Filed 6/20/14 In re J.R. CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

In re J.R., a Person Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law.

 B251341 consolidated with B253188

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. CK38280)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTY F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert S. 

Draper, Judge. Affirmed. 

Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and 

Appellant. 

John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and 

Peter Ferrera, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

I. INTRODUCTION

The mother, Christy F., appeals from the July 15, 2013 order denying her Welfare 

and Institutions Code1section 388 petition. She argues it was error to deny her 

modification petition without a hearing. We conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying the section 388 petition. The mother also challenges the denial of 

her request to continue the section 366.26 hearing and the order terminating her parental 

rights. She contends the juvenile court should have applied the beneficial parent-child 

relationship exception instead of terminating her parental rights. We find the denial of 

the continuance request was not an abuse of discretion. In addition, we conclude the 

mother failed to establish regular visitation and contact with the child warranting 

application of the parent-child relationship exception. We affirm the orders under 

review. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 8, 2010, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family 

Services (the department) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of the child, eight-year 

old J.R. The petition alleged: the mother had mental and emotional problems including 

paranoia and auditory and visual hallucinations which rendered her unable to provide 

regular care and supervision of the child; the mother placed the child in a detrimental and 

endangering situation by driving under the influence of methamphetamine; and the 

mother had a history of illicit drug abuse and was a current user of methamphetamine. 

Also, the petition alleged the father, J.R., failed to provide for the child. In addition, the 

petition alleged J.R.’s whereabouts was unknown. The child was detained on January 6, 

2010, with temporary placement and custody vested with the department. The mother 

was granted monitored visits. The department was ordered to provide the mother with 

 

1

Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 
3

referrals for individual counseling to address mental health issues and parenting and drug 

education classes. 

On June 18, 2010, the juvenile court found the child was a dependent under 

section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g). The juvenile court sustained the allegations in 

count b-1: “[The mother] has mental and emotional problems, including [p]aranoia and 

auditory and visual hallucinations which renders the mother unable to provide regular 

care and supervision of the child. Such mental and emotional condition on the part of the 

mother endangers the child’s physical and emotional health and safety and places the 

child at risk of physical and emotional harm and damage.” The juvenile court also found 

true the allegations in count b-3: “[The mother] has a history of illicit drug abuse and is a 

current user of methamphetamine which renders the mother incapable of providing 

regular care of the child. On 01/02/2010, the mother had a positive toxicology screen for 

methamphetamine. On 01/02/10, and on prior occasions, the mother was under the 

influence of illicit drugs while the child was in the mother’s care and supervision. The 

mother’s use of illicit drugs endangers the child’s physical and emotional health and 

safety and creates a detrimental home environment, placing the child at risk of physical 

and emotional harm and damage.” In addition, the juvenile court sustained counts b-4 

and g-1 against the father: “[The father] has failed to provide the child with the 

necessities of life including food, clothing, shelter and medical care. The father’s 

whereabouts is unknown. Such failure to provide for the child on the part of the father 

endangers the child’s physical and emotional health and safety and places the child at risk 

of physical and emotional harm and damage.” 

The juvenile court removed the child from the mother’s custody. The mother was 

ordered to: take all prescribed psychotropic medications; participate in counseling; and 

submit to eight weeks of random or on demand drug tests. If the mother missed or had a 

positive drug test, she was required to participate in a drug program with random testing. 

The mother was granted monitored visits with the child with the department having 

discretion to liberalize visitation. On June 18, 2010, the mother appealed the juvenile 

court’s jurisdiction and disposition findings and orders. We affirmed the juvenile court’s 
4

jurisdiction and disposition findings and orders in an unpublished opinion on February 8, 

2011. (In re J.R. (Feb. 8, 2011, B225377) [nonpub. opn.].) 

On September 13, 2010, the juvenile court gave the department discretion to 

liberalize the mother’s visits to unmonitored visitation after consultation with the 

Department of Mental Health. On December 17, 2010, the mother was allowed weekly 

one-hour unmonitored visits. The department was allowed discretion to further liberalize 

the mother’s unmonitored visitation. At the contested six-month review hearing on 

February 15, 2011, the mother was granted eight hours of unmonitored visits on 

Saturdays with the possibility of overnight visits if the Saturday visits went well. The 

juvenile court found the mother was in compliance with the case plan. 

