visitation was to be a minimum and ordered make-up 

visits for father. 

On February 8, 2023, a new supplemental petition was filed as to D.R., who was 

now five years of age, alleging that the previous disposition had been ineffective because 

the maternal grandmother was unable to meet her needs, and seeking a more restrictive 

level of care for D.R. The Texas ICPC agency workers determined that D.R. had to be 

8 The report mistakenly indicates the children were transferred in July 2019, but that 

is obviously a typographical mistake.
21

returned to California, and she was transferred on October 22, 2022, to a certified 

intensive services foster care resource parent. 

At the hearing on February 9, 2023, the court expressed concern over the accuracy 

of the CFS reports where the paternal aunt had informed the court at the time of the 

hearing on the section 388 requests that the maternal grandmother was having difficulty 

dealing with D.R., but that CFS assured the court there were no issues. The court was 

also concerned about the delay in bringing the second supplemental petition respecting 

D.R., which was filed months after the child was removed from the maternal 

grandmother’s home and retransferred to California. The court ordered D.R. removed 

from her relative placement and temporarily placed in foster care, with visitation for the 

parents once per week, for two hours. 

On March 2, 2023, the court sustained the supplemental petition pursuant to 

section 387, finding that the previous disposition had been ineffective in the rehabilitation 

and treatment of the child, approved the placement of D.R., and ordered supervised 

visitation for father, a minimum of once per week, for one hour, with authorization for 

two visits per week of two hours. The court found that the permanent plan of legal 

guardianship with a goal of adoption was the appropriate permanent plan. Father 

requested increased visits with D.R. and informed the court that he had not had visits 

with R.R. or S.R. The court ordered CFS to consider visits twice per week for two hours 

each for father. 

On April 12, 2023, the social worker submitted a report for the section 366.3 

postpermanent plan review, recommending a section 366.26 hearing to order adoption for 
22

R.R. and S.R., while recommending a permanent plan of placement in foster care with a 

goal of adoption for D.R. R.R. and S.R. remained in their placement with the maternal 

grandmother. The social worker reported that D.R. was emotional after visits because 

“they” dropped her off at school, and that D.R. becomes emotional when her mother does 

not show up for visits. Father’s last visit with R.R. and S.R. was in October 2022, when 

the maternal grandmother had to change the date due to her work schedule, he became 

belligerent, and no further visits were scheduled. Father did not contact the social worker 

during the time frame to seek additional visits. The social worker recommended that 

R.R. and S.R. be adopted by the maternal grandmother because they had created a 

positive bond with her and identify as part of the family. 

On April 14, 2023, father again reported that there was “an issue with his 

visitation,” and requested that the court reiterate the order that CFS was to arrange makeup visits for father, who was not at fault for missing the visits. The court agreed with the 

request. Father’s counsel objected to the court setting the section 366.26 hearing under 

these circumstances, where the last video call was disconnected, maternal grandmother 

stated she did not have service and when father attempted to contact a local social worker 

for assistance, he was informed there was a new worker assigned to the case. He 

indicated that a social worker was present during one or more incidents of the video call 

being disconnected. The trial court advised counsel for the maternal grandmother to 

discuss its concerns about disconnected video calls at the expense of father’s visits. The 

court ordered CFS to arrange for make-up visits for father, along with a continuation of 
23

the visitation schedule of once per week for two hours via video call with directions that 

the maternal grandmother cooperate. 

Meanwhile, father was visiting regularly with D.R., although the social worker

indicated father spent considerable time talking to the caretaker and that at the end of 

visits D.R. separated easily. The monitoring social worker noted D.R. would have a 

tantrum when she did not get her way and expected gifts at each visit, seeming to look 

forward more to the gifts than to the visits. The report gave detailed accounts of D.R.’s 

problematic and aggressive behavior at visits with father and his family, and D.R.’s 

behavior after visits, but also noted that D.R. stroked father’s face and pressed her 

forehead to his during one visit, and noted the child sat in her paternal grandmother’s lap, 

playing with grandmother’s hair, and played with her cousins. D.R.’s current caretakers 

were interested in legal guardianship or adoption of D.R. 

On April 14, 2023, the court ordered a section 366.26 hearing to consider 

terminating parental rights as to all three children. Pending the section 366.26 hearing, 

the court ordered visits for father one time per week for two hours, in addition to makeup visits for any visits missed not due to parental fault. 

