Filed 6/20/14 In re J.R. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

C HRISTY F.,
Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from ord ers 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
Pet er Ferrera, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 I. INTRODUCTION

The mother, C hristy F., appeals from the July 15, 2013 order denying her Welfare
and Institutions Code 1 section 388 petition. She argues it was error to deny her
modificat ion 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 par ental 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, w e 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 An geles 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 allege d : the mother had mental and emotional problems including paranoia and auditory and visua l 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 illic it drug abuse and was a cur rent user of methamphetamine. Also, the petition alleged the father, J

. R., failed to provide for the child

. In addition, the petition allege d J.R.’s whereabouts was unknown. The child was detained on January 6,
2010 , with temp orary 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 cl asses. 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 ] aran oia 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 a nd 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 i ncapable 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 juve nile 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 t he 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

or dered to: take all prescr ibed 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 rando m 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 th e juvenile court’s4

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
liberaliz e 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 mo th er’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 cou rt 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 occurre d 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 vi sits 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 manage ment since November 19,
2010. The mother asserted the reque st 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
conclude d , “The child will be 12 years [ i n 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 gran dparents 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 evide nce ” or a change in
circumstances. In addition, the juvenile court explained, “visitation was addressed ” at the July 10, 2013 hear ing. On August 28, 2013, the mother appealed the denial of the section 388 petition. The appeal from the denial of the modi fication 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 th is case. The juvenile court terminated parental rig hts 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 c onsolidated

.

III. EVIDENCE

A. Detention Report

On January 2, 2010, the department received a referral alleging the mother
emotional ly abused the child. Children’s social worker Eleanor Clements went to the6

Ronald Reagan Medical Center emergenc y 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 rela ted 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 audit ory and visual hallucinations. However, the mother denied she had visual and auditory hallucinations. The mo ther 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 brea king 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 ch ild 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 Ang e les . 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 A nd Disposition Report

The February 3, 2010 jurisdiction and disposition report was prepared by the children’ s social worker
, Mr. M atthews. The report state s 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

- o ld adopted daughter. The mother called most days to s peak 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 mothe r when she was 12 years old. The mother enjoyed a pleasant upbringing after adop tion. But when the mother became a teenager, she became headstrong and defiant, refusi ng to follow the7

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 o f an uppe r 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 placemen t services. D.F.’s case was closed on November 5, 2004.

C. 2010

- 2012 Review Reports A nd Last Minute Information for the Court Documents

The March 2, 2010 addendum report state d the mother appeared determined to regain custody of the child

. The mother claime d to be visiting the chi ld every week in Long Beach. But the June 18, 2010 interim review report stated the mother had not
visited the ch ild since February 16, 2010. The maternal grandparents reported they had
not seen the mother for several month s. The September 13, 2010 interim review report state d 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 gra ndfather’s church on Sundays. The mother’s random drug tests were all negative. The December 17, 2010 status review report state d the child remained in Linda’s home. The child got along well with all m embers 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’ hom e in Walnut during weekends. The child expressed mixed emotions . On one hand, the child loved the mothe r. Yet the child also felt very close to Linda

. The May 24, 2011 interim review report state d the child remained in Linda’s
home. The child loved living with Linda. B ut the child also loved going to her mother’s home and spending weekends there

. Th e child reported visiting her olde r brother, D.F.,
in Fontana. She enjoyed getting to know her older brother bette r and growing closer to8

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 tim e. She reported the whole family was togethe r 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 infor mation for the court document indicate d the
mother tried to receive welfare benefits f or the child. A Department of Public Social
S ervices 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 m other 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 s ought termination of the mother’s unmonitor ed weekend overn ight visits with the child. The
modification petition allege d 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 receiv ed a call from the Los Angeles Of fice of the Department of Public Social S ervices . T he 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 D epartment and returned to Linda’s care on July 11, 2011. Mr. Matth ews note d 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 cu stody. 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 indicate d the mother visited the child weekly on Saturda ys and at church on Sundays. The child expressed mixed emotions about being re turned to the mother’s home. The child loved Linda but also was very close to t he mother. The child reported seeing her maternal grandparen ts bi

