Filed 2/10/21 In re J.F. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

In re J.F., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

 B304143

 (Los Angeles County

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent.

v.

K.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 Super. Ct. No. DK23787A)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County. Michael Kelley, Judge. Affirmed.

Mark L. Levinson for Defendant and Appellant.

Tarkian & Associates and Arezoo Pichvai for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.
2

Keith C. (father) appeals from an order terminating his 

parental rights to five-year-old Jemma F. (born April 2015). 

Father argues that the juvenile court erred in terminating his 

parental rights. While father fails to cite any legal authority 

supporting his argument, he appears to be arguing that the 

juvenile court erred in declining to apply the beneficial parental 

relationship exception to termination of parental rights under 

Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision 

(c)(1)(B)(i).1 Father also fails to provide any citations to the 

record in his opening brief supporting the factual basis for his 

argument.2 “To demonstrate error, appellant must present 

meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and 

citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.” 

(In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 408.) Because father has 

failed to provide citations to legal authority or pertinent facts in 

his opening brief, we deem his argument to be without foundation 

and waived. (Id. at pp. 408; 418; Kaufman v. Goldman (2011) 

195 Cal.App.4th 734, 743 [“Every argument presented by an 

appellant must be supported by both coherent argument and 

pertinent legal authority. . . . If either is not provided, the 

appellate court may treat the issue as waived”].)

Further, even if we were to consider the merits of father’s 

argument, we would find that the record supports the juvenile 

____________________________________________________________

1 Father has not cited this code section, nor any other legal 

authority, in his opening brief as support for his argument that 

the juvenile court erred. All further statutory references are to 

the Welfare and Institutions Code.

2 In his reply brief, father provides five citations to the 

record, but no citations to legal authority.
3

court’s determination that father did not play a parental role in 

Jemma’s life, and instead provided nothing more than friendly 

interaction. Father’s visits with the child were inconsistent and 

never liberalized. The record supports the juvenile court’s 

determination that father did not meet his burden of proving that 

the termination of his parental rights would be detrimental to the 

child. Therefore, we affirm the judgment. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND3

Family

Father is the presumed father of Jemma (born Apr. 2015), 

and Sarah F. (mother) is the mother.4 At the commencement of 

this case, Jemma resided with mother at the home of maternal 

grandparents. Mother and father were never married and had 

an “on again/off again” relationship. A family law order 

permitted father to visit Jemma on the first and third weekends 

of the month and every Wednesday evening for four hours.

Initial referral and petition

In July 2017, DCFS received a referral alleging that 

mother, who had struggled with alcoholism for many years, had 

been unable to resolve the problem. Mother drank to excess both 

inside and outside of her home, and was known to drive the child 

while under the influence of alcohol. The caller reported that the 

family was concerned for the safety of the child in mother’s care. 

____________________________________________________________

3 Since father has failed to provide any citations to the record 

to support the factual statements in his briefs, we have relied on 

respondent’s (Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services (DCFS)) citations supporting this factual 

background.

4 Mother is not a party to this appeal.
4

Mother reportedly had diagnoses of depression and bipolar 

disorder for which she took medication.

A DCFS social worker interviewed maternal grandparents 

and learned that mother had participated in two rehabilitation 

programs but had recently begun drinking again after one and 

one-half years of sobriety. Mother had driven Jemma while 

intoxicated a few times. Maternal grandparents wished to care 

for Jemma while mother participated in another rehabilitation 

program. Mother, age 32, was also interviewed. She reported 

drinking regularly since she was 18 years old. Mother stated 

that she and father had an amicable “on again/ off again”

relationship. Mother wished to re-enroll in a drug treatment 

program and wanted maternal grandparents to care for Jemma 

while she was absent.