Beginning on March 18, 2011, the mother had unmonitored overnight weekend 

visits with the child. But on July 19, 2011, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s 

overnight visits. This occurred after the mother returned the child to the foster mother, 

Linda T., late. The mother was allowed eight hours of unmonitored visits and ordered to 

return the child on time. On November 18, 2011, the juvenile court ordered the mother to 

have monitored visits pending further order of the court. On February 29, 2012, the 

juvenile court terminated family reunification services for the mother. The juvenile court 

found the mother was not in compliance with the case plan. 

On July 2, 2013, the mother filed a section 388 petition requesting weekend 

overnight visitation because the child was placed over 80 miles away. The mother stated 

she completed eight consecutive random testing and all the results were negative. In 

addition, the mother stated she was in compliance by receiving mental health counseling. 

Attached to the petition was a letter from the Endelman Westside Mental Health Center 

stating the mother had received case and medication management since November 19, 

2010. The mother asserted the request was in the child’s best interest. The mother 

enjoyed weekend overnight and extended week-long visits with the child before the 

juvenile court modified the visits to monitored visits. The modification petition 

concluded, “The child will be 12 years [in July], and should be given a choice of home of 

mother[.]” 
5

On July 3, 2013, the mother’s counsel filed a walk on request. The mother asked 

the juvenile court to order the social worker to schedule monitored visits. The mother 

stated she consistently called the social worker, Charles Matthews, to schedule visitation 

but he did not call back. On July 10, 2013, the juvenile court granted the mother 

unlimited visits at the maternal grandparents’ home. The visits were to be monitored by 

the maternal grandparents through August. Thereafter, visits would be twice a month at 

the maternal grandparents’ home. 

On July 15, 2013, the juvenile court denied the mother’s section 388 petition. The 

request was denied because the petition did not “state new evidence” or a change in 

circumstances. In addition, the juvenile court explained, “visitation was addressed” at the 

July 10, 2013 hearing. On August 28, 2013, the mother appealed the denial of the section 

388 petition. The appeal from the denial of the modification petition was assigned case 

No. B251341. 

At the section 366.26 hearing on November 26, 2013, the juvenile court denied the 

mother’s continuance request. The juvenile court found: a continuance would not be in 

the child’s best interest because she had waited a long time for permanency; the child was 

adoptable by clear and convincing evidence and there was no impediment to the 

adoption; and no exceptions to the adoption preference applied in this case. The juvenile 

court terminated parental rights and designated Linda T. as the prospective adoptive 

parent. The mother appealed the order terminating her parental rights on December 5, 

2013 and was assigned case No. B253188. On March 4, 2014, the two appeals in case 

Nos. B253188 and B251341 were consolidated. 

III. EVIDENCE

A. Detention Report

On January 2, 2010, the department received a referral alleging the mother 

emotionally abused the child. Children’s social worker Eleanor Clements went to the 
6

Ronald Reagan Medical Center emergency room at the University of California at Los 

Angeles. Ms. Clements spoke with two physicians, Dr. Amer Mock and Dr. Mike Getz. 

The doctors stated the mother’s paranoia and visual hallucinations were related to her 

amphetamine abuse. A nurse informed Ms. Clements the mother tested positive for 

methamphetamines. Ms. Clements interviewed the mother but she was a poor historian 

because of her auditory and visual hallucinations. However, the mother denied she had 

visual and auditory hallucinations. The mother stated the father brought vermin into her 

house and they were constantly multiplying and changing shapes. She stated the father 

kept following her. She heard him and his friends “talking” all the time. She accused the 

father and his friends of breaking her stuff, running up her gas and water bills and 

stealing her mail. The mother denied using methamphetamines but admitted she was 

around “some stuff” at Christmas. The mother admitted she had used marijuana before. 

