Filed 8/15/ 23 In re Nathen R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 r ule 8.1115(b ). This o pinio n has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 NATHEN R

. et al.

, Person s Coming Unde r the Juveni l e Court L a w. B 3 25066 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20CCJP04635 A

- C )

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent

,

v.

M

. R

. et al

. ,

Defendant s and Appellant s

.

APPEAL S from or ders of t h e Su p erio r Court of Los Angeles County. Lisa A. Brackelmanns

, Ju dge Pro Tempore

. Affirmed

.

Lori Siegel

, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant M

. R

.2 Donna Balderston Kai ser , under appoint ment b y the Court of Appea l, for De f

endan t and Appellant A

. B

.

David Michael Miller, Deputy County Counsel; Tarkian &
Associates and Arezoo Pichvai for Plaintiff and Respondent

.

_________________________

M

. R . (mother) and A

. B. (father) appeal f rom the juvenile

court ’ s ord er s ter minati ng t h eir parental ri ghts over N athen R. (Nathen, born June 2012 ), Darlene B. (Darlene, born Dec. 2017 )
and L e ilanee B. (L e ilanee, born Oct. 2019 )

. 1 (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 3 66.26

. ) 2 Both parents argue that the juvenile court erred
when it fou nd that the b ene f icial parental exception to the
termination of parental rights ( § 3 66.26 , subd. (c) (1)(B)(i)) did not apply. In addition, f

at her contends that the trial court erred in denying his request for a bonding study

. We affirm.

1 F ather is Darlene and Leilanee ’ s father; Nathen ’ s f at her

, K

. R., is deceased. T hus, while mo the r i s ch allen ging the termination of her parental rights as to all three children, father ’ s appea l only concerns Darlene and Leilanee

.

2 All f

urther statutory references are to the Welfare and In st ituti ons Code unless ot herwise indicated.3 F ACTUAL 3 AND PROCE D URAL B A CKG ROUND Refer ral and invest igation
On July 19, 2020, the Los Angele s County Department of Children and Family Services ( DCFS ) received a referral alleging general neglect of the three children by mother and father.
Ac cording to the referral, on J uly 18

, 20 20, m o ther, father, and
th e children attended a family gathering at the maternal grandparents’ home. F ather became intoxicated and attempted
to drive the car. M other pulled father out of the driver’s seat, and
he punched mother’s face twice. The ch i l d ren wer e pres ent during the incident. M other’s family called the police, and father was arrested for domestic battery. M other refused to file for a restraining order.
Initi al interview with mother On July 28, 2020, the investigating social wo r k er visi ted
the f a mily home. M other stated that the children were not present during the incident and did not see what occurred. S he reporte d that father had been intoxicated to the point where he did not recognize her. When father hit her, sh e screa me d

, and
he r family c ame o ut of the house and called the police. M other
denied that the children were exposed to any form of domestic
violence. She admitted to using marijuana.
Interview with Nathen and paternal relatives
On Ju ly 30, 20 2 0, the social worker intervi ewed Nath e n, hi s paternal grandmother, and his paternal uncle , Byron R

. (B yron)

. Byron reported that from the time Nathen’s father passed away, Nathen stayed with him and the paternal

3 Becaus e m oth er a nd fathe r ’ s appeal s focus on the parental

benefit exception to the termination of parental rights, we largely li mit our summary of the fac ts to those that pe rtain to that issue.4

grandmother, who liv ed at t he same residence, every weekend,
and since the incep t ion o f the C OVID

- 19 pandemic, Nathen lived
with t hem.
Section 300 p etition and detention (Sept. 3 & 8 , 2020) On September 3, 2020, DCFS filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivi sions ( a) and (b), on behal f of the three
children. T he pet i tion alle g ed th at mother and fa ther had a history of domestic violenc e and substance abuse, and that both parents wer e current users o f dr ugs or alcohol.
The juvenile court detai ne d the children 4 and granted the parents monitored visits.
Jurisdictio n/dispo sition re p ort ( Jan. 11, 2021) On December 28, 2020, Nathen reported that he liked living with his paternal relatives and had called Byron “ ‘ da dd y ’ ” since he was a baby. Nathen missed mother

, but “ ‘ when it was just her and my sisters. W ith nobody e lse. J ust me an d her an d my sisters. I really miss them. ’ ”
Nathen was scheduled to have visits with mother th ree days a w eek. Byron reported th at mother was inconsistent in visiting the child and only participated in the visits “ ‘ less than
50% of the ti m e. ’ ” The previ o us we ek, mother did not attend any of the visits, and the week before that, she only atte nd ed one visit. Guadalupe reported th a t mother and father each had three
visits a week and did not visit the girls together. She did not have any con c erns r egarding t he ir interactions with the children

an d stated, “ ‘ The little g irls re al ly do like them. ’ ” Mother and

4 Nathen was p laced with By ron . Da rlene and Leilanee w e re placed wit h G uadalup e R. (Guadalupe), mother ’ s cousin.5

father ’ s visits were not consistent. T hey did not visit the children
durin g that week and had visited only one time the week before. Adj u dicati on hearin g (Jan . 11 , 2021) On January 11, 2021, th e juv en il e court s ustained the
section 300 petition and declared the children dependents of the

court

. I t granted mother and father family reunification services
and monitored visits six hours a wee k

. Stat us review repor t (July 12 , 2021) DCFS reported that the children had adjusted well to the
homes of their caregivers. Byr on and Guadalupe reported th at mother and father were inconsistent in visiting the children. Som et im es the parents did not call o r visi t; other t imes, the visits were short and the parents were not engaged (although father was more engaged
with the children than mother).
Six

- month review hearing (Aug. 10, 2021) The j uveni le c ourt found th at the parents had partially complied with t h e case plan, an d orde red family reunification
services to continue.
Status review report (Nov. 8, 2021) Byron reported th at mother continued to cancel one or two visits a wee k. W he n she did visit Nathen, she attended the visit
for a little over an hour. Nathen became e m otion ally affected
when mother failed to show up for the scheduled visits. Byr on

r eported that two weeks prior, mother canceled a visit with
Nathen because h er si st er bought her a ticket to go to an amusement park. Byron opined th at moth e r did not make t he
vi sits with Nathen a priority.
Guadalu pe reported th at mother was visiting Darlene and
Leilanee more often , although her visits continued to be short i n6

duration. F ather also had been more consistent with his visits
and continued to en g age we ll with t h e gir ls

