1 Filed 7/29/14 In re J.W. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

In re J.W., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, A140783
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. J1200776)

v. T.M. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.

_____________ _______________ ___________/
T.M. (mother) and Joseph W. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s termination of their parental rights as to J.W. (daugh ter) following a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 1 hearing (.26 hearing). Mother c ontends her “visitation was unfairly ma[int]ained at a minimal level.” Father claims the court erred by failing to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i))) and there was insufficient evidence daught er was adoptable. Mother and father join each other’s briefs. We affirm.

1 Unless noted, all further statutory refere nces are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.2 FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND We provide a brief procedural history a nd recite only those facts relevant to the issues raised on appeal. Detention, Jurisdiction, and Disposition Shortly after daughter was born in 2012 , the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (Bureau) filed, a nd later amended, a petition alleging daughter came within section 300, subdivision (b) beca use: (1) mother and father “suffer[ed] from chronic mental health issues” limiting their ability to parent daughter safely; (2) mother and father “engaged in ongoing domestic viol ence” placing daughter at risk of harm; and (3) mother had “a chronic substance abuse pr oblem” interfering with her ability to parent daughter safely. 2 The court detained daughter, adjudg ed her a dependent of the court (§ 300, subd. (b)), and determined by clear and convincing eviden ce returning her to parental care would cause substantial da nger to her physical health. The court determined father was a presumed father. The court ordered reunification services for mother and father and monitore d visitation twice a month. Ne ither parent objected to the visitation order. Daughter was plac ed with paternal relatives. Status Review and S ection 388 Hearings At the conclusion of the si x-month review hearing, th e court provided additional reunification services for mother and father. The court declined mother’s requests for “more visits” and for unsupervised visits, as well as mother and father’s request for “a little bit of leeway rather than just two visits for one hour a month.” At the conclusion of the 12-month review hearing, the court terminat ed father’s reunification services and, at mother’s request, authorized th e Bureau to offer mother unsupe rvised visitation. Shortly thereafter, the Bureau moved, pursuant to section 388, to te rminate reunification services for mother and set a .26 hearing because mother failed “to produce a clean [drug] test” in violation of a court order. Following a hearin g, the court granted the motion, terminated mother’s reunification services, set a .26 he aring, and reduced mother’s supervised