- monthly at
their home. Mr. Matthews stated since May 2011, the mother had been “ through ” three therapis ts in two different clinics. The mother refused to sign release o f information
forms so Mr. Matthews could obtain info rmation 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
issu ed for the child . T he mother failed to return the child to Linda’s home following a
visit. Mr. Matthews made a home visit to the mother’s home b ut neither the mother n or the child w as present

. Mr. Matthews and Linda contact ed the maternal grandparents w ho
stated the mother and child did not com e to church the past Sunday. Mr. Matthews noted
this was the second time the mother failed to return the child to foster c are after a visit. On November 18, 2011, the warrant request was taken off calendar becaus e 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 report ed
the mo ther 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 compl iant with her medication because she was more tangential in her thoughts a t her last meeting with him. Mr. Matthews reported the mother was arrested on a felony charge on November 28, 2 0 1 1 and released the next day. There were no details provided

concern ing the felony charge. On February 29, 2012, Mr. Matthews reported the mother’s arrest was drug

related and the felony charge remained outstanding. Mr. Matthews indica ted Mr. Artiga
was no lo nger the mother’s therapist. The mother continued to refuse to consent to release of infor mation about her medication. When the mother came to pick up her bus10

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 t o 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 mot her did
not visit the child. On June 17, 2012, the mother appeared at Linda’s church in Long
Beach and demanded to see th e child. The mother called the Long Beach police and
claimed Linda had stolen the child. The August 29, 2012 st atus report state d Linda had moved from Long Beach to
Victorvil le in San Bernardino County. The child sa i d she liked her new home. The child reported she continued to visit the maternal grandparents by attending day trips, c hurch,
and movies with them. The child saw the mother at church when staying with the maternal g randparents on most Sundays. The mother usually came to the grandparents’
h ome for dinner after church. Mr. Matthews wrote: “The [child] reports a loving circle including grandparents an d 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. A ccording 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, state d : the child w anted
Linda to adopt her ; Linda had adopted two grandnieces in 2009 who resided with her ; t he child got along very wel l with the grand nieces and they called each other “sisters” ; the child was happy, felt very loved and secure residing with Linda; t he chi ld continued to11

see the mother at church on Sundays during twice monthly visits with the maternal grandparents ; t he child spent 3

- 4 weeks over summer vacation with her maternal grandparents ; and the child saw the mother at church on Sundays when the young ster was wit h her maternal grandparents. Mr. Matthews indica ted on September 20, 2012, the mother came into the department’s o ffice “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 A nd Last Information For T he Court Document s

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 grandpar ents’ 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 continu ed to thrive in the residence

. Linda remained inter ested 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 pe rmanent, stable and l oving home through adoption. The May 16, 2013 last
minute information for the court document state d 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 state d the child stayed with her maternal grandparents during her summer break fr om June 5 to August 5, 2013. The child reported seeing the mother at the maternal grandfather’s church on Sundays . This

occurr ed while the child was staying wit h her maternal grandparents. The child had not12

seen the mother since Easter Sunday. The child reiterated her desire for the adopt ion process to move forward. The child explained she wanted adoption to be completed

. Thi s would permit Linda to make the decision to allow the child to sleep over at a fr iend’s house. Mr. Matthews indicated the mother failed to pick up money for her train
ticket to visit th e child in Rancho Cucamonga. The mother did not appear for her
sched uled visit with the child on August 13, 2013.

F. August 28, 2013 Section 366.26 Report

The August 28, 2013 section 366.26 report state d 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 d uring 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 informat ion for the court document state d 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 [L inda] 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 to13

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

guar dianship 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
coul d visit in Rancho Cucamonga. But twice, the mother failed to go to her sch eduled
visit with the child. The mother’s counsel , Victor Ozoude, responded the mother did not show up because she w as 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 adopt ion and legal guardianship.
The child understood the mother did not have the right to visit her i f 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 wit h the maternal grandparents. T he child has requested additional visits from Mr. Matthews but he had not called her back about the
visits.