. In October 2021, mother and father p aid for L e ilanee’s birthday celebration at
Chuck E. Cheese restaurant.
Gu ad al upe stated she was afraid to report things to the
social worker because she received backlash from h er family.
The m aterna l grandmo t her t old Guadalupe that her reports to
the social worker were the reason mother was not getting the
chi l dr en back. F ather was also upset with Guadalupe and told
her that she “ ‘ shouldn’t be re porting things to [the social worker] of what m o ther d oes or do e sn’t do during visits with the girls because she is family and you don’t go against fami ly

. ’ ” Last minute information for the cou rt ( Jan. 19, 2022) Guadalupe reported th at mother again was inconsistent
with her visits with Darlene and Leil a nee

. She would have
virtual visits with the girls sporadically for five minute s or less.
F a ther ha d visited Darlene and Leilanee eight times a month.

12

- month review hearing ( § 366.21, subd. (f) ; Feb. 1, 2022) The juvenile court found that mother’s and f ather’ s partici p ation with the case plan had not been substantial, a nd
terminated famil y re unification services.
Section 366.26 report and addendum report (Ma y 31 , 2022) On March 17, 2022, the social worker learned th at father
had been under the influence of a s ubstance a nd go t into a car
accident. M other re ported th at she was without a car and thus
had to cancel visits with the children. F ather participated in virtual visits during that time. DCFS reported that Byron and paternal grandmother wished to p r ovide a permane n t hom e for Nathe n throu gh

a doption. The soci al worker observed Nathen to be comfortable7

and happy in his caregivers’ home. Nathen reported, “ ‘ Daddy takes good care of me

, and feeds me. ’ ” He added, “ ‘ Mamita does a very good job takin g ca r e of m e. ’ ”
Guad a lupe was int erested in adopting Darlene and
Leilanee because she and her family loved them. The social worker observed the children to be comfortable in Guadalupe’s
home.
O n May 16, 2022, Guadalupe r epo rted th at d uring the last week, moth e r only visited D arlen e and Leilanee one time, on May 12, 2022. F ather had visited the children twice a week. Byron reported that during mother’s in

- person and telephone visit s, Nathen suffe red because mo ther asked closed

ended questions and did not keep t he con versation going

. Byron stated, “ Nathen sometimes becomes upset when mother tells him [she] has visited his sisters because it is a remind er to him (Nathen) that she is abl e to make t ime and visit them but not
him

. ”
Status r eview report (Aug. 8, 202 2 )
On J une 23, 2 0 22, G uadalupe reported th at mother had
visited Darlene and Leilanee only on c e that week. When Guadalupe told mother that she should vis it the gi rls m ore often,
mother responded that Guadalupe should stop telling the social
worker that she (mothe r) was no t visi ting the children, and instead, to tell the social worker mo ther did visit them.
F ather visited the children twice that week.
O n July 7, 2022, Nathen reported that during a visit with mother on July 5, 2022, she stated that she had no t visit ed
Darlen e and Leilanee for three weeks. Byron reported that
mother continued to ask Nathen a few questions and then bega n8

to talk ab ou t he rs elf. M other also did not take initiative during
the visits

. Permanency planning hearing (Aug. 8, 2022)
T he juveni le court c ontin ued the section 366.26 hearing
and ordered DCFS to file a report addressing the quality and
fr equenc y o f moth er’s and father’s visits w ith the children. Last minute information for the court (Aug. 25, 2022)
A s of August 8, 2022, mothe r had h ad virtua l and telephone
visits with Nathen. She was to resume in

- person visits on Augus t 25, 202 2. S he e xpected to visit Nathen th ree days a week
for three hours each visit. M other visited Darlene and Leilanee on August 18 and August 19 , 2022, f o r appr oximately one h our. M other sat with the children during the visit but did not really

eng age with the m. Guadalupe reporte d that father visited Darlene and
Leilanee two times a week for approximately one hour. He brought the children food and engage d in pl ay with t h em. P ermanency planning hearing (Aug. 31, 2022) On Augu st 31, 20 22, t he j uv enile court continued the
section 366.26 hearing and ordered DCFS to prepare a report addre ssing mother’s and father’s visits with the children. Last minute informa t ion fo r the cou r t (Se p t. 23, 2022)
On S eptember 15, 20 22, Byron re po rted th at mother
missed visits with Nathen on September 13 and September 1 4, 2022, because she had a toothache. O n September 16, 2022, mother visited Nathen, and the visit went well. Du r ing th e week
of Septe mber 19, 2022, mother visited Nat hen three ti me s fo r

one

- and

- a

- half hours. M other brought board games to visits and

watc hed movies with the child.9 On September 22, 2022, Guadalupe reported th at mother and father were visiting Darlene and Le ilanee mo r e oft en. F ather had visit ed the ch ildr en three times a week for one

- and

- a

half hours. During the visits, he woul d engage in play and take the girls and Guadalupe to a liquor stor e to purchase snacks for
them. M other missed visits with t h e chil dren on S e ptemb er 16 and September 2 1, 2022
, beca use she was having pain from kidney stones. M other did not attend all thre e visits a week. She
vi sited Darlene and Leilanee two days a week

. During one visit with the children, mother brought Darle n e a bi cycle

, bu t did not bring anything fo r Leila ne e

. M other engaged more with the children during the recent visits

, but sti ll d id not assist with bathing or cooking. Permanency planning hearing (Oct. 4, 2022 ) Byron ’ s testimony
Nathen had lived with Byr o n for two ye ars and h e wish ed to adopt the child. He wan ted Nathen to have a relationship with
Darlene and Leilanee

. Mother visited Nathen in his home. Nathen enjoyed the visits, had a bond with mother, and called her “mommy.” When
aske d how often moth e r visi ted Nathe n in S eptember 2022, Byron stated, “[T]h e visits last about an hour, maybe two hours. And the month spec ifically of September, she has been on top of
her visits. So she’s gone all three days. But th ere is a lot of
inc onsi stency from visi t s.” D uring the visit s, mother and Nathe n played board games, watched television, or played outside. She did not help Nathen with homework and rarely brought him food.
Nathen wa s disappo inted when mot her missed visits. When
mother missed visits with Na t hen, t hey spoke telep honically, but the communication was very s hort.10 Guadalupe ’ s testimony Guadalupe testified the siblings had regular visits, and i f they co uld not have a vis it, Guadalupe and Byron would schedule a makeup visit.
Fa ther requests a bondi n g stud y F ather’ s coun sel requested that the juvenile court order a bonding study fo r father and the girls