2 Mother had nine other children, none of whom were in her care, and 14 substantiated child welfare refe rrals for these children.3 visitation to one hour per month. Neither mo ther nor father petitioned for writ review of the order reducing mother’s visitati on and setting the .26 hearing. The .26 hearing In its .26 hearing report, the Bureau re commended terminating parental rights and finding “adoption to be the appropriate perm anent plan for [daugh ter].” The Bureau described daughter as an adorable, happy, an d adoptable child “placed with relatives who are committed to adopting her.” According to the Bureau, da ughter had “formed a strong attachment to her prospective adoptive family . . . [She] looks to her prospective adoptive parents for emotional support, nurturing, an d love. . . . [¶] [Daughter] and her birth parents have not established a connected rela tionship that would out weigh the benefit of legal permanence. Severing parental rights in order for [daughter] to be adopted will not interfere in an existing paren t/child relationship.” The Bure au also reported daughter’s paternal relatives wished to adopt daughter and were not inte rested in guar dianship. The Bureau noted mother “interact[ed] a ppropriately” during some visits with daughter but her “mental instab ility” was apparent and she exhibited “concerning” and “erratic” behavior” during other visits. Duri ng one visit, mother accused the “social worker of being the devil and wanting to kill [daughter].” Mother also “accused other staff members of wanting to kill her. [Mothe r] began convulsing and fell to the floor. She was subsequently placed on section 51 50 hold.” The Bureau reported father had consistently visited daught er and had “interacted appr opriately with [her] and demonstrated love and concern for her.” Fa ther, however “ha[d] ac knowledged on more than one occasion that it [was] in [daughter]’s best interest to rema in with the paternal relatives.” Mother and father testified at the .26 hearing. They opposed termination of parental rights and urged the court to order a permanent plan of legal guardianship with daughter’s caretakers. At the conclusion of the .26 hearing, the court terminated parental rights and ordered adoption as daughter’s permanent plan. The court determined daughter was adoptable and none of the statut ory exceptions to adoption applied.4 DISCUSSION
I. Mother’s Visitation Claim Fails Mother contends the order terminating her parental rights must be reversed because the court “failed to ensure the o pportunity for frequent visitation,” which she claims precluded her from developing “a si gnificant parent-child relationship[.]” According to mother, “[m]ore visits would have presented an opportunity” for her to “establish a bond prior to term ination of parental rights.” Mother forfeited this claim. She did not object to the vis itation order at the dispositiona l hearing; she did not seek modification of any of the vi sitation orders by filing a se ction 388 petition; and she did not petition for writ review of the order reduci ng her visitation and se tting a .26 hearing. ( In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1001; In re Kevin S. (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 882, 885-887.) Even if mother had preserved her argumen t regarding visitation, we would reject it on the merits. “[D]ependency law affords the juvenile court great discretion in deciding issues relating to parent-child visitation, which discretion we will not disturb on appeal unless the juvenile court has exc eeded the bounds of reason.” ( In re S.H. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1542, 1557-1558.) Here, the c ourt acted well within its discretion by ordering two supervised visits with daughter per month, and then by reducing visitation to once a month. Mother had several “dirty ” drug tests throughout the dependency. She was unable to collaborate with daughter’s ca regivers, unable to control her anger, and refused to take medication prescribed for her mental health issues. Her behavior during visits was inappropriate, erratic, and danger ous. The court’s vis itation orders “properly balanced” mother’s right s “with the best interests of the child” and were not an abuse of discretion. ( In re R.R. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1264, 12 84.) Additionally, we conclude mother has not established the court impermis sibly delegated judicial authority to the Bureau to determine whether visitation sh ould occur, particularly in light of her admission that the “court may not have imperm issibly delegated . . . authority to [the Bureau] to control visitation.”5 II. The Beneficial Parent-Child Relati onship Exception Does Not Apply Father contends the court erred by declin ing to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to terminat ion of parental rights (§ 36 6.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). To establish the applicability of the benefici al relationship exception, father must demonstrate he “maintained regular visitatio n and contact” with daughter and daughter “would benefit from continuing the relationship” with him. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) The beneficial relationship exception “is entirely inapplicable under the facts of this case” because father cannot establish daughter would benefit from continuing the parental relationship. ( In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 403; see also In re G.B. (July 9, 2014, A140107, A140624) ___ Cal.Rp tr.3d ___ [2014 WL 3350689].) Father admits his argument is “problematic.” 3 He is correct. The beneficial relationship exception is “difficult to make in the situation, such as the one here, where” father has not “advanced beyond supervised visitation.” ( In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 51 ( Casey D. ).) Here, substantial evidence demons trated mother and father had not established a connected relationship with dau ghter that would outweigh the benefit of legal permanence. Father’s claim that he had a “developing” relationship with daughter does not alter our conclusion. To establish the applicability of the beneficial relationship exception, father was required to show mo re than an emerging relati onship with daughter. (See Casey D., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 52, fn. 4 .) He needed to demonstrate his relationship with daughter promoted her well- being “‘to such a degree that it outweighs the well-being [she] would gain in a perm anent home with new, adoptive parents.’ [Citation.]” ( Ibid., quoting In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1342.) Father failed to do so. The beneficial relati onship exception does not apply here. ( In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 555-556; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4t h 614, 621-622.)

3 Father concedes he “is not in a position to care for [ ] daughter full time” and that daughter has been in the care of others since birth.6 III. Substantial Evidence Support s the Adoptability Finding Father challenges the court’s finding that daughter was likely to be adopted. “A finding of adoptability require s ‘clear and convincing evid ence of the likelihood that adoption will be realized within a reasona ble time.’ [Citation. ] The question of adoptability usually focuses on whether the child’s age, physical condition and emotional health make it difficult to find a person w illing to adopt that child. [Citation.]” ( In re
B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218 , 1231.) “On review, we de termine whether the record contains substantial evidence from which the juvenile court could find clear and convincing evidence the child was likely to be adopte d within a reasonable time. [Citations.]” ( In re Michael G. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 580, 589.) “The substantial evidence standard of review is generally cons idered the most difficult standard of review to meet, as it should be, because it is not the function of the reviewing court to determine the facts. [Citation.]” ( Id. at p. 589.) Here, substantial evidence support s the court’s adoptability finding. ( In re Lukas
B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1153.) The un disputed evidence established daughter was “an adoptable child . . . placed with rela tives who [were] committed to adopting her.” The evidence also demonstrated daughter had “formed a strong attachment to her prospective adoptive family” and looked “to her prospective adoptive parents for emotional support, nurturing, and love.” We are not persuaded by father’s claim that the court should have selected guardianship inst ead of adoption. Contrary to father’s argument — and in complete contrast to the cases upon which father relies — the undisputed evidence demonstrat ed daughter’s caregivers wa nted to adopt her and were not interested in guardianship.7 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

_ ____________ ____________ Jones, P.J.

We concur:

_____________ ____________ Needham, J.

_____________ ____________ Bruiniers, J.