On August 14, 2023, the social worker submitted a section 366.26 report 

recommending parental rights be terminated as to R.R. and S.R. A separate section 

366.26 report was prepared regarding D.R., recommending that she remain in a 

permanent plan of planned permanent living arrangement due to her changed 
24

circumstances.9 On August 28, the matter was set as a contested hearing as to all three 

children. 

On October 30, 2023, the social worker submitted to the court an additional 

information report (Form 6.7), describing the video call visits between the father, R.R.,

and S.R., were complicated by their young ages and difficulty in maintaining their 

attention during a virtual visit. The maternal grandmother reported that R.R. takes about 

an hour and a half to calm down after a virtual visit with father, while S.R. does not seem 

to engage. Neither child asked for father during the interval between visits. The social 

worker also reported that D.R.’s caretakers, who also were the caretakers of D.R.’s 

younger half-sibling, wished to adopt D.R.

The section 366.26 hearing spanned two days, concluding with orders terminating 

parental rights as to R.R., D.R., and S.R.

On January 4, 2024, father timely appealed. 

DISCUSSION

Father argues that the trial court erred in not finding that termination of parental 

rights would be detrimental due to the existence of a beneficial parent-child relationship.

(§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Alternatively, he argues that if we conclude the exception 

is inapplicable, that we should find that his due process rights were violated because CFS 

did not facilitate adequate visitation. We disagree.

9 D.R. was apparently moved to the home where her infant half-sibling had been 

placed, in order to “de-parentif[y]” her. The record does not provide information about 

the half-sibling other than a few references to “Gunner.” There are no reports of D.R. 

exhibiting parentified behavior.
25

1. Father did not meet his Burden of Proving that Terminating Parental Rights Would be 

Detrimental due to a Beneficial Parent-Child Relationship

At the hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for the children, father 

sought to prove that termination of parental rights would be detrimental due to the 

existence of a beneficial parent-child relationship. One obstacle faced by father was the 

disconnection or denial of several (the number is not stated in the record) virtual visits 

after his children were placed in Texas, pursuant to the permanency plan of adoption or 

legal guardianship of the children by the maternal grandmother. Although make-up visits 

were ordered, father faced another obstacle: his visits had to be conducted by way of 

video call (Zoom or Facetime) and it is unclear whether make-up visits were 

accommodated. For children of tender years (D.R. was five, R.R. was four, and S.R. was 

three at the time of the section 366.26 hearing), who were easily distractable and difficult 

to engage on a virtual platform, the visitation did little to promote father’s parental 

relationship with them. But these problems arose late in the dependency process, after 

father had at least three years of in-person visits with his children, including the 

liberalized extended visits and the temporary return of the children. By the time the 

visitation problems manifested, services had been terminated and the case was in 

postpermanent planning mode.

“After the termination of reunification services, the parents’ interest in the care, 

custody and companionship of the child are no longer paramount. Rather, at this point 

‘the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability’ [citation], and in 

fact, there is a rebuttable presumption that continued foster care is in the best interests of 
26

the child.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317; see In re Fernando M. (2006) 

138 Cal.App.4th 529, 534, quoting In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 306.) For this 

reason, the ‘“burden falls to the parent to show that the termination of parental rights 

would be detrimental to the child under one of the exceptions.’” (In re C.B. (2010) 190 

Cal.App.4th 102, 122, citing In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 809.) 

Adoption is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature. (In re Derek W.

(1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 826.) At the selection and implementation hearing, the court 

must terminate parental rights if the child is likely to be adopted within a reasonable time 

unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)-(vi).) One 

such exception is the beneficial parent-child relationship exception, which applies when 

“[t]he court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be 

detrimental to the child” because “[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and 

contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.”

(§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) 

To establish the beneficial parent-child relationship exception, the parent must 

show by a preponderance of the evidence three elements: “(1) regular visitation and 

contact, and (2) a relationship, the continuation of which would benefit the child such that 

(3) the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child.” (In re Caden C.

(2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 631, 636 (Caden C.), italics omitted.) The parent bears the burden 

to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an exception to the statutory 

preference for adoption applies. (In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1343-

1345.) 
27

In reviewing a finding of a lack of compelling evidence that termination of rights 

would be detrimental, we follow a hybrid standard of review. (Caden C., supra, 11 

Cal.5th at p. 641; In re G.H. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 15, 26.) As to the first two elements, 

which involve factual determinations, we apply the substantial evidence standard of 

review. (Caden C., at pp. 639-640.) We review the third element, determining whether 

termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child, for abuse of discretion. 

(Id. at p. 640.)