, arguing the information as
to th e quality of father’s v isit s in the l ast m inute i nformation for
the c ourt reports had been from Guadalupe and not fr o m the
social wo r ker’s own observations. The juvenile court denied
fath er’s request , stating: “I’m not going to order a bonding study at this time, bu t yo u certainly can make whatever argument you’re going to make at the [section 366.26] hearing.”
Contin u ance o f the sec t ion 3 66.26 hearing
The juvenile court ordered DCFS to “ [p]rovide a det ailed update as to the status of sibling visits, Mothe r ’ s visits, the quality of Fat her ’ s visits and consortium issues. ” The hearing

was continued

. Last minute informat i on for the cour t (Oct . 25, 2022)
On Oct ober 14, 2022, Guadalupe and Byro n signed a sibling contact agre emen t. Guadalupe also si gned a contact agreement for visits between the girls and mother. On October 18, 2022, Guadalupe informed the social
worker tha t mothe r told th e ir fa mily that she wa s going t o lose
her children be caus e of everything Guadalupe reported to DCFS. Furthermore, during the last visit, father threatened to sue Guadalupe and DCFS if his parental rights were terminated

. F ather told Guada l upe th at she sh o uld n ot have said a nything

a ga inst her family. Guad alup e did not want to give up on the11

gir ls because she loved them, but mother and father were bein g very difficult with her. On October 25, 2022, Guadalupe reported that she was “exhauste d from the treat m en t s he con ti nue[d] to receive from
the parents, including extended family members

. . . . However, she remain[ed] committed in moving f orward with the plan of adoption, as she [was] invested in the girls having a stable and loving home.”
Last m inute i nf

o r mati on report (Oc t. 25 , 20 22)
DCFS detailed mother’s and father ’s visits wi th the children during October 2022.
Father ’ s visits with Darlene and Leilanee On October 5, 2022, father visited Darlene and Leilanee

, and they played outs ide wit h thei r toys

. O n Octo ber 6, 202 2, father visited the girls, brought them cheese pizza, played wit h them, and took them to the store for snacks

. On October 7, 2022,
father brought the girls food

. On October 12, 2022, father visited
Darlene and Leilanee a n d aga i n brought food for th e gi rls

. On October 13, 2022, father did not show up for the visit or call to
cancel. On October 14, 2022, father did not show up for the visit with the girls. O n October 19, 2022, father participated in a visit
with t he chil d r en. M othe r ’ s v i sits with Nathen
Mother failed to show up for t he visit on October 4, 2022, despite texting Byron to see if the visit was going to tak e place. On October 5, 2022, mother contacted Byron and reported that
she had a cough and was congested ; she di d no t at t e nd th e visit that day. On October 6, 2022, mot her did not attend the visit
b ecause she continued to be sick. On October 11 and 12, 2022,
mother resumed in

- person visits with Nathen, and the visits12

went well. On O ctober 13 , 20 22, mother c ancell ed t he v i s it wi th
Nathen stating she had to work. On Oct ober 18, 2022, mother
attended a visit with Nathen. M other and Nathen played and
watched television. While they were watching television, mother
asked Nathen to sit c loser to her, and when N a then s aid, “ ‘ N o , ’ ”

mo ther responded, “ ‘ You’re still my kid ! Y ou need to sit next to
me! ’ ” Byron sai d th at mother made Nathen uncomfortable and
did not respect his space. On October 19, 2022, mother cancelled
the visi t. On Oc tobe r 20, 2022, mother att e n de d th e visit a n d pla yed with the child.
Mother ’ s visits with Darlene and Leilanee
M other failed to attend the visits on October 5, 6, and 7, 2022, because she was sick. On Octo ber 12, 2022, mother did not

atte nd t he visit or call to ca ncel

. On October 1 3, 202 2, mother

atten ded the visit and played with the children. During a visit on October 14, 2022, mother brought food for them to eat On October 19, 2022, mother did not show up to the visit or cal l to

canc el. On October 20, 2022, moth er visited the childr en, and t h e vis it went well.
Continued s ection 366.26 hearing (Oct. 26, 2022) Guadalupe ’ s testimon y Guadalupe testified th at mother visited Darlene and
Leilanee at her home one or two times a w eek. M other was
bon ded with the children “80 percent of the ti me, ” a nd s pent the other 20 percent talking to the family members that were at the
visit. The children called mother, “Mommy,” and they enjoyed
visits with her. M oth er played with the chi ldre n, and in the two years the children lived with G uadalup e , moth er had fe d them
three or four times. M other sometimes changed their diapers or
underwear.13 S he did not know that if she adopted Darlen e and Leilane e , parental rights wou ld b e terminated. She stated, “Well, they kind of explained it to me at the beg i nning when they barel y started for the adoption, but other than that, that’s been it.”
When asked if she was considerin g legal g uard ianship or adoption, G ua da lupe responded, “Whatever is best for the girls.” When asked what she thought was best for Darl e ne and Leilanee

, Guad alupe stated, “I would want my cousin to get her kids back, and I been talking to her abo ut that. So if it

— if the court’s g onna give them back to her or thinking about it, I wo uld be the legal guardianship.”
Father visited the girls t wo day s a week. Darl ene and
Leilanee were excited to see him , they loved him, an d they ca lled him, “Da ddy.” Guada lupe testified: “Dad is a little bit more engaged wi th the girls. He does play with them more, takes them
food sometimes

. ” Darlene and Le i lanee stated th a t the y missed their parents, but they did not r equest to go hom e wi th father.
Guad alupe opined th at father should have the opportun ity to be
reunited with the children. Once Guadalupe adopted Darlene
and Leilanee , she would allow father t o cont inue visi t ing t hem.
When as ked if sh e fe lt pressure from mother to pur sue legal guardianship over adoption, Guadalu pe stated : “[ A] little
bit. But I understand her as a mother that she wants her kids back, and I