The mother stated she and the child were at the Ronald Reagan Medical Center because 

the youngster had liver problems. The child was later examined by a physician,

identified only as Dr. Corn, at Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles. According to the 

detention report, the examination was performed to clear the child for foster care. 

Dr. Corn stated the child had no physical illness or disease. 

 

B. Jurisdiction And Disposition Report

The February 3, 2010 jurisdiction and disposition report was prepared by the 

children’s social worker, Mr. Matthews. The report states the child resided with the 

foster parent, Linda T., in a four-bedroom, two-bath home in Long Beach. The child 

shared a bedroom with Linda’s nine-year-old adopted daughter. The mother called most 

days to speak with the child. But the mother had not been in contact with Mr. Matthews 

since January 21, 2010. 

Mr. Matthews indicated the maternal grandparents adopted the mother when she 

was 12 years old. The mother enjoyed a pleasant upbringing after adoption. But when 

the mother became a teenager, she became headstrong and defiant, refusing to follow the 
7

house rules. She had a son, D.F., when she was 17 years old. D.F. became a dependent 

of the court in 1999 after he was hospitalized because of an upper arm fracture. In April 

2001, D.F. suffered bruises on his face and scratches and bruises on his neck, back and 

torso while in the mother’s care. On May 21, 2001, the juvenile court ordered suitable 

placement for D.F. and permanent placement services. D.F.’s case was closed on 

November 5, 2004. 

C. 2010-2012 Review Reports And Last Minute Information for the Court Documents

The March 2, 2010 addendum report stated the mother appeared determined to 

regain custody of the child. The mother claimed to be visiting the child every week in 

Long Beach. But the June 18, 2010 interim review report stated the mother had not 

visited the child since February 16, 2010. The maternal grandparents reported they had 

not seen the mother for several months. 

The September 13, 2010 interim review report stated the child was doing very well 

at school and home since being placed with Linda. The mother was visiting the child 

weekly at the maternal grandfather’s church on Sundays. The mother’s random drug 

tests were all negative. 

The December 17, 2010 status review report stated the child remained in Linda’s

home. The child got along well with all members of the foster family. The child 

reported she loved Linda and was very happy to stay in the foster home. The child saw 

the mother for monitored visits at church on Sundays. The visits occurred when the child

stayed at the maternal grandparents’ home in Walnut during weekends. The child 

expressed mixed emotions. On one hand, the child loved the mother. Yet the child also 

felt very close to Linda. 

The May 24, 2011 interim review report stated the child remained in Linda’s

home. The child loved living with Linda. But the child also loved going to her mother’s 

home and spending weekends there. The child reported visiting her older brother, D.F., 

in Fontana. She enjoyed getting to know her older brother better and growing closer to 
8

him. In addition, the child and the mother visited water parks, museums and parks 

together. The child also went to the maternal grandfather’s church on Sundays with the 

mother. On some weekends the mother took the child to the grandparents’ house. The 

child spent spring break at her grandparents’ house and had a great time. She reported 

the whole family was together for Easter which made her very happy. The mother 

reported picking up the child on weekends and spending time with the youngster. The 

mother drove 72 miles to Fontana so her two children could spend time together. 

The June 1, 2011 last minute information for the court document indicated the 

mother tried to receive welfare benefits for the child. A Department of Public Social 

Services employee told Mr. Matthews the mother was in the office seeking welfare 

benefits for the child. Mr. Matthews wrote that the welfare worker stated, “[The mother] 

explained that [the child] had been visiting her and she decided not to take [the child] 

back to the foster home.” Mr. Matthews contacted the foster mother, Linda, who said the 

child was at home. The foster mother reported the child no longer want to go with the

mother for weekend visits. This was because the mother was acting bizarre. 