Regarding the first element, described by the court as straightforward, the question 

is just whether ‘“parents visit consistently,”’ considering ‘“the extent permitted by court 

orders.”’ (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632, citing In re I.R. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 

201, 212.) Father’s visits with D.R. after her transfer to California were regular until 

sometime shortly before the section 366.26 hearing, when he started a new job. For the 

most part, those visits were described as good, although D.R. frequently acted out during 

the visits.10 For R.R. and S.R. (and D.R. before her return to California), father’s visits 

during the postpermanency phase of the dependency proceedings were limited by the 

location and logistics of the out-of-state placement and were further impacted by friction 

with the maternal grandmother. Nevertheless, we assume that father visited regularly, to 

10 At the section 366.26 hearing, the social worker mistakenly testified that during 

one in person visit, father told D.R. he would “whup her.” However, this testimony 

appears related to a visitation summary dated September 1, 2023, in which D.R. told her 

father, “I am going to whoop your ass,” not the other way around. In response, father 

asked her what she said, and D.R. repeated the statement before running off across the 

park. When confronted with her error, the social worker apologized. 
28

the extent permitted by court orders, the logistics of virtual visitation, and cooperation by 

the caretaker.

Regarding the second element, the California Supreme Court recommended that 

courts assess whether ‘“the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.”’ 

(Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632; see § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) The court 

emphasized that the focus is the child, and that the relationship “may be shaped by a slew 

of factors, such as ‘[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child’s life spent in the 

parent’s custody, the “positive” or “negative” effect of interaction between parent and 

child, and the child’s particular needs.’” (Caden C., at p. 632, quoting In re Autumn H.

(1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.) 

In the present case, the children were quite young and had been out of father’s 

custody for the majority of their short lives, with short intervals in which the children 

were returned to father’s separate custody or when he had an extended visit, comprising 

six or seven months out of a nearly four-year dependency history. We assume that up 

until services were terminated following the final removal of the children from father’s 

care, he had a parent-child bond with all three children. But after father’s discretionary 

services were terminated and the permanent plan of placement with the maternal 

grandmother was adopted, the relationships father had with his children became 

attenuated due to factors related to their ages, the length of time they had been out of 

father’s custody, as well as the inability to visit in person on a regular basis. 

Even D.R., who had been “daddy’s girl” before the termination of reunification 

services, was described as affectionate towards father at one visit only, while she adjusted 
29

to her new placement and foster family and began forming a bond with them. For R.R. 

and S.R., at no time following their placement with the maternal grandmother had the 

children sought out contact with father, shown distress when visits ended, or asked about 

father during the intervals between visits. Father failed to establish that the children 

would benefit from continuing the relationship with him.

Regarding the third element, that is, “whether ‘termination would be detrimental 

to the child due to’ the relationship,” the Supreme Court indicated a trial court must 

decide whether it would be harmful to the child to sever the relationship and choose 

adoption. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 633, citing § 366.26, subds. (c)(1)(B) & 

(D).) Here again, father failed to meet his burden where the children do not appear to 

have experienced any emotional loss or suffering due to their current placements in outof-home (and out-of-state) care or the limits placed on their contacts with father. At the 

section 366.26 hearing, father testified that termination of parental rights would be 

detrimental because the children, particularly R.R. and S.R., would not have a father 

figure. This was insufficient.

As to D.R., father testified that she eagerly ran to meet him at visits and cried 

when they ended and because she would ask for him prior to scheduled visit days, but 

other than his testimony, there is no evidence to support these statements, other than a 

statement that she was emotional after visits and was emotional when her mother did not 

show up for visits. To the contrary, the testimony at the termination of rights hearing 

indicated D.R. called her current caretakers “momma” and “daddy,” and that she viewed 

them as her “own family,” and was “significantly bonded to them.” The record does 
30

reveal that D.R. was experiencing encopresis and urinary incontinence beginning in 

March 2023, but there is no evidence in the record linking this issue to separation from

father. In its ruling, the trial court interpreted D.R.’s acting-out and “bathroom accidents” 

as indicators that the parent-child relationship was not beneficial, and there is nothing to 

contradict this finding.

Sadly, father made efforts to maintain his relationship with his children, and he 

demonstrated his bond and commitment to them, but the record does not show the 

children reciprocated to the degree necessary for a court to find a compelling reason that 

severing the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to them. Father failed to meet 

his burden of showing that termination of parental rights would be detrimental.