— t hat’s the first thing I did, get h e r daug hters to h elp
h er out. So I’m stil l her e trying to help her.” Guadalupe testified
the children lived w ith her for tw o years and did well in her care. Further, if she did adopt Darlene and Leilanee , Guadalupe would
ensure th at mother and father co n tinued to ha ve v isits with
them

.14 Father ’ s test imony
F ather testified that he visited Darlene an d Leilanee two times a week for tw o hours, but he did his best to visit them three
times a week. The girls called him “dad” and were always excited
to see hi m. They would jum p arou n d an d say, “Daddy’s home” or “Daddy’s here.” F ather had a bond with Darlene and Leilanee

. During visits, he brought them food, asked them about their days, and played with them. The girls said they want ed to go
home with hi m on mu l tiple occasions

. F at her testified that the
social worker had never observe d his visits with the children
because he would visit after hours.
Court order At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile cour t noted
that it was u ncle ar whether Guadalupe wis hed to care for t he
ch ild ren under a plan of adoption or legal guardianship. Th us, it ordered DCFS to reinterview Guadalupe. The hearing was continued

. Addendum r eport (No v. 15 , 2022)
On November 3 , 20 22, Guadalupe reported she was still being harassed by mother a nd fath e r to change the permanent plan from adoption to legal guardianship. Despite pressure from
mother and fa ther, Guadalupe indicated that her pref erenc e was to adopt Darlen e an d Leilanee , but if she could not adopt them,
she was willing to pr oceed w ith legal guard ianship.
Co ntinued section 366.26 hearing (Nov. 15, 2022)
DCFS’s and the children’s counsel requested th at the ju veni le court termi nate pa rental rights

. The children’s attorney argued th at mother’s visits with Nathen were in consisten t.
Fur ther, whi l e Nat hen was bonded with mother, “the stability
that Nathen has found with the person t hat he ca lls ‘ daddy’ is15

one t hat wa rran ts the legal recognition of that, and that that permanency does outweigh the relationship that he does have
with his mot her.”
Mot h er ’ s visits with Darlene and Leilanee were equally
inconsistent. Counsel state d that the gir ls had “jus t become bonded with [Guadalupe] in a parental sort of way at the beginning of the case. But they have been there for a great deal
of time.”
M other’s a nd fa ther’s attorneys requested th at the ju venile

cour t find th e exc eption to term ination of parental rights under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), appl ied

. Thereafter, the juvenile court issued its ruling. It first noted, “These cases are extre m ely d ifficult, and I do want to
acknowle dge that the p arents of th e s e chi ldren

— the mother

. . . and, the father

. . . — c learly love these children. However,
the court has to follow the law and

. . . go through the various prongs of [ In re C aden C

. (2021) 11 Ca l.5th 614 ( Caden C. ).] ”
The j uveni le court conti nued, ackno wledgin g that the
children’s relatives had “stepped up to the plate [and] have been caring for these children for over two years.” Regarding the parents’ visitation, the juve nile co urt found th at mother’s and
fathe r’s v isits with the chi l dren c ontinued to be monitored and while at times, they were consistent, “overall, during the pendency of this case, they have not.”
The juvenile court then stated t hat there was a “subs tantia l posit ive bond b etwee n the c hildr en a nd their parent s, but

, as noted

— and I’m fully adopting the arguments of [the children’s trial counsel]

— the benefit accruing to the children from their relationship with the parents is outweighed by the ph ysical and

emo tional benefit t h e chi ldren w ill r ecei ve through the16

perman en cy and stability of adoption with Nathen with his caregiver, the paternal uncle, who has stepped in as a father

figure for him since the passing of his biological father; and, for

t he girls, [wit h] thei r caregiv e rs is outwei ghed by t he physical
and emoti on al benefit the children will receive through the permanency and stability of adoption, and that adoption is in the
best interest of these children.”
The juvenile court found that it wa s detriment al to t he
childr e n to b e re turned to the p arents a nd no exception to adoption applied. It then terminated mother’s and father’s parental rights. Appeals
Mother and father ’s timely appeals ensued.

D ISC USSI ON
Both mother and fa ther argue that the juvenile cou rt e rred
in f i nding that the parental

- benefit exception to adoption did not apply. As part of his argument, father asserts that the juvenile court erred in denying his reque st fo r a bonding study.
I. Te rmination of parental rights
A. Relevant law and standa rd s of re v iew
O nce the juvenile court terminates family reunification services, “the focus [of the proceedings] shifts to the needs of the child[ren] for permanency and s tabil ity. ” ( In re C eline R. ( 2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 52.) Under subdivision (c)( 1)(B)(i ) of sect i on 36 6.26, if the juvenile court finds the children adoptable, it shall order a plan of adoption unless there is a compelling reason such as when the parents sh ow th at t hey “ha ve ma intaine d regular
visitation and contact with the child[ren ] and t he child[ r en]

w ould benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)17 To establish this exception, the parent must prove the following three e lements : “ (1) regular visitat io n and contact , and (2) a relat ionship , the contin uation of which w ould benefit the child such that (3) the termination of parental rights would be
detrimental to the child. ” ( Caden C.

, supra , 11 Cal.5th at p. 631 .)
The bur den is on the parents to prove t hat termination of parental ri ghts would be detri mental t o the ch i ldren

. ( In re
Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 , overruled in part

on ot her grounds in Caden C.

, supra , 11 Cal.5th at p. 636, fn. 5 ; In re Derek W. (1999) 7 3 Cal.App.4th 823, 82 6

– 827; In re
Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330

, 13 43

– 1 345.)

“ [I ] n ass essing whether termination would be detrime ntal

, the trial court must decide whether the harm from severing the
child ’ s relat ionship with the parent outweighs t he benefit to the
child o f placement in a new adoptive home. [Citation.] By
mak ing t his d ecisi on, the trial court determines whether

term inating parental rights serves the child ’ s best interests. ” ( Caden C.

, supra , 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.) “ ‘ If se vering the natural parent/chil d relationship would deprive the child of a substan tia l,

p ositi ve e m otion al attachment such that, ’ even considering the benefits of a new adoptive home, termination would ‘ harm[] ’ the child, the court should not terminate pare ntal ri ghts. ” ( Id . at

p

. 633. ) The “ ‘ statutory exceptions merely permit the cou rt, in

excep tion a l cir cumstances [citation], to choose an option other than the norm, which remains adoption. ’ ” ( Caden C.