On July 15, 2011, the department filed a section 388 petition. The petition sought

termination of the mother’s unmonitored weekend overnight visits with the child. The 

modification petition alleged the mother failed to return the child to Linda’s residence on 

July 10, 2011, after a weekend overnight visit. The next day, Mr. Matthews received a 

call from the Los Angeles Office of the Department of Public Social Services. The 

mother brought the child into the office to apply for aid. The child was taken into the 

custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and returned to Linda’s care on 

July 11, 2011. Mr. Matthews noted this was the second time the mother had attempted to 

obtain welfare for the child. Mr. Matthews wrote: “Mother’s behavior in the last few 

weeks has become very bizarre. Mother seems to feel the court has returned [the child] 

to her care and custody. The court has not done this, and mother is not following court 

orders as to when to return the child from weekend visits.” On July 19, 2011, the 

juvenile court terminated the overnight visits after construing the section 388 petition as a 

section 385 motion. 
9

The September 22, 2011 status review report indicated the mother visited the child 

weekly on Saturdays and at church on Sundays. The child expressed mixed emotions 

about being returned to the mother’s home. The child loved Linda but also was very 

close to the mother. The child reported seeing her maternal grandparents bi-monthly at 

their home. Mr. Matthews stated since May 2011, the mother had been “through” three 

therapists in two different clinics. The mother refused to sign release of information 

forms so Mr. Matthews could obtain information from her therapists. Mr. Matthews 

recommended termination of family reunification services for the mother. 

On November 14, 2011, the department requested a protective custody warrant be 

issued for the child. The mother failed to return the child to Linda’s home following a 

visit. Mr. Matthews made a home visit to the mother’s home but neither the mother nor 

the child was present. Mr. Matthews and Linda contacted the maternal grandparents who 

stated the mother and child did not come to church the past Sunday. Mr. Matthews noted 

this was the second time the mother failed to return the child to foster care after a visit. 

On November 18, 2011, the warrant request was taken off calendar because the mother 

appeared with the child in juvenile court. The mother’s unmonitored visits were 

modified to monitored visits pending further order of the juvenile court. 

The December 28, 2011 last minute information for the court document reported

the mother had missed several appointments with her clinical social worker, Steve Artiga, 

over the past month. Mr. Artiga said the mother stated she missed the most recent 

appointment due to “‘incarceration.’” Mr. Artiga suspected the mother had not been 

compliant with her medication because she was more tangential in her thoughts at her last 

meeting with him. Mr. Matthews reported the mother was arrested on a felony charge on 

November 28, 2011 and released the next day. There were no details provided 

concerning the felony charge. 

On February 29, 2012, Mr. Matthews reported the mother’s arrest was drugrelated and the felony charge remained outstanding. Mr. Matthews indicated Mr. Artiga 

was no longer the mother’s therapist. The mother continued to refuse to consent to 

release of information about her medication. When the mother came to pick up her bus 
10

pass at the department office on February 1, 2012, Mr. Matthews was contacted because 

her appearance and affect were of concern. When Mr. Matthews spoke to the mother, he 

could not understand her. He was unable to ask the mother questions about counseling, 

visitation, the signing of release of information forms or her felony arrest. The child had 

no seen her mother since Christmas. From December 2011 to June 2012, the mother did 

not visit the child. On June 17, 2012, the mother appeared at Linda’s church in Long 

Beach and demanded to see the child. The mother called the Long Beach police and 

claimed Linda had stolen the child. 

The August 29, 2012 status report stated Linda had moved from Long Beach to 

Victorville in San Bernardino County. The child said she liked her new home. The child 

reported she continued to visit the maternal grandparents by attending day trips, church, 

and movies with them. The child saw the mother at church when staying with the

maternal grandparents on most Sundays. The mother usually came to the grandparents’ 

home for dinner after church. Mr. Matthews wrote: “The [child] reports a loving circle 

including grandparents and friends who are helping guide her way. The [child] states she 

sees her mother at church and feels she has the best of both words in that she is able to 

spend time with her mother and grandparents.” The child expressed a strong desire to 

remain in Linda’s home. According to Mr. Matthews, “The [child] states she loves her 

mother but is not sure her mother can care for her at this time.” The foster care agency 

reported the child was informed of possible adoption by Linda. The child was happy 

about it. The foster care worker, Joyce Roberts, noted the child had formed a strong bond 

with Linda and other foster family members. 