2. Father’s Due Process Rights Were Not Violated

As set forth, ante, after the reunification stage of dependency proceedings has 

concluded, the focus shifts to permanency and stability for the children. We have 

explained that this places the burden squarely on parents to demonstrate the existence of a 

beneficial parent-child relationship. It also means that the child welfare agency is no 

longer obligated to assist the parent in strengthening the parent-child bond by offering 

enrichment services or optimizing visitation to preserve family ties. “[A]fter a child has 

spent a substantial period in foster care and attempts at reunification have proved 

fruitless, the child’s interest in stability outweighs the parent’s interest in asserting the 

right to the ... companionship of the child.” (In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 419-

421.) In other words, maintaining visitation orders to prevent deterioration of the parent-
31

child relationship and prevent termination of parental rights is not a goal, because by the 

time the case reaches the postpermanent plan stage, that ship has sailed.

Father does not argue that the virtual nature of the visits or the missed visits were a 

violation of his substantive due process right to custody of his children. (See Stanley v. 

Illinois (1972) 405 U.S. 645, 651 [parents have a fundamental interest in “the 

companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children”].) Instead, he 

argues that the failure of the court to enforce his visits, and CFS’s failure to ensure that 

visits would not be interrupted by the children’s placement in Texas, to which he refers as 

a “cessation of visitation,” “profoundly affected” his ability to “avoid the termination of 

parental rights.” 

In this respect, father’s argument must fail because he has not established his 

premise that visits had been terminated, and because the proceedings no longer had a 

focus on preserving or strengthening the parent-child relationship due to his failure to 

reunify during the prepermanent planning stage of the proceedings despite the 

extraordinary opportunities provided to him. 

In this respect, father’s reference to “cessation of visits” is an attempt to draw an 

analogy between his circumstance and that involved in the holding of In re Hunter S. 

(2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1497, on which he relies. In that case, however, the parent was 

completely deprived of visits for over a year because the child refused to attend visits and 

the court, not wanting to pressure him, deferred to the recommendation of the child’s 

therapist in not ordering visits, proceeding instead to set the section 366.26 hearing. 

(Id. at pp. 1502-1503.) There, the reviewing court stated, “Courts have long recognized 
32

that, in the context of dependency proceedings, a lack of visitation may ‘virtually assure[] 

the erosion (and termination) of any meaningful relationship’ between mother and child. 

[Citation.] Even after family reunification services are terminated, visitation must 

continue unless the court finds it would be detrimental to the child. (§ 366.21, subd. 

(h).)” (Id. at p. 1504.)

It bears noting that the circumstances of this case are completely unlike those of 

Hunter S. insofar as father’s visitation continued throughout the dependency, including a 

temporary return of custody and liberalized and extended visits prior to the placement of 

the children with their maternal grandmother. Father’s virtual visits apparently were 

interrupted for an unknown number of times and for reasons never made clear, but his 

visits were never terminated. On the other hand, in Hunter S., the finding that the 

mother’s due process rights had been violated was based on the fact the trial court 

improperly delegated decisions about parental visitation with the child to a therapist and 

allowed the child to control whether visitation would occur. (See Hunter S., supra, 142 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1505.)

While father missed visits (apparently between September 30, 2022, and April 14, 

2023, although the exact number of missed visits was not mentioned) after the children 

had been placed out of state in Texas under a permanent plan of adoption, there was an 

order for regular visits, which took place virtually until D.R. was transferred back to 

California and in-person visits with her were reinstated. The undetermined number of 

visits missed due either to technology or the maternal grandmother’s conduct, or the 

friction between the father and the maternal grandmother, were not due to the trial court 
33

abdicating its responsibility or to CFS’s failure to enforce visits, once they were made 

aware of the difficulties. The court maintained visitation orders even after the children 

had been placed with their maternal grandmother in Texas under a permanent plan of 

guardianship or adoption and ordered make-up visits for those that were missed due to 

the disconnection or cancellation of virtual call (Zoom or Facetime) visits. CFS took 

steps to follow up with the maternal grandparent, as the social worker testified at the 

section 366.26 hearing. 

The real problem, as identified by counsel for CFS and the court, was that the 

children were distractable and difficult to engage on a virtual platform, such that the 

virtual visits were less meaningful for them. The fault for this does not lie at the feet of 

the court or CFS, but instead flowed naturally from the children’s young ages and the 

court’s need to find a permanent and stable placement for the children when reunification 

efforts failed.

Father’s due process right to continued visitation after services were terminated 

was not violated. 
34

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P. J.

We concur:

FIELDS

J.

MENETREZ

J.