In a July 13, 2017 interview with a social worker, father 

admitted he had a prior case with DCFS regarding his older 

daughter as a result of his use of methamphetamines. Father 

had completed a drug treatment program and has been sober 

since 2010. Father was aware of mother’s drinking, and that 

mother had driven with Jemma in the car while intoxicated since 

the maternal grandparents had informed him. Father stated 

that if he knew mother was drinking and driving with Jemma, he 

would have taken her car keys. Though father resided with 

paternal grandparents, he was trying to find a place of his own, 

and then he would apply for custody of Jemma.

Mother began outpatient treatment for her alcoholism on 

August 9, 2017. However, shortly thereafter, mother arrived 

home in the evening with Jemma stumbling and smelling of 

alcohol, after driving with two-year-old Jemma in the car. 
5

Mother admitted to the relapse and to driving under the 

influence with Jemma in the car. 

The social worker spoke with father on August 16, 2017. 

Father stated that due to his current living situation and his long 

work hours, he was not able to take custody of Jemma at that 

time. Father believed that maternal grandparents were good 

caretakers and a positive force in Jemma’s life. Father agreed 

that maternal grandparents should care for Jemma at that time. 

On August 22, 2017, DCFS filed a petition on behalf of 

Jemma pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), alleging that 

mother had a history of abusing drugs and was a current abuser 

of alcohol; that father knew of mother’s substance abuse and 

failed to protect the child; that mother drove a vehicle under the 

influence of alcohol while the child was a passenger in the car; 

and that mother suffered from mental and emotional problems 

including manic depression, bipolar disorder and post-traumatic 

stress disorder. The petition further alleged that father was 

unable to provide appropriate parental care and supervision of 

the child.

At the detention hearing, mother and father submitted to 

Jemma’s detention from their care. The court ordered the child 

detained with maternal grandparents. Father was granted 

unmonitored visits.

Jurisdiction/disposition

Family members were interviewed again during the 

jurisdiction/ disposition period. Paternal grandmother stated 

that father was loving and attentive with Jemma and was good at 

feeding her and changing her diapers. Paternal grandmother 

wanted father to obtain his own residence so that he did not 

become dependent on her to care for the child. Maternal 
6

grandmother reported that father loved Jemma and tried to help 

both Jemma and mother, however, “[t]hey are both addicts with 

addict behavior. Jemma is right in the middle of all their crap.”

On October 19, 2017, the social worker asked father to test 

for drugs. Father agreed but did not test, reporting that his 

identification had expired. Father claimed he would obtain a new 

identification and then submit to an on-demand drug test. On 

November 1, 2017, father again declined to submit to a requested 

drug test due to his failure to have valid identification. When the 

social worker offered to take his picture and put it on a piece of 

paper to use as identification, father objected to submission to a 

drug test because he was not the reason that there was an open 

case with DCFS. Father reported that he was not using drugs. 

The social worker reported concern about father driving Jemma 

without a valid driver’s license and car insurance. 

In November 2017, Jemma’s therapist reported that she 

had been meeting with Jemma and maternal grandmother 

consistently since October 2017. She was unsuccessful in her 

attempt to contact father and get him involved in the therapy 

sessions.

In December 2017, the social worker again attempted to get 

father to submit to a drug test. Again, father agreed, but then 

failed to appear for the drug test.

In early January 2018, father refused to submit to a drug 

test, stating that he was only in the case “voluntarily” to help 

mother, and refused to submit to a drug test.

In February 2018, father stated that he had moved out of 

paternal grandparents’ home and was staying with friends, Gary 

and Brenda P. The social worker assessed the home and found 
7

that it did not have appropriate bedding for father or Jemma. 

Father stated he would get a toddler bed as soon as possible.

The adjudication hearing was held on February 15, 2018. 

Mother and father signed waiver of rights forms, and the juvenile 

court sustained the petition under section 300, subdivision (b). 

The court declared Jemma a dependent child and ordered DCFS 

to provide reunification services. The court ordered father to 

participate in parenting classes, conjoint counseling with mother, 

and to submit to six consecutive random drug tests. Father was 

granted unmonitored visitation and DCFS was given discretion to 

release Jemma to him. 