 

D. September 28, 2012 Section 366.26 Report

The section 366.26 report, filed on September 28, 2012, stated: the child wanted 

Linda to adopt her; Linda had adopted two grandnieces in 2009 who resided with her; the 

child got along very well with the grand nieces and they called each other “sisters”; the 

child was happy, felt very loved and secure residing with Linda; the child continued to 
11

see the mother at church on Sundays during twice monthly visits with the maternal 

grandparents; the child spent 3-4 weeks over summer vacation with her maternal 

grandparents; and the child saw the mother at church on Sundays when the youngster was 

with her maternal grandparents. Mr. Matthews indicated on September 20, 2012, the 

mother came into the department’s office “acting very strange.” The mother declined any 

mental health services. Mr. Matthews wrote, “[The m]other admitted she is not taking 

her medication nor is she seeing her doctor.” 

E. 2013 Review Reports And Last Information For The Court Documents

Mr. Matthews stated in his February 27, 2013 status review report: “[The child] 

informed [me] she wishes to be adopted by [Linda]. [The child] states it has been too 

long a period of time for her mother to get her back and she wishes to remain in her 

current home with [Linda]. [The child] states she wants her mother to get well and 

become healthy again.” The child reported seeing the mother at the maternal 

grandparents’ home over the holidays. The child stated she had not seen or heard from 

the mother prior to the holidays. 

The child had resided in Linda’s home for the past three years since January 3, 

2010 and continued to thrive in the residence. Linda remained interested in adopting the 

child. Linda completed all the adoption paperwork and her home study was approved on 

January 16, 2013. Linda loved the child very much and wanted to provide the youngster

with a permanent, stable and loving home through adoption. The May 16, 2013 last 

minute information for the court document stated the child last saw the mother on Easter 

Sunday at church. The child reported visiting with the mother on Christmas and New 

Year’s Day. 

The August 28, 2013 status review report stated the child stayed with her maternal 

grandparents during her summer break from June 5 to August 5, 2013. The child 

reported seeing the mother at the maternal grandfather’s church on Sundays. This 

occurred while the child was staying with her maternal grandparents. The child had not 
12

seen the mother since Easter Sunday. The child reiterated her desire for the adoption 

process to move forward. The child explained she wanted adoption to be completed. 

This would permit Linda to make the decision to allow the child to sleep over at a 

friend’s house. Mr. Matthews indicated the mother failed to pick up money for her train 

ticket to visit the child in Rancho Cucamonga. The mother did not appear for her 

scheduled visit with the child on August 13, 2013. 

 

F. August 28, 2013 Section 366.26 Report

The August 28, 2013 section 366.26 report stated the child spent her summer 

vacation with the maternal grandparents. The child reported continuing to see the mother 

at church on Sundays while visiting the maternal grandparents during the summer. The 

child continued to want to be adopted by Linda. Mr. Matthews recommended parental 

rights be terminated with adoption as the permanent plan. 

On September 9, 2013, the child’s attorney requested continuance of the section 

366.26 hearing. The child’s attorney explained the child did not want to go forward with 

adoption but expressed interest in a guardianship. But the November 26, 2013 last 

minute information for the court document stated the child now wanted adoption rather 

than legal guardianship. Mr. Matthews wrote: “[I] and [the child] discussed her wishes 

regarding adoption or legal guardianship[.] The [child] told [me] she wants to be adopted 

by [Linda] to become her daughter in the eyes of the law. [The child] states she wants 

[Linda] to be able to make decisions for her as her adopted mother. [The child] wants 

[me] to express to the court her feelings that she now wants to be adopted by [Linda], her 

current caregiver.” 

G. Contested Section 366.26 Hearing

At the November 26, 2013 contested section 366.26 hearing, the child’s attorney 

spoke with the youngster. According to the child’s lawyer, the youngster still wanted to 
13

be adopted. The department’s counsel stated Linda was not interested in legal 

guardianship of the child. Mr. Matthews, the social worker, stated the maternal 

grandparents were unwilling to split transportation of the child with Linda. Mr. 

