Filed 12/17/14 In re W.L. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re W.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. DALE L., Defendant and Appellant. D066042
(Super. Ct. No. EJ3305D)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Sa n Diego County, Laura J. Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed.

Elizabeth C. Alexander, under appointmen t by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.2 Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Patrice Plattner-Grainger, De puty County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Dale L. appeals findings and an order en tered at a permanency plan and selection hearing for his son, W.L., under Welfar e and Institutions Code section 366.26. 1 He contends the court erred when it found that W. L. did not have a beneficial parent/child relationship with his father and termin ated parental rights. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND W.L. was born in December 2008 while his mother was incarc erated. When W.L. was approximately 10 days old, his father, Da le, took custody of him and raised him as a single parent. W.L.'s mother did not remain in his life. On May 3, 2012, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed a petition alleging there was a substantial risk three- year-old W.L. would suffer serious physical harm or illness as a result of domestic violence and inadequate supervision. Dale was arrested for domestic vi olence on March 12. He left W.L. in the care of his girlfriend, who was a known drug user, and W.L. tested positive for methamphetamine. In January 2011, anothe r girlfriend was caring for W.L. when she was arrested on charges of possession of he roin. W.L. was present during a domestic altercation between his father and this girlfriend in June 2011.

1 All further statutory references ar e to the Welfare and Institutions Code.3 Dale submitted to a drug test in May 2012, which was negative. He was convicted of domestic violence and ordered to comple te a 52-week program. Dale acknowledged he had a history of drug and alcohol abuse. He had felony convictions for conspiracy, burglary and receiving stolen property in 2002. He also had two misdemeanor convictions: in 1998, for bein g under the influence of a c ontrolled substance and in 2001, for theft. Dale told a social worker he accepte d responsibility for leaving W.L. with inappropriate caregivers and was taking st eps to disassociate himself from unsuitable persons. Dale said he had lived a hard life because of drugs. He and his son had a good life that was focused on outdoo r activities and nature. Dale restored cars and boats. He liked teaching W.L. about mechan ics and how things worked. The social worker said Dale was atten tive to W.L.'s needs. W.L. was a wellbehaved, well-mannered child who said "ple ase" and "thank you. " W.L. and Dale appeared to have an appropriate, strong atta chment to each other. W.L. was happy during the visit until it was time for Dale to leave. W.L. wanted to take his nap at home and insisted on leaving w ith his father. The social worker said Dale was hard working and did his best to raise his son without any support from the child's mother. However, he had had a succession of violent relationships with women who had su bstance abuse problems. W.L. described witnessing a domestic violence in cident and said he was scared and tried to hide. According to the social wo rker, Dale's care of W.L. was evident in the child's behavior and manners. Dale met W.L.'s need s for appropriate food, shelter and clothing,4 and was in the process of s ecuring health insurance and making an appointment for W.L.'s delayed hernia operatio n when the child was detained. W.L. had a delightful personality. He was respectful to adults, and presented as a genuine ly happy and healthy child. In July 2012, the juvenile court sustained the se ction 300 petition, placed W.L. with nonrelative extended fa mily members (caregivers), and ordered a plan of reunification services for Dale. After several initial supervised visits, Da le was allowed unsupervised visits with his son. Visitation was inte rrupted when Dale was hospita lized. The Agen cy was willing to expand visitation to allow home visits; how ever Dale would not di sclose the identity of the woman with whom he wa s living to the Agency. Dale complained he was not gaining a ny benefit from servi ces and had to be encouraged to continue to participate in them. Between May 9 and August 30, Dale submitted to random substance abuse testing 16 times. Three of those tests were positive for alcohol and low levels of methamphetamine . Three other specimens were diluted and considered unsuitable for testing. Dale tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, codeine, morphine and TH C (tetrahydrocannabinol) on August 30. On September 1, Dale was arrested for assa ulting his girlfriend, false imprisonment and violating a restraining order, and was incarcerat ed. He punched and kicked his girlfriend, sending her to the hospital w ith a concussion and a broken nose. When asked about domestic violence, he said he could no t help the way "these women act."5 The Agency learned that Dale's girlfriend was the daughter and stepdaughter of W.L.'s caregivers, and he had not disclose d their ongoing relationship to the social worker or the caregivers. The caregiver said her relationship with her stepdaughter was strained because of the daughter's drug use, and they "love[d] her from a distance." W.L. called his caregivers "N ana" and "Papa." After Dale was incarcerated, W.L. wanted to know where his father was and wh y he could not live with him. The social worker referred W.L. to therapy to addre ss the ongoing questions he had about his father's circumstances. The so cial worker said W.L. was a sweet-natured child who was generally happy and lighthearted. Accordi ng to the court-appoin ted special advocate (CASA), W.L. was a caring, thoughtful child, who was much more aware and considerate of others