Six-month reunification period

Jemma continued to live with maternal grandparents. She 

was happy in the home and bonded to her caregivers. Mother 

participated in an outpatient drug program and completed a 

parenting class. Mother was arrested for driving under the 

influence on March 18, 2018, and tested positive for alcohol on 

May 30, 2018, and June 4, 2018.

The social worker attempted to discuss father’s case plan 

with him but father did not understand why he had a case plan 

when the reason for the case was mother’s alcohol abuse. On

March 29, 2018, the social worker mailed father a referral packet 

with the court-ordered case plan and a letter with information on 

the required drug tests. On May 29, 2018, father responded that 

he received the referral packet and agreed with several items of 

the case plan, but did not agree with the order for drug testing 

because he felt his rights were being violated. Father claimed 

that he did not abuse any substances, worked full time, and did 

not understand why the court was requiring so much of him.
8

On June 14, 2018, when the social worker again asked 

father about drug testing, he responded that he did not want to 

drug test due to “the princi[ple] of the matter.” Father felt 

pressured and claimed he had trouble urinating with someone 

else present. The social worker encouraged father to drug test 

and enroll in the other court-ordered programs. 

On June 26, 2018, father’s counselor informed the social 

worker that father had enrolled and participated in individual 

counseling and parenting classes.

At a Child and Family Team Meeting on July 3, 2018, 

father stated that he wanted Jemma to live with him. Father 

reported that he would be willing to submit to a hair follicle test, 

but he might not have enough hair, as he had shaved off all of his 

hair. 

Father offered to have the social worker observe him with 

Jemma to see his parenting skills and the bond he had with 

Jemma. After the social worker made the appointment, father 

cancelled. Another appointment was made for July 11, 2018, but 

father was not there when the social worker went to his home. 

On August 16, 2018, the section 366.21, subdivision (e), sixmonth review hearing was held. The juvenile court found that 

mother’s and father’s compliance had been “partial,” and ordered 

DCFS to continue to provide family reunification services. 

Father was ordered to submit to random, on-demand drug 

testing. The court granted father’s request to submit to a hair 

follicle drug test.

18-month reunification period

Father completed a 12-week parenting program and six 

weeks of individual and conjoint counseling. He was reported to 
9

have a positive attitude in both programs. Father had still not 

submitted to drug testing.

Father continued to have unmonitored visits with Jemma, 

increased to every Monday and Wednesday for four hours each 

visit, every other Friday, and every other weekend. Father’s work 

schedule sometimes interfered with his visits, and when it did, 

father would only visit with Jemma on Fridays and every other 

weekend. The maternal grandparents reported that Jemma was 

happy to see father and to go with him on the visits. Father 

requested overnight unmonitored visits. 

Maternal grandmother expressed concern that father was 

driving Jemma without a valid driver’s license. Sometimes 

father would park around the corner and walk to the maternal 

grandparents’ home to get Jemma. Maternal grandmother 

complained that father did not speak to the maternal 

grandmother, often did not confirm visits, and showed up late 

without calling. Father changed the time of his visits to 

accommodate his work and softball game schedules, and was not 

consistent with his visitation times. 

Father had not completed the court order for six 

consecutive drug tests, claiming that he did not know about the 

order. When reminded about the hair follicle drug test, father 

stated that the test was never set up for him. 

An assessment of father’s home was scheduled for 

December 7, 2018. The social worker sent father a text message 

reminding him of the appointment, however, when the social 

worker arrived at father’s home, he was not there. Father later 

stated that he went to work and forgot. When the social worker 

asked father about drug testing, father again objected because 

the child had been detained due to mother’s substance abuse. 
10

Father stated that he shaved his head and did not have enough 

hair for a hair follicle test. 