Matthews had tried to facilitate the mother’s visits by paying for her transportation so she 

could visit in Rancho Cucamonga. But twice, the mother failed to go to her scheduled 

visit with the child. The mother’s counsel, Victor Ozoude, responded the mother did not 

show up because she was unable to contact Mr. Matthews. None of this dialogue was 

presented under oath. 

The child was called to testify by the mother. The child testified to spending time 

with the mother during unmonitored and overnight visits since the detention hearing. The 

child testified the mother took very good care of her during those visits. The child stated 

Mr. Matthews explained to her the difference between adoption and legal guardianship. 

The child understood the mother did not have the right to visit her if adoption was the 

permanent plan. But the child testified she was “not okay” with that scenario. The child 

last saw the mother in July during a visit with the maternal grandparents. The child has 

requested additional visits from Mr. Matthews but he had not called her back about the 

visits. 

 

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Section 388 Petition

Section 388, subdivision (a)(1) states in part: “Any parent or other person having 

an interest in a child who is a dependent child of the juvenile court . . . may, upon 

grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence, petition the court in the same 

action . . . for a hearing to change, modify, or set aside any order of court previously 

made or to terminate the jurisdiction of the court.” A parent requesting modification 

under section 388 has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

child’s welfare requires such change. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570, subd. (h)(1)(C); In 
14

re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 612; In re B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 

1228.) The parent must show changed, not changing, circumstances. (In re Mickel O. 

(2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 586, 615; In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47.) In 

addition, new evidence or change in circumstances must be of such significant nature that 

it requires modification of the challenged order. (In re A.A., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 

612; In re Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 615.) We review an order denying a 

petition under section 388 for an abuse of discretion. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 

Cal.4th 295, 318; In re A.A., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 612.) 

The mother argues the juvenile court erred in denying her section 388 petition 

without a hearing. She contends the juvenile court mistakenly believed Mr. Ozoude’s

walk on request to enforce visitation collaterally estopped her from a hearing on her 

section 388 petition. The mother argues she sufficiently pleaded changed circumstances 

and the child’s best interest to warrant a hearing on her section 388 petition. 

In support of her section 388 petition, the mother submitted a letter from the 

Endelman Westside Mental Health Center. The letter stated the mother has received case 

and medication management from the mental health center since November 19, 2010. 

But the letter does not establish a change in circumstances. 

Moreover, the juvenile court, without abusing its discretion could find the child’s 

best interests would not be served by granting the modification petition. There is ample 

uncontradicted evidence the mother was not in compliance with juvenile court orders 

requiring her to take medication and attend counseling. Beginning on March 18, 2011, 

the mother had unmonitored overnight weekend visits with the child. On May 27, 2011, 

the mother attempted to obtain welfare benefits for the youngster even though the child 

resided with Linda, the foster mother. On this occasion, the mother was acting bizarrely. 

On July 10, 2011, the mother failed to return the child to Linda after a weekend overnight 

visit. The child was taken into custody and returned to Linda the next day after the 

mother again attempted to obtain benefits for the child. Putting aside the issue of welfare 

fraud, the mother claimed she had regained custody pursuant to a juvenile court order 
15

when nothing of the sort had occurred. Mr. Matthews stated the mother’s behavior in the 

last few weeks had become “very bizarre.” 

On July 19, 2011 the juvenile court terminated the weekend overnight visits after 

the mother was late in returning the child to Linda’s home. In the September 22, 2011 

status report, Mr. Matthews stated the mother refused to sign release of information 

forms so he could obtain information from her therapists. On November 12, 2011, the 

mother again failed to return the child to Linda’s home following a visit. The mother 

appeared with the child in juvenile court on November 18, 2011. At that hearing, the 

juvenile court modified the unmonitored visitation order to permit only monitored visits. 