IV. DISCUS SION

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 cou rt

. . . 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 req uesting 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 ); In14

re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 612; In re B.D. (2 008) 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 disc retion. ( 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 believ ed Mr. Ozoude’s walk on request to enforce visitation collaterally estopped her from a hearing o n 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 state d the mother has received case and medication management from the mental health cent er 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 interest s would not be served by grant ing the modification petition. T here is ample

uncontra dicted evidence t he 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 we ekend visits with the child. On May 27, 2011,
the moth er 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 bizarre ly

. On July 10, 2011, the mother failed to return the child to Linda after a weekend ove rnight
visit. The child was taken into custody and returned to Linda the next day after the mother again attempted to o btain benefits for the child. Putting aside the issue of welfare fraud, the mother claimed she had regained custody pursuant to a juven ile court order15

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 info rmation from her therapists. On November 12, 2011, the mother again failed t o 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 Novembe r 28, 2011, the mother was arres ted on a felony drug charge. The mother’s clinical social worker, Mr. Artiga, said she had missed sever al appointments in
November. Mr. Artiga reported the mother stated she missed the most recent appointment due to “ ‘ inca rceration. ’ ” Mr. Artiga suspected the mother had not been compliant with her medication because she was more tangential in her thoughts a t 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
info rmation 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 co ncern. 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 acknowled ges 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 mot her did not visit the child. But on June 17, 2012, the mother appeared at Linda’s church in Long Beach an d 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 o ffice “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 t he mother over the holidays at the maternal grandparents’ home. The child saw the mother on
Christmas an d New Yea r’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 state d
the next time child saw the mother was on Easter Sunday. The child did not see the mother aga in until June 2013. During that time, the child saw the mother on Sundays at
the ma ternal 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 re spec ts, th e juvenile court’s determinations are supported by substantial evidence. There were no material changed circumstances nor was it in the child’s best interest s for a hearing to be
held o n the modification petition’s merits.

B. Continuance of Section 3 66.26 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, su bdivision (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 placement s . [¶] 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 j uvenile 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 deferenti al standard of review, th e mother’s contention that the juvenile court erred in denying the continuance is meritles s. The juvenile court ruled the November 26, 2013 continuance was not i n the child’s best interest. The child has17

been a dependent of the c ourt 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 lovin g home thro ugh adoption. Linda’s adoptive home study had be en approved in January 2013. The child thrived in Linda’s home and felt happy, loved and secure living with the prospective adoptive family

. T he child got along very well with
Linda ’s two adopted grand nie ces 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 Relations hip 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 4 5 , 52

- 53; In re Marilyn
H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 30 7 .) Our Supreme Court has summarized th e 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 plac ement 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 termi nate 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 exc eption . This exception is set forth in s ection 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) w hich 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 would18

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 1 4 11, 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 cour ts 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 p p. 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 C al.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.) N o 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 rela tionship 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

s he occupied a p arental 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 visit ation. (§ 366.2 6, subd. (c)( 1)(B)( i ).) Under any standard of appellate review, the mother did not m e et her burden. In January 2010,
the mother called the youngster most days and visited a fter 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 ma ternal grandfather’s church. In March 2011, the mother was granted unmonitored visits. But
the visits became monitored in November 2011 a fter 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 ch ild.
The mother called the police and falsel y 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 month ly

. But in February 2013, the child was interviewed by Mr. Matthews. The ch ild had
not seen or heard from the mothe r since before the holidays. The child reported visiting
with the mother on C hristmas and New Year’s Day. The next time the child saw the
mother was on Easter Su nday. The mother did not v isit again until the summe r. 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 grandparent s’ home through August
2013. The mother complains visitation was difficult after the child moved to San
Bernardino C ounty 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
Jul y 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 findin g that the parent

- child relationship exception was in applicable.20 V. DISPOSITION

T he 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 t he California Constitution.