A hair follicle test for father was scheduled for February 8, 

2019. On February 7, 2019, the social worker told father it was 

important that he not miss the test. On February 8, 2019, the 

social worker went to father’s home, but he was not there. The 

social worker later learned that father failed to appear for the 

hair follicle test. 

On March 29, 2019, the social worker contacted father by 

text message and asked when they could meet at father’s home. 

Father offered to meet the following Tuesday at 5:00 p.m. 

However, when the social worker texted to confirm the 

appointment the following Tuesday, father replied that he would 

not be home because he was helping a friend move. 

On April 5, 2019, the social worker contacted father about 

his failure to drug test. Father again complained that he should 

not be required to test because he was a “non-offending parent.” 

On Tuesday, April 9, 2019, the social worker met with father at 

father’s home and received a tour of the home, which was clean 

and appropriate with no visible safety hazards.

On May 7, 2019, the maternal grandfather contacted the 

social worker about an incident with father. Father was late to 

pick up Jemma. Maternal grandparents contacted father 30 

minutes after the scheduled visit time and canceled the visit. 

Father became angry and came to maternal grandparents’ home, 

but they did not allow the visit to occur. Maternal grandparents 

requested that father’s pick-ups and drop-offs occur at a police 

station. 

On May 21, 2019, the court held the 18-month review 

hearing. Father’s counsel requested that Jemma be returned to 
11

father’s care. Jemma’s counsel requested that the juvenile court 

terminate reunification services, arguing that father refused to 

submit to drug tests, and that father’s drug use was an issue, 

based on the previous case with father’s older daughter. The 

juvenile court found that father was not in substantial 

compliance with the case plan and terminated reunification 

services. The court continued the matter for a section 366.26 

hearing to select a permanent plan for Jemma. 

Selection of permanent plan and termination of parental 

rights

Maternal grandfather reported that in June 2019, father 

called and asked them to pick up Jemma because father was at a 

party and had been drinking alcohol. Maternal grandfather was 

concerned about who was watching Jemma while father was 

drinking.

Father had moved in with a girlfriend and her three 

children. Father’s weekend visits with Jemma had remained 

consistent, but his Monday and Wednesday evening visits were 

not.

In a report dated September 3, 2019, DCFS recommended 

adoption by maternal grandparents to be the permanent plan for 

Jemma. The maternal grandparents were committed to adopting 

Jemma, and she was thriving in their loving and stable home.

On November 7, 2019, father was asked to submit to a drug 

test the following day. Father did not comply because he had 

plans to leave town. The test was rescheduled for November 12, 

2019. Father appeared and tested negative for drugs. The social 

worker informed father that he should submit to a random drug 

test, not a scheduled one.
12

On November 18, 2019, the juvenile court held the section 

366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for 

Jemma. Father objected to DCFS’s plan to terminate his 

parental rights. Father testified that he was able to care for 

Jemma; that he had recently tested negative for drugs; and that 

he had also submitted to three drug tests for his employer, all of 

which were negative. Father stated that maternal grandparents 

were unwilling to modify the visitation schedule for him, but he 

was always agreeable to any modification that they requested. 

Father admitted that he sometimes returned Jemma late to their 

care, but he would always inform them in advance.

Maternal grandfather testified that father was late 

bringing Jemma home 65 percent of the time. On two occasions, 

father asked maternal grandparents to pick up Jemma. One was 

the incident during which father was drinking alcohol, and 

another was a time when he had back to back softball games. 

After returning from a visit with father, Jemma had trouble 

settling down. 

Maternal grandmother testified that she had informed 

father about Jemma’s first days of school. Father attended one, 

but was unable to attend the other. Maternal grandmother also 

occasionally informed father of Jemma’s medical and dental 

appointments. Father had attended one or two appointments. 

Maternal grandmother described her relationship with father as 

“strained,” but she hoped they could be good friends someday.