On November 28, 2011, the mother was arrested on a felony drug charge. The 

mother’s clinical social worker, Mr. Artiga, said she had missed several appointments in 

November. Mr. Artiga reported the mother stated she missed the most recent 

appointment due to “‘incarceration.’” Mr. Artiga suspected the mother had not been 

compliant with her medication because she was more tangential in her thoughts at her last 

meeting with him. Mr. Matthews reported Mr. Artiga was no longer the mother’s

therapist in February 2012. The mother continued to refuse to consent to release of 

information about her medication. When the mother came to pick up her bus pass at the 

department’s office on February 1, 2012, Mr. Matthews was contacted because her

appearance and affect were of concern. Mr. Matthews could not understand the mother 

during his conversation with her. In addition, he was unable to ask the mother questions 

about counseling, visitation, the signing of release of information forms or her arrest. 

The mother acknowledges she was not participating in services, did not take her 

medication and was not seeing a physician in 2012. From December 2011 to June 2012, 

the mother did not visit the child. But on June 17, 2012, the mother appeared at Linda’s

church in Long Beach and demanded to see the child. The mother called the Long Beach 

police and falsely claimed Linda had stolen the child. On September 20, 2012, the 

mother came into the department’s office “acting very strange.” The mother admitted she 

was not taking her medication or seeing her doctor but declined any mental health 

services. 
16

In the February 27, 2013 status review report, the child reported seeing the mother 

over the holidays at the maternal grandparents’ home. The child saw the mother on 

Christmas and New Year’s Day. But the child did not see or hear from the mother before 

the holidays. The May 16, 2013 last minute information for the court document stated

the next time child saw the mother was on Easter Sunday. The child did not see the 

mother again until June 2013. During that time, the child saw the mother on Sundays at 

the maternal grandfather’s church. Given the foregoing evidence, it was not an abuse of 

discretion for the juvenile court to deny the modification petition. In all respects, the 

juvenile court’s determinations are supported by substantial evidence. There were no 

material changed circumstances nor was it in the child’s best interests for a hearing to be 

held on the modification petition’s merits. 

B. Continuance of Section 366.26 Hearing

The mother argues the trial court abused its direction in denying her November 26, 

2013 continuance request. Under section 352, subdivision (a), no continuance shall be 

granted that is contrary to the interest of the child. Section 352, subdivision (a) states in 

part: “In considering the minor’s interests, the court shall give substantial weight to the 

minor’s need for prompt resolution of his or her custody status, the need to provide 

children with stable environments, and the damage to a minor of prolonged temporary 

placements. [¶] Continuances shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause and 

only for that period of time shown to be necessary by the evidence presented at the 

hearing on the motion for continuance.” We review the juvenile court’s denial of a 

continuance request for abuse of discretion. (In re Mary B. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 

1474, 1481; In re Giovanni F. (2010) 18 Cal.App.4th 594, 604; In re Elijah V. (2005) 127 

Cal.App.4th 576, 585.) 

Given the applicable deferential standard of review, the mother’s contention that 

the juvenile court erred in denying the continuance is meritless. The juvenile court ruled 

the November 26, 2013 continuance was not in the child’s best interest. The child has 
17

been a dependent of the court since June 2010. The child was now 12 years old and 

wanted to be adopted by Linda. The child has been residing with Linda since January 3, 

2010. Linda loved the child and wanted to provide the youngster with a permanent, 

stable and loving home through adoption. Linda’s adoptive home study had been 

approved in January 2013. The child thrived in Linda’s home and felt happy, loved and 

secure living with the prospective adoptive family. The child got along very well with 

Linda’s two adopted grand nieces and they called each other “sisters.” The child’s best 

interest was promoted by proceeding with the section 366.26 hearing. The juvenile court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother’s continuance motion. 

C. Parent-Child Relationship Exception

At a section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court selects and implements a permanent 

plan for the dependent child. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 52-53; In re Marilyn 

H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307.) Our Supreme Court has summarized the juvenile court’s 

options at the section 366.26 hearing: “In order of preference the choices are: (1) 

terminate parental rights and order that the child be placed for adoption (the choice the 

court made here); (2) identify adoption as the permanent placement goal and require 

efforts to locate an appropriate adoptive family; (3) appoint a legal guardian; or (4) order 

long-term foster care. (§ 366.26, subd. (b).) Whenever the court finds ‘that it is likely 

the child will be adopted, the court shall terminate parental rights and order the child 

placed for adoption.’ (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).)” (In re Celine R., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 

53; In re Hector A. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 783, 790-791.) 