, at p. 631.) When reviewing an order terminating parental r igh ts and rejecting app li cation of the beneficial parental relationship

ex cep tion , we appl y a hy brid standard of review. On the one hand, “ [a] s ubstantial evidence standard of review applies to the first two elements [of the exception]. The determinati on that the18

parent has vi si ted and maintained contact with the child

‘ consis ten tly, ’ tak ing i nto a ccount ‘ the extent permitted by the

court ’ s order s ’ [citation] is essentially a factual determination.
I t ’ s likewise essentially a factual determination wheth e r the relationship is s uc h that the child would benefit from continuing
it

. ” ( Ca den C

. , s u

pra , 11 Cal.5th at pp. 639

– 640.) On the other hand, th e juvenile court ’ s determination on
the third element is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. As to the
third element, the juvenile c ou rt “ makes the assessment by weighing the harm of los ing the [ pare n t

- chi ld] relationship against the benefits of placemen t in a new, adoptive home. And so, the ultimate decision

— whether termination of parental rights
would be detri m ental to the child due t o the child ’ s relationship with his parent

— is dis cre tion ary a nd p r operl y reviewed for abuse
of discretion. ” ( Caden C.

, supra , 11 Cal.5th at p. 640.)

“ In reviewing factual determinations for substantial evidence, a reviewing court s hould ‘ not reweigh the e vidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, o r r esol ve ev iden t iary
conflicts. ’ [Citation.] The determinations shou ld ‘ be upheld if

. . . supported by substantial evidence, even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the trial c ou rt might have
reached a different result had it b eli eved othe r ev i dence

. ’ ” ( Caden C.

, supra , 11 Cal.5th at p. 640.) “ R eview for abuse of discretion is subtly different, focused not primarily on the evidence but the application of a legal standard. A c ou rt abuses its discretion only when ‘ “ ‘ the trial c our t ha s exc eede d the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary , capricious, or patently
absurd determination. ’ ” ’ [Citation.] But ‘ “ ‘ [w]hen two or more
inferences can reaso n ably be deduced from t he facts, the19

reviewing court has no authority to s ubs titu te it s de c ision for
that of the trial court. ’ ” ’ ” ( Caden C.

, at p. 641.)

“ At its core, ” this hybrid standard of review “ embodies the principle that ‘ [t]he statutory scheme doe s not a uthorize a
revie wi ng court to substitute its own judgment as to wha t i s in
the chil d ’ s be st interests for the trial court ’ s determination in that regard, reached pursuant to the statutory scheme ’ s comprehensive and controlling provisions. ’ ” ( Caden C.

, supr a , 11 Cal.5th a t p. 641.
B. Analy sis Applying these legal princip les , we conc lude that the juvenile court did not err when it found that the parental

- benefit exception did not apply.

1. In consistent visi ts With respect to the firs t prong of the section 36 6.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), test

, ample evidence supports the juv enile

c ourt ’ s fi n ding th at mother’s and father’s vi sits were not
consistent

. A t the detention hearing on September 8, 2020, the ju venile court granted mother and father moni to red visits nine
hours a week. At the inception of the case, Byron reported th at

mot her was inco n siste nt in visiting Nathen and only participated
in half of the visits. Gua dalupe also reported th at mother a nd father were not consistent in visiting the children

. Months later, in June and July 2021, mother and father
continued to visit the ch ildren in c onsis tentl y. Byron reported
mother would either can cel her visits or attend th em “sporadic [ ally ] .” She sent t ext messa ges to him stating she was not going to attend the visits b ecause she did not feel well, or she
had to attend her class es. By ron opine d th at mother did not treat20

her visits with Nathe n as a priority because she cancelled a visit
with t he child to go to an amusement park with her sister.
Guad alupe also reported th at mother and father were
inconsistent in their visits with Darlene and Leil a nee

. F ather
d id not visit the girls in May or June 2021. He attended visits on July 28 and July 30, 2021, but he only s tayed for approximately
one hour and 10 minutes. By October 2021, mother and father were attendin g visits
with Darlene and Le il anee mo r e fre quently

. However , by
Janu ary 2022, mother’s visits again were inconsistent. The parents ’ incon sisten cy with visits continued into 2022.
Mother either cancelled or mis sed vi sits with all thre e children i n September and October 2022.
In O cto ber 2022, fathe r also missed visi ts with his daughters. At the section 366.26 hearing, Guadalupe testified that
mother visited Darl ene and Leilanee one o r two times a week

,

an d father visited the children two days a wee k. F ather testified
he visite d Darlen e and Lei l anee two ti mes a week for two hours
but did his best to visit them three times a week. Taken together, this ev idence show s , a s the juvenile court f ound, th at the parents ’ visits were incons istent. While father’s
visits with Darlene and L e ilanee were more consi s tent than mother’s, he also missed visi ts
, and when he did attend the visit s with th e children, he did not stay for the entire allowed time. Periods of consistency simply are not en ough. (See In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4 th 549, 554 [“S poradic v i sitat ion is
insuffic ient to satisfy the first prong of the parent

- child
relatio nship exception to adoption”]; see also In re J.C. (2014)
226 C al.App.4th 503, 531 [regular visitation prong not present21

when there were significant lap se s in v isitati on]; In r e I.R. (2014 )
226 Cal .App.4th 201, 212 [significant lapses in visitation fatally undermines any attempt to finding beneficial relationship exception].) Urging us to reverse, the parents ar gue that b ecause the juvenile court found t ha t the r e was a bond bet w een t he chi ldren
and their parents, it could not find the paren ts ’ visi ts incon sistent. There are at least two problems with this argument. First, the parents offe r no legal authority in suppo rt of this pro po sition. 5 ( Benach v. County o f Los A ngeles (2 0 07)

1 49 Cal.App .4th 836, 852.) Second, ba sed upon th e e vidence presented, the juvenile court properly determined that these two factors were not mutually exclusive.

2. Benefit from continuing the relations h i p As to the second requireme n t of wh ether t he paren ts and children had such a relationship that the ch ildren would benefit from continuing it, 6 we must focus on the children. ( Caden C.