than most children. W.L.'s teac her said W.L. was on track developmentally and had an above average awareness of other people's needs. Dale was released from jail in Decemb er. He visited W.L. on December 10, bringing a birthday cake he had made for W.L. W.L. was happy to see his father. Visits went well and there were no concer ns about their interactions. On January 22, 2013, Dale disclosed he had used methamphetamine. He entered an inpatient substance abuse treatment fac ility. He was discharged in March for noncompliance. Dale became ups et, telling his therapist not to be surprised if the news showed that some people had been shot a nd he had committed suic ide. The therapist notified the social worker abou t Dale's threats, and W.L. a nd his caregivers moved to a motel for several days. Dale apologized to the social worker. He said he was just venting and did not intend his remarks to be taken seriously. The social worker made6 arrangements for Dale to enter another substa nce abuse treatment facility. By July, Dale had reached phase III of th e program, started therapy and obtained employment. However, in August, Dale was discharged fr om the substance abuse treatment program for taking a medication that was not approved for his use. At the time of the 12-month review hearin g in August 2013, Dale had just started therapy. He had not been able to regularly participate in domestic violence treatment and was seeing a former girlfriend with whom he had a history of dom estic violence. The juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a hearing unde r section 366.26. The social worker assessed W.L. as adopt able. He was a happy, cheerful little boy without any behavior problems . His teacher said W.L. wa s "very well adjusted." The social worker asked W.L. to draw the people he wanted to be in his house as he grew up. He named only Nana and Papa. The social worker continue d to speak to W.L. about placement. At times, W.L. said he wanted to live with his father. At other times, he expressed a desire to remain with his caregivers. W.L.'s caregivers decided they did not have the ability to provide a permanent home to W.L. because of their ages and health. In February 2014, the Agency transitioned W.L. into a new foster home, wh ich was a concurrent adoptive home. W.L. said he was happy with his new family. He did not display any anxiety or acting out. The foster family was committe d to maintaining contact be tween W.L. and his former caregivers, and the four adults had develope d a good relationship. The foster family understood that W.L. would benefit from continued cont act with his father. However,7 due to Dale's history of domestic violence an d threats, they were not open to allowing W.L. to have any contact with Dale unless supervised by the Agency. W.L. continued to visit his father every week. According to th e social worker, the visits were comfortable and cordial. W.L. greeted his father with a smile and hug, and hugged him good-bye. Dale often brought a toy or food to share with him. The section 366.26 hearing was held on May 14 and 15, 2014. The court received reports from the social worker and the CASA, and accepted W.L.'s stipulated testimony. Dale and his friend, Na ncy S., testified. The social worker observed two visits be tween Dale and W.L. in November 2013. W.L. gave his father a present of a necklace a nd bracelet he had made out of beads. Dale spoke softly and lovingly w ith W.L. Dale asked W.L. about school, his friends, the caregivers' family and dogs, an d if he was brushing his teet h. They played Monopoly together. Toward the end of the visit, Dale gently encouraged W.L. to clean up, and they worked together. At the next visit, Dale brought games and books, and wore the bead necklace W.L. had made for him. W.L. put hi s hand on his father's ha nd as they sat near each other. At the end of the visits, Dale put W.L. in his car seat. They exchanged hugs and kisses, and said "I l ove you" to each other. The social worker said W.L.'s visits w ith his father were positive and he obviously loved his father. He enjoyed Dale's attenti on and company. However, the social worker said Dale had become merely a friendly vis itor to W.L. because his visitation had been interrupted by Dale's health problems, incarceration and subs tance abuse treatment. In the social worker's opinion, W.L. would benefit more from having a permanent home8 than he would from continued contact with his father. She acknowledged that W.L. would experience a loss if his relationship with his father was severed, but any harm to W.L. would be ameliorated by having a stable and permanent home. Nancy S. testified she saw Dale and W. L. several times a week before W.L.'s removal. W.L. played with her granddaughter. He was a da ddy's boy. W.L. had a little toolbox and would pretend to help his father. If he were hurt, he would cry for his father. If W.L. misbehaved, Dale would make him take a nap or stop watching television. Dale was strict. If he said it, he meant it. W.L. knew that and obeyed his father. Nancy last saw Dale and W.L. before W.L. wa s placed in protective custody. Dale testified he moved to a new neighb orhood on the advice of the first social worker. He did not remain in contact w ith his former associates. Dale was a carpenter/laborer. He was temporarily laid off but expected to start work again within the month. Dale had good recommendations from his employers. Dale said he was sober and was attending Narcotics An onymous meetings. Although he was court ordered to complete a domestic violence treatment progr am as a condition of probation, he attended sessions sporadically. When W.L. lived with his caregivers, Dale would pick him up for visits. They would go to the feed store to look at the baby chic kens, or to the park to play ball or fly a remote controlled helicopter. Cu rrently, Dale telephoned W.L. two or three times a week and visited him once a week. According to supervised visitation logs, W. L. consistently went to his