The hearing was continued for argument to November 22, 

2019. Father’s counsel argued that he had maintained visitation 

as best he could. He was not able to make all the medical and 

dental appointments because mother and maternal grandmother 

had not provided him with all the necessary information. 
13

Father’s counsel argued that father’s bond with Jemma was 

strong, as he had spent time with Jemma and consistently 

requested more visitation.

Both mother’s and Jemma’s counsel consented to DCFS’s 

recommendation that mother’s parental rights be terminated in 

favor of adoption by the maternal grandparents.

The court took the matter under submission and on 

December 10, 2019, the juvenile court found by clear and 

convincing evidence that Jemma was adoptable. The court 

further found that father had not met his burden of showing a 

parental bond under the exception to termination of parental 

rights. The court described father’s visitation as “episodic at 

best.” The court noted that father only began weekday visits 

after termination of reunification services. The court further 

found that father had not engaged in activities associated with a 

parental role, concluding that father’s bond with Jemma was 

“tenuous” and did not “rise to the level of a bond that would 

outweigh the statutorily mandated preference that minors be 

provided permanence and stability.” The court terminated 

mother’s and father’s parental rights and freed Jemma for 

adoption.

On February 4, 2020, father filed his notice of appeal from 

the orders issued at the permanency planning hearing.

DISCUSSION

I. Father has waived any issues on appeal

In both his opening and reply brief on appeal, father has 

failed to provide citations to pertinent legal authority. Father 

also failed to provide citations to the record in his opening brief. 

Due to his failure to cite any legal authority supporting his 

appeal, father has failed to clearly articulate any legal argument. 
14

“Dependency proceedings in the juvenile court are special 

proceedings with their own set of rules, governed, in general, by 

the Welfare and Institutions Code.” (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 

Cal.4th 196, 200.) In his opening brief, father cites only one code 

section: section 331, which father claims authorizes his appeal. 

In fact, section 331 does not provide authority for father’s 

appeal.5 Father cites no other legal authority at all, statutory or 

common law, thus provides no legal basis for any argument that 

the juvenile court erred.

Further, father’s appeal violates the California Rules of 

Court. Under rule 8.204(a)(1)(A), each brief must “[b]egin with a 

table of contents and a table of authorities separately listing 

cases, constitutions, statutes, court rules, and other authorities 

cited.” Father has included a table of authorities in his opening 

brief, but it cites only section 331, the purported authority for his 

appeal, which is an irrelevant statute. In his reply brief, father 

failed to include a table of authorities. Father cites no legal 

authority at all in his reply brief.

Pursuant to rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), an appellant is required to 

“[s]tate each point under a separate heading or subheading 

summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, 

if possible, by citation of authority.” Father cites no pertinent 

authority at all in either his opening brief or his reply brief.

____________________________________________________________

5 Section 331 provides: “When any person has applied to the 

social worker, pursuant to Section 329, to commence juvenile 

court proceedings and the social worker fails to file a petition 

within three weeks after the application, the person may, within 

one month after making the application, apply to the juvenile 

court to review the decision of the social worker, and the court 

may either affirm the decision of the social worker or order him 

or her to commence juvenile court proceedings.”
15

Pursuant to rule 8.204(a)(1)(C), an appellant must 

“[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to 

the volume and page number of the record where the matter 

appears.” In spite of pages full of argument regarding the facts of 

the case, father has failed to provide any record citations in his 

opening brief.

As the appellant, father bears the burden of demonstrating 

error, through meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to 

authority and citations to facts in the record that support the 

claim of error. (In re S.C., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 408.) 

Father has failed to meet this burden. Because father has failed 

to provide citations to legal authority and pertinent facts, we 

deem his argument to be without foundation and waived. (Id. at 

pp. 408; 418; Kaufman v. Goldman, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 

743.)

II. The juvenile court did not err 

DCFS assumes that father intended to argue that the 

juvenile court erred in declining to apply the beneficial parental 

relationship exception to termination of parental rights under 

section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). Although father has not 

cited this statute, nor any law interpreting the provision, we 

briefly address it. Father has failed to show that the juvenile 

court erred in declining to apply this exception to termination of 

father’s parental rights.

Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) provides that if a 

child is adoptable, the court shall order a plan of adoption unless 

(1) the parent has maintained regular visitation and contact with 

the child, and (2) the child would benefit from continuing the 

relationship. A juvenile court’s findings under section 366.26 are 

usually challenged for sufficiency of the evidence. “The appellant 
16

has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently 

substantial nature to support the finding or order.” (In re Dakota 

H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.) “Because a section 366.26 

hearing occurs only after the court has repeatedly found the 

parent unable to meet the child’s needs, it is only in an 

extraordinary case that preservation of the parent’s rights will 

prevail over the Legislature’s preference for adoptive placement.” 

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

Courts have applied both the substantial evidence standard 

and the abuse of discretion standard to the two components of the 

exception to termination of parental rights found in section 

366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i). (In re Jasmine D., supra, 78 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1351.) The two standards are similar, giving 

broad discretion to the factual determinations of the juvenile 

court. (Ibid.)

A. Father failed to show consistent visitation

As the juvenile court noted, father’s visitation with Jemma 

was inconsistent, or “episodic at best.” The court noted that 

father only began weekday visits after termination of 

reunification services. While father complains on appeal that the 

maternal grandparents restricted his visitation, father fails to 

provide a citation to the record showing that he complained of 

any such obstacles to DCFS.

Further, while father claims that he consistently sought 

liberalization of his visits with Jemma, he also failed to drug test 

as required. DCFS could not use its discretion to liberalize 

father’s visits until father complied with the court’s orders to 

submit to random drug testing. Father never did so, and his 

visits were never liberalized to overnight visits. At the May 21, 

2019 section 366.22 hearing, father’s counsel specifically 
17

requested that Jemma be placed in his care. The juvenile court 

found father’s refusal to drug test to be a factor in its decision to 

terminate reunification services. The court noted that drug 

testing was court ordered, and father had not complied. 

In addition, there was evidence that father did not take full 

advantage of the visits he was permitted. While he consistently 

visited with Jemma on the weekends, his weekday visits lacked 

consistency. Under the circumstances, the evidence supports the 

juvenile court’s decision that father’s visitation with Jemma was 

inconsistent.

B. Father failed to show detriment to Jemma

The ‘“benefit from continuing the [parent/child] 

relationship”’ exception means “the relationship promotes the 

well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the wellbeing the child would gain in a permanent home with new, 

adoptive parents.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 

575.) “In other words, the court balances the strength and 

quality of the natural parent/child relationship in a tenuous 

placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new 

family would confer. If severing the natural parent/child 

relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive 

emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly 

harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural 

parent’s rights are not terminated.” (Ibid.)

The evidence in the record supports the juvenile court’s 

decision that maintaining father’s relationship with Jemma 

would not outweigh the benefit she would gain from being 

adopted by the maternal grandparents. Jemma never lived with 

father. Instead, she lived with the maternal grandparents from 

the inception of this case until the order terminating parental 
18

rights. Thus, she lived with maternal grandparents for most of 

her life, and saw them as her caregivers. Father did not engage 

in the activities expected of a parent. He did not attend all, or 

even most of the medical, dental and school appointments that he 

was invited to attend. Father would take Jemma to a restaurant 

or a park where he played softball. While these visits provided 

pleasant and friendly interactions, father did not engage in the 

types of activities that demonstrate a parental role. Under the 

circumstances, the juvenile court did not err in determining that 

father had failed to meet his burden of showing that the 

termination of his parental rights would harm Jemma to such a 

degree as would outweigh the benefit to her of being adopted by 

her maternal grandparents.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________, J.

CHAVEZ

We concur:

__________________________, P. J.

LUI

__________________________, J.

HOFFSTADT