, supra , 11 Cal. 5th at p. 632.) “ And the relationship may be

5 F ather ’ s reliance upon In re Aurora P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1163, is mispla ced. In that case, the Court of Appeal co ns idere d “ a novel question r egarding which par ty bore the burde n of p roo f at the s ect ion 364 revi ew hearing.” ( In re Aurora P.

, supra , at p. 1153 .) Likewise, mother ’ s argument notwith standing, nothing i n Caden C.

, supra , 11 Cal.5th at page 632 supports th e paren ts ’ proposition.

6 In discussing this second prong, our Su p reme Court no te d that e x pert observations, such as through a bonding re port, can be “ an important source of information about t he psychological importance of the relationship for t he ch ild[ren]

. ” ( Caden C

. , supra , 11 Cal. 5th at p. 633

. )22

shaped by a slew of factors, such as ‘ [t]he a ge of t he child [ren], the portion of the chi ld[ren’s] life spent i n the parent’s custody, the “positive” or “negative” effect of interaction between parent and child[ren], and the child[ren’s] particular needs.’ [Cita ti on.]” ( Caden C.

, supra , at p

. 632 .)
M other a r gues th at the j uven ile court did not engage in a

proper ana lysis of the second requirement. We disagree. At the conclusion of the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court acknowledged a “substan ti al positive bond between the
childre n a n d the ir parents. ” How ever, “the second element [of

t he benefic ial parental relationship exception] is not, ‘Is there a
bond? ’ The question is whether [the child ren ] had a ‘substantial, positive, emotio na l attachment to the parent[s]

— t he ki nd of

att achme n t imply ing that t he ch ild[ren] would benefit from

con tinuing the relationship.’ [Citation.]” ( In re M.V. (2023)
87 Cal.App.5th 1155, 1185.) The parents did not make that showing here.
Nathen was alrea dy living out of mother’s home prior t o juvenil e cou r t inter vention. Furth ermore, Darlene was t wo years old and Leilanee was 10 months old at the time of their
d etention. They lived in Guadalup e’s home for over two years during which ti me the parents maintained inconsiste nt visits

. Therefore, even though the juv eni le co u r t fou nd that there was a bond, the children’s relationship with their p ar ents was not the substantial, positi ve, emoti onal attachment to the parents that

wo uld imply the children would benefit from continuing the relationship. ( In re M.V

. , supra , 87 C al. A pp.5t h at p. 1185.)23 3. Wheth er termination would be detrim e ntal to th e children The third requirement of th e benefic ial parental relationship exception ad dresses whether the relationship between the parents and the children was such tha t termin ation
of p arent al rights would be detrim ental to Nathen, Darlen e, and
Leilanee

. ( C

aden C.

, supra , 11 Cal.5th at p p

. 63 3, 640.) Here,
the eviden ce supports the juven ile court ’ s determination that termination of parental rights would not be detrime n tal to the
child r en. I n assigning e rror, m other contends that “ t he court did not
address w hether [Nathen], Darlene, or Leilanee would s uffer detriment by the termination o f parental rights.” Father similarly argues that the juvenile court found the benef i ts of

a dopti on o u tweig hed the bond t he children had with father
“without anal ys is

. . . of the bond.” These arg uments fail. “ [W]e
are aware of no requirement

. . . that the juvenile court, in finding the parent al

- benefit exception inapplicable, must rec i te

spec ific find i n gs r elative to its conclusions regarding any or all of
the three elements of the exce ption.” ( In re A.L. (2022)
73 Cal.App.5th 11 31
, 1156.) “To the contrary, we infer from section 366.26, subdivision (c )(1)(D)

— under which the juvenile

c ourt is required t o ‘s tate its reasons in writing or on the rec or d’ when it makes a finding that termin ation of parental rights
would be detrimental to the child

— t hat the court is not required to make findings when it concludes that parental rights would

n ot be d etrimenta l

. ” ( Ibid .)
M other next argues that Guadalupe “d id not even know the
full extent of wh at adopti on meant,” and thus the juvenile court should have considered legal guardianship. Contrary to mother’s24

argument, Guadalupe understood the diff e rence b etween ad o ptio n and legal guardianship, and s he consistently maintained she wished to adopt Da rlene and Leilanee

. The adoptions social worker spoke with Guadalupe about concurrent planning, legal guardianship, and adoption, and Guadalupe
stated th a t she w ished to a dopt Darlene and Leilane e because she and her family loved them. Even though she was harassed by both pare nts , Guadalupe did no t want to give up on the girls
because she loved them

. In fact, “sh e remain[ed] committed in moving forward w i th t he plan of a d optio n, as she [was] invested
in t he girls having a stable and loving home.” Finally, father argues that t he juvenile court considered improper factors when it deter mined that the benefits of adoption outweighe d the detriment the children would s uffer if p are nt al righ ts were terminated. Spec ifically, father states that the juve nile court erred when it “criticized the paren ts for being unfit, for failing to reunify, and for not being in the pa rental
role.”
The juvenile court did not crit ic i ze the parents o r stat e they
did not stand in parental roles. Rather, i t was the children’s counsel who argued that Darlene and Leilanee had b ecome

“ bonded with [Guadalupe] in a parental sort of w ay .” While the juvenile court adopt ed the ch ildren’s c oun s el’s ar gument wh e n it
made its f

indings, it did not find th at th e parents did not stand in a parental role

, and their failure to reunify di d not influence t he juvenile court’s decision

. 7 Instead, in accordance with Ca den C.

,

7 To the extent t h e juvenile c ou r t may h a ve b ased its findings on the parents ’ failure to reunif y with thei r c hildren and/or not standing in p arental roles, the parents did not suffer any prejudi ce

. (S ee In re J.R. (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 526, 531 [ the25

s upra , 11 C al.5th at page 633
, the ju venile co u rt a d dressed mother’s and father’s visits; it found that the children’s relatives
had “stepped up to the pl ate” and cared for the children for over

two ye ars; it acknowledged that the parents shared a “substant ial

pos iti ve bond” with the c hildren , but fou n d th a t the benefit of maintaining their relationship to the parents was outweighed by the benefit they woul d receive through adoption; and the juvenile

co urt found that it was detrimental for the child ren to be
returned to the parents.
T h e cases cited by fathe r

— In re L.A.

- O. (2021)
73 Cal.App.5th 197, 208

– 212; In re D.M. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th
261 , 2 70; In re J.D. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 833, 865 ; an d In re
B.D. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1218, 1230

— do not c ompel a different
result

. In In re D.M. and In re J.D.