father easily and willingly, and interacted and communicated with him. He initiated and displayed physical affection with his father, and remained in close physical proximity to him. Dale9 was very active with W.L. while remaining awar e of his safety. At a visit in December 2013, W.L. ran to the door as soon as his saw his father arrive. They held hands as they walked to the visitation room. Dale helped W.L. put things together and encouraged him to clean up before playing with another toy. At a January visit, W.L. ran towards Dale when he saw him and gave him a hug. W.L. enjoye d being with his fa ther throughout the visit. At another visit, Dale appeared to be tired but remained engaged with W.L. throughout the visit. On anot her occasion, Dale and W.L. walked to the parking lot hand in hand. In February, W.L. hugged his father tightly around his neck. Dale said, "I love you son. You're the best son there is." W.L. replied, "I know." They "high-fived" each other. At the first visit after W.L. was placed with the new foster family, W.L. ran to Dale and gave him a Valentine's Day card he had made for him at sc hool. Dale thanked him and said, "I love it, son, and I love you ." W.L. replied, "Yeah, I already knowed that." They enjoyed playing ou tside and looking for bugs. Dale gave an interactive globe to W.L. and showed him how to use it. The parties stipulated to the admission of W.L.'s interview with father's attorney and minor's counsel. W.L. said he liked livi ng with his new family because they had lots of toys and a playground, and th ey were nice to him. He lik ed having a sister. W.L. said he visited his dad once or twice a week. He liked visiting his dad because he liked to play with him. He wanted to see his dad every day. If W.L. could live anywhere he wanted, he would live with his dad. He knew the word "adoption" meant he would "stay here and become a [new family's last name]. " He felt good about that because the family10 was nice to him. W.L. did not know that adop tion meant he might not be able to see his dad again. W.L. said he woul d be "sad" if he could not see his dad. When asked why, he said he did not know. Minor' s counsel asked him if he kne w he would be sad. W.L. replied he did not know if he would be sad. The juvenile court said it was impressed with Dale and had a lot of respect for him, especially his work ethic. Dale had a deep and abiding love for his son. W.L. had great affection for his father and visitation was positive for him. The court found that Dale proved he had a positiv e relationship with his son and was much more than a friendly visitor. W.L. recognized his father as "daddy." However, he was happy being in a stable home. Characterizing it as a "tou gh" decision, the court found there were no exceptions to adoption and term inated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
A The Parties' Contentions Dale contends the juvenile court erre d when it terminated his parental rights because the eviden ce established he and W.L. shared a beneficial parent/child relationship. He states the evidence show s that he maintained regular contact and visitation with his son and that he and W.L. shared an extr aordinarily close connection. He consistently demonstrated a parental role with W.L. W.L. was disappointed if his father was not able to visit him. Dale ar gues W.L. had a close bon ded relationship with him, and would suffer great harm if the rela tionship was severed, and the importance of the parent/child bond to W.L. outweighed the benefits he would gain from adoption.11 The Agency contends Dale did not occupy a parental role in W.L.'s life. The social worker assessed Dale's re lationship to W.L. to be that of a friendly visitor, and the beneficial relationship exception did not apply. The Agency further argues that even if Dale had a parental relationshi p with W.L., Dale failed to prove that the benefit of continuing the parent/child relationship outwei ghed the benefits of adoption to W.L., who needed permanen ce and stability.
B Legal Principles and Standard of Review At a section 366.26 hearing, the court may select one of three permanency plans: adoption, guardianship or long-term foster care. ( In re Taya C . (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 1, 7.) There is a strong preference for adop tion over alternative permanency plans. ( In re Michael G . (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 580, 588-589.) If the court determines the child is likely to be adopted, the burde n shifts to the parent to show by a preponderance of evidence that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child under one of the exceptions listed in sec tion 366.26, subdivision (c)(1). ( In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1343-1345.) An exception to termination of parental rights exists when "[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the ch ild would benefit from continuing the relations hip." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i ).) " '[B]enefit from continuing the . . . relationship' " means " 'the [parent/child] relationship' . . . promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outwe igh the well-being the child would gain in a12 permanent home with new, adoptive parents." ( In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 ( Autumn H. ).) Where the parent has continued to regula rly visit and contact the child, and the child has maintained or developed a signifi cant, positive, emotiona l attachment to the parent, "the court balances th e strength and quality of the natu ral parent/child relationship in a tenuous placement against the security a nd the sense of belonging that a new family would confer. If severing the na tural parent/child relationshi p would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment su ch that the child woul d be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent's rights are not terminated." ( Autumn H. , supra , 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575