One exception to adoption is the parent-child relationship exception. This 

exception is set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) which states: “[T]he 

court shall terminate parental rights unless either of the following applies: . . . [¶] (B) 

The court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be 

detrimental to the child due to one or more of the following circumstances: [¶] (i) The 

parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would 
18

benefit from continuing the relationship.” (In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-

622.) The mother has the burden of proving the relationship with child outweighs the 

well-being gained by a permanent home with adoptive parents. (Id. at p. 621; In re 

Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) Evidence of frequent and loving contact is 

not enough to establish a beneficial parental relationship. (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 

Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315-1316; In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1418.) 

The parent also must show a parental relationship exists with the child. (In re K.P., 

supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 621; In re Andrea R. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1108.) 

Appellate courts have adopted differing standards of review for the parental 

relationship exception determination. Most courts review the parental relationship 

exception determinations for substantial evidence. (In re K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 621; In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) One court has applied an 

abuse of discretion standard of review. (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 

1351; see In re K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 621.) More recently, two courts have 

adopted both the substantial evidence and abuse of discretion standards of review. (In re 

K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at pp. 621-622; In re Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at 

pp. 1314-1315.) In evaluating the juvenile court’s determination as to the existence of a 

beneficial parental relationship, these two courts review for substantial evidence. (In re 

K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at pp. 622; In re Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 

1314.) But whether termination of the parental relationship would be detrimental to the 

child as weighed against the benefits of adoption is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (In 

re K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 622; In re Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 

1315.) No error occurred under any of these standards of review. 

The mother argues it was error to terminate her parental rights because the 

beneficial parent-child relationship exception applied under section 366.26, subdivision 

(c)(1)(B)(i). The mother argues: there was regular and consistent visits with the child 

under the circumstances; they shared a positive, strong and beneficial relationship; and

she occupied a parental role. These contentions are meritless when viewed under any 

potential standard of appellate review.
19

Under the first prong of the parent-child relationship exception, the mother had the 

burden of proving regular and consistent visitation. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Under 

any standard of appellate review, the mother did not meet her burden. In January 2010, 

the mother called the youngster most days and visited after the child was detained. But 

from February to June 2010, the mother admitted never visiting the child. In September 

2010, Mr. Matthews reported the mother was again visiting the child at the maternal 

grandfather’s church. In March 2011, the mother was granted unmonitored visits. But 

the visits became monitored in November 2011 after the mother failed to return the child 

back to Linda. From December 2011 to June 2012, the mother did not visit the child. On 

June 17, 2012, the mother appeared at Linda’s church and demanded to see the child. 

The mother called the police and falsely claimed Linda had stolen the child. By August 

2012, the mother was visiting the child again on Sundays at church when the child visited 

the maternal grandparents twice monthly. 

But in February 2013, the child was interviewed by Mr. Matthews. The child had 

not seen or heard from the mother since before the holidays. The child reported visiting 

with the mother on Christmas and New Year’s Day. The next time the child saw the 

mother was on Easter Sunday. The mother did not visit again until the summer. The 

child reported seeing the mother on Sundays while staying with the maternal 

grandparents from June 5 to August 2013. But on July 10, 2013, the juvenile court had 

granted the mother unlimited visits at the maternal grandparents’ home through August

2013. The mother complains visitation was difficult after the child moved to San 

Bernardino County in the summer of 2012. However, the mother did not visit more 

frequently at the maternal grandparents’ home when she was permitted unlimited visits in 

July 2013. The mother failed to show regular visitation and contact given her irregular 

visits. This irregular visitation occurred throughout the nearly four years that the child 

was in foster care. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that the 

parent-child relationship exception was inapplicable. 
20

V. DISPOSITION

The orders denying the mother’s section 388 petition and terminating parental 

rights are affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P.J. 

We concur:

KRIEGLER, J. 

MINK, J.*

 

* Retired Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice 

pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.