, u nlike in this case, the social
worker s’ reports gave the juvenile cou rt l ittle information about the quality of t h e children’s visits with the parent and how they
felt abou t them. ( In re D.M.

, supra , 71 Cal.App.5th at p p. 270

– 271 ; In re J

.D.

, su pra , 70 C a l.App .5th at p p

. 855 , 860 .) Also, in In
re D.M.

, the lower court exp ress ly considered inappropriate
factors when de termining whether the exception to termination of parent al rights existed

. ( In re D.M.

, supra , at p. 270 .)
In In re J.D.

, supra , 70 Cal.Ap p .5th at page 864 and In re
B.D. , the appellate court could not dete rmine whether the juveni le court relied u po n imp roper factors when “ balancing the
harm of severing the natural parent

- c hild relationship to the benefits of a new adoptive h ome in the cruci a l thi rd step of the

mother wa s not preju d iced when the r e cord wo u ld n ot support a finding in the mother’s favor “even if her evidence were credited”].)26

analysis. ” ( In re B.D.

, supra , 66 Cal.App. 5th at p. 1230 ; see also
In re L.A.

- O.

, supr a , 73 Ca l.App.5th at p p

. 211

– 212 [because the
tria l court ’ s ruling was “ terse
, ” the appellate court could not
determine whether it r elied u pon inapp r o pria te factors in terminating parental rights]. ) Here, as set for th above, we are
able to determine that t he juve nile court did not rely upon improper fact ors when it rejected the parents ’ contention that this exception to termination of parent al rights appli ed.
In sum , there is no indication in the record that the juve nile court improperly relied on the pare n ts ’ unf itness or whether they occupied parental r oles. Rather, based upon all of
the evidence, including father ’ s testimony and th e DCFS repo rts
,

w hich contained sufficient infor mation ab out the quality of the
children ’ s visits with their parents, t he juvenile court assessed the parents’ visitation with the children, Nathen’s relationship
wit h mother, Darlene and Leilanee ’s relatio n s h ip wi t h mot her

a nd fa ther, whether continuing t he relati onship would benefit the children, and lastly whether the children would be harmed by the termination of parental rights. There was no er ror. I I. Father ’

s request for a bonding stu d y In su pport of his con tention t h at th e juvenile court err ed in terminating his parental rights, father challenges the juvenile court’s order denying his request for a bonding study.
A. T he DCFS r epor ts p roperly a ssessed f ather’s v i si ts an d

r elationship with Darlene and Leilane e F ather f ir st argues that DCFS did not file a proper assessment of his relationship with Darlene and Leilanee and thus failed to comply with section 366.21, subdivi sion (i) (1) ( B ).27 1. Relevant law “O nce a cou rt sets a hearing pursuant to sectio n 3 66.26 t o select a nd im plement a pe rmanent plan for a dependent child, [DCFS] must prepare an assessment

. . . , frequently referred to as an adoption assessment. Such an a doption assessment provides the in fo rmati on n ecessary for the juvenile court to
d ete rmine w hether it is li kely the child will be adopted [citation] and to consequently order termination of parental rights.” ( In re
G.M. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 55 2, 559.) A s is r elevant to this appeal, the as sessm e nt must include “[a] review of the amou nt of
and nature of any c ontact between the child and [ his or her ] parents

. . . since the time of placement.” (§ 361.5, subd. (g)(1)(B); § 366.21, subd. (i)(1)(B) ; § 366.22, s ubd. (c)(1)(B) ; § 366.25, subd. (b )(1)( B).)

“ [I]f the assessment is incomplete in some re s pects, t h e

cou rt will look to the totality of the evidence; deficiencies will go to the weight of the evidence and may ultimately prove insignificant. [ Citation.] S ubstantial compliance with the

a ss essme nt pro visions has been deemed enough. [Ci t a tion.] ” ( In

re John F. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1365, 1378.)

2. Analy sis DCFS’s reports in this case substantially complied with the statutory requirements, and any deficien cies in the assessments
d oes not c onsti tute p rejudicial error. On February 1, 20 2 2 , t he j uvenile c ourt terminated family reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing

. Thereafter, on May 16 and June 23, 2022, Guadal upe reported to the social worke r that
father visited the children two times a we ek. On August 8 , 2022, the juve n ile c ourt continued the section
366.26 hearing and ordered DCFS to file a report addressing the28

quality and f

requency of t he parents ’ visits with the chil dr en. On August 25, 2022, the s ocial wor ker prepared a report advising the juvenile court t hat fathe r had visited Darlene and Leilanee two times a week for approximately one hour. During the v i sits, father brought food for th e child ren an d engaged in play with
them.
On A ugust 31, 2022, the juv e n ile court again continued the
section 366.2 6 heari ng and or d ered DCFS to prepare a nother report addressing the parents ’ visits w ith t he child ren. In its Sep te mber 23, 20 22, report, DCFS advised the juvenil e court r eg arding the parents ’ visits. Regarding father, the report indicated that he visited the ch ildren th r ee da ys a

we ek for one

- and

- a

- half hours. Durin g the visits, he would engage in p lay a nd tak e the girls and Guadalupe to a liquo r store

t o purchase snacks.
I n an October 25, 2022, report, DCFS listed father ’s visits
with the girls for Octo ber. O n October 5, 20 22, father vi sited
Darlene and Leilanee , and th ey pl ayed o utside with their toys.
On Octob er 6, 2022, he visited the girls, brought t hem cheese pizza, played with them, and took them for snacks. On
October 7, 2022, father brought fo od for the girls

. On October 12
, 202 2, he visited Darlene and Leilanee and aga in brough t them
food

. On October 13 and 14 , 2022, father did not show up for the
visit or call to cancel. On October 19, 2022, fathe r participate d in
a visit with the children

. A t th e hearing on Oc tober 26, 2022, G uadalupe and fath er testified as to father’s visits and relationship with Darlene and
Leilanee

. G iven the totality of the evidence, DCFS’s rep orts were ade quate and provided the juvenile cour t w ith sufficient29

informat ion reg arding th e a mou nt and nature of contact between father and the girls.
B. The juve nile court properly denied father ’ s request for a
bon ding study Father next argu es that a bonding study w as essential for
him to pr ove t he paren tal

- benefit exception t o termi nation of

paren tal rights.