. ) We adopt a hybrid standard of review to determine whether the court erred in deciding whether the beneficial parent/child relationship exceptio n to termination of parental rights applies. (See In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.A pp.4th 503, 530; In re Bailey J

. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 13 14-1315.) We review the c ourt's finding as to whether "the parents have maintained regular visita tion and contact with th e child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship" for substan tial evidence (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). ( In re Bailey J ., at p. 1314.) "The second determination in the exception analysis is whether the exis tence of that relationship or other specified statutory circumstance constitutes 'a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child.' (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B); see [ In re ] Bailey J. , at p. 1315.) This ' "quintessentially" discretionary decisi on, which calls for th e juvenile court to determine the importance of the relationship in terms of the detrimental impact that its13 severance can be expected to have on the child and to weigh that against the benefit to the child of adoption,' is appropriately reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. ([ In re ] Bailey J. , at p. 1315.)" ( In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.Ap p.4th 614, 622.)
C Analysis In arguing that Dale did not have a pare ntal relationship with W.L., the Agency disregards the juvenile court's finding Dale proved that he was more than a friendly visitor to W.L., who viewed Da le as "daddy." The record leaves no doubt that Dale deeply loves his son. He raised W.L. as a single parent from the time W.L. was less than two weeks old. Dale set limits for W.L., which W.L. respected, and raised a wellbehaved, healthy, happy child. Dale said his son was the first thing he thought about when he awoke in the morning and the last thing he thought about when he went to sleep at night. We recognize that W.L. loves his father and wants their relationship to continue. The social worker acknowledged that W.L. would benefit from continued contact with his father. Dale does not show that the juvenile cour t abused its discretion in balancing the strength and quality of the natural parent/ch ild relationship in a less permanent placement against the security and the sense of belongin g that a new family would confer on W.L. ( Autumn H. , supra , 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575

. ) We appreciate this was a difficult decision for the juvenile court. Dale has many good qualities as a parent. However, he allowed W.L. to witness domestic violence and arranged for persons who were using drugs to care for his son, such that W.L. tested positive for methamphetam ine when he was three years14 old. Dale did not adequately address hi s substance abuse problems or his domestic violence issues during the dependency case, a nd as a result was not able to offer a safe, stable home to W.L. Dale contends W.L.'s relationship with him is significantly different from the relationships between the ch ildren and their mother in In re C.F . (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, in which this court dete rmined that the children did not gain sufficient benefit from their relationships with their mother to outweigh the benefit they would gain from adoption. ( Id . at p. 558.) He argues this case is similar to In re S.B . (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, in which this court determ ined that the beneficial parent/child relationship applied. Although the bonds between parent and child in this case and in In

re S.B . appear similar, the circumst ances of the parent are distinct. Unlike the parent in
In re S.B ., Dale did not demonstrate a full measur e of commitment to W.L. by completing his case plan and diminishing the risk of harm to his child. ( Id . at p. 298.) Dale criticizes the "winner take all" mentality of case law supporting the termination of parental rights (see D.E. Arrendondo a nd L.P. Edwards, Attachment , Bonding , and Reciprocal Connectedness , Journal of the Center for Families, Children & the Courts (2000), pp. 109-127), and argues this court should not affirm the order terminating parental rights because W.L. wo uld benefit from conti nuing his relationships with all of the people who had loved and care d for him, especially Dale, with whom he had a significant, primary emotional attachme nt. Although the Legi slature has recently recognized such mu ltiple parental relationships in the context of family law cases (see Fam. Code, § 7612, subd. (c), as amended by Stats. 2013, ch. 510, § 4), it has not15 extended that recognition to parents of thos e abused or neglected children who need a safe, stable and permanent home. Adoption is the preferred placement for a child who has been abused or neglected and cannot be safely returned to the care of his or her parent. ( In re Michael G ., supra , 203 Cal.App.4th at pp. 588-589.) Here, we conclude that the juvenile cour t did not err when it terminated parental rights. At the time of the section 366.26 heari ng, W.L. was five years old. He needed a safe, permanent home free from domestic violen ce and substance abuse. W.L. was happy in his prospective adoptive home. He liked living with his new family, and enjoyed having a sister. The record supports a reas onable inference that living in a home with a mother and a sister will have a positive in fluence on W.L., and he will not grow up viewing violence against women as normal. Dale's visits with W.L. were interrupted by hospitalization, incarceration and substance ab use treatment for at least five months during the reunification period, and W.L. rema ined a happy, well-adjusted child. We cannot conclude the juvenile court abused its discretion when it determined W.L.'s need for permanency outwe ighed the benefit he received from his positive emotional attachment to his father, and therefore the loss of the parent/child relationship did not constitute "a compelling reason for determining that termination woul d be detrimental to the child." (§ 3 66.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).)16 DISPOSITION The order terminating pare ntal rights is affirmed.

NARES, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

M C DONALD, J.