1. Relevant law
At a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a permanent plan for a child, “the primary issue often is whether the parents ca n establish that the chi ld wou l d benefi t from a continuing relationsh ip w ith t he m and tha t term ination of parental rights would therefore be detrimental to the child. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).” ( In re S.R. (2009) 173 Cal.App .4th 864, 869.) “In atte mpting to establish or e li m inat e this e xception to the preference for ado ption

, the parti e s or the court may require a bonding study to illuminate the intricacies of the parent

- child bond so that the question of detriment to the c hild may be fully explore d.” ( Ibid .)

“ T here is n o requi rement i n statutory or case law that a

cou r t mu st secure a b ondin g study as a condition precedent to a
termination order.” ( In re Lorenzo C.

, supra , 54 Cal.App.4th at

p. 1339.) The timing of the requ est is crucial. “Bonding studies after
the termi na tion of reuni fication services would freque ntly requ ire
dela ys i n perm anency planning. Similar requests to acquire additional evidence in support of a parent’s claim under section 366.26, subdivision [(c) (1)(B)(i)] could be asser ted in nearly every depe nd ency proceedi ng where the parent has mainta ined some

co ntact wit h the child. The Legislature did not contemplate such30

last

- minute efforts to put off permanent placement. [Citation.] While it is not beyo nd the juvenile court’s d iscretion to order a
bon di ng st udy late in the process under compelli ng

c i rcum sta nces , the denia l of a belated request for such a study is fully consistent with the scheme of the dependency statutes, and with due process.” ( In re Richard C. (1998) 68 Cal. App.4th 1191,
1197 , fn. om itted .) “[A]t such a late stage in the proceed i ngs [th e father’ s ] rig ht t o develop further evidence regarding [his] bond with the child was approaching the vanishing point.” ( Id . at

p. 1195.) 8
We revi ew a juvenile court ’ s deni al of a request for a
bond in g stu dy for abuse of discre tion. ( In re Lorenz o C.

, su p ra , 54 C a l.App .4th at p. 1341.)

2. Analysis Applying these legal principles, we conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it denied father ’ s request for a bonding st udy. As ide f rom the fact that father ’ s request wa s mad e belate dly, 9 a b o ndi n g study was not required because the DCFS reports contained sufficient information

8 In his repl y brief, father asserts that In re Richard C. was bot h wrong ly decided and inconsistent with Caden C. We disagree. As recently n o ted in In re M.V

. , supr a, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 1182 , it is “ not an abuse of discretion to deny a belated request for a bonding study that would delay a child ’ s perman en t pla cement

. ” (See also In re M.M. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 61, 68

– 69, review granted on a noth e r issue, Oc t

. 12
, 2022, S276099

. )

9 As set forth above, father did not request the bonding study
unt il Oct ober 4, 2022, eight m onths after the juve nile court
t er minat ed family reunification services and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing.31

regarding father’s vis its and relationship with Darle ne and
Leilanee

. While father argues that “ [ t ] he quality of the visits
betwe e n the gi rls and thei r father is wholl y abse nt from any report ” , the DCFS reports sufficiently described the interactions
between father, Darlene, and Leilanee and evaluat ed them

p ositively. In addition, the juve nile court heard testimony from Guadalupe and father regarding h i s visit s and rel a tions hi p with
the children. Urging u s to re ve rse, father cit es Caden C.

, supra , 11 Cal.5th at p ages 632 through 633 for the proposition that courts should allow “expe rt testimony in termination of rights
cases based on observation.” Howe v er, not hing in C a den C

. purported to restr ic t the b road discretion a juvenile court
exercises o ver wh ether to order a bonding study. Even afte r Caden C. , a court that believes a bonding study is unnecessary because the record adequately ref lects th e natu r e of th e relatio n ship between a minor and h i s or he r parent may still properly deny a request for a s tudy. ( In re B. D

. , supra , 66 Cal.A pp.5th at p. 1228, fn. 3.) Moreover, as set forth above , because father failed to
de monstrate regular visitation and co n tact un der the f i rst p rong of Caden C. ’ s t es t, an y error in failing to order a bonding study to evalu at e the second e l ement (w hether the child would benefit) does not require reversal of the finding that the exception did not apply. (See Ca den C.

, supra , 11 Cal. 5th at pp

. 632

– 633.)
Furthermore , a ls o a s se t forth above , the juvenile court acknowledged a “ substantial posi t ive bond between the children
and their parents

. ” B ecause the juvenile court found a bond
between father and the girls, there was clearl y suffic ient evid e nce i n the DCF S repor ts about father’s visits and relationship with32

D arlene and Leilanee , and a b onding study would not have been
useful to the court. And

, because t he case had been pending for over two years
, the ju venile court was we ll

- aware o f the nat u re

an d extent of fa th er’s relationship with the girls, and thus

prope rly denied his r e quest f o r a bonding study.
In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681 does not compel
a different result. In that cas e, the evidence showed a “common
th e me runn ing throu g h the e vidence from the bonding study psychologist, the therapists, and the [cou rt appointed special advocate] ” that there was a “bene ficial parental relationship that

c learly outweigh[ed] the benefit of adoption. ” ( Id . at pp. 689

– 690.) The bon ding stud y w as im portant because the social
worker “provided no m ore than a perfu n ctory ev aluation ” of the
mother ’s relationship to the children. ( Id . at p. 690.) In contrast, here, the DCFS reports provided det ailed information on the parents ’ r e lations hip with t he ir ch ildren. In fact, those repor ts highlighted the positive aspects of fathe r ’s relationship with his daughters

— evidence echoed by father and Guadalupe ’s testimony. Finally , father ’ s reliance upon In re Matthew P. (1999)
71 C al .A pp. 4t h 841 is misplace d

. In that ca se, the Court of Appeal f ound that de facto and former foster parents (appellan ts)
were d enied due process when the juvenile court admitted soci al

wo rker reports without allowing the appellants to cross

- e xa min e the social wor k er. ( I

d . at pp. 845, 849.) H ere, father was n ot denie d due process because the juvenile court held a full evidentiary hearing before terminating parental rights.33 D ISPO SITION The orders terminating parental rights are aff ir med

. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIA L REPORTS

.

__ _ ________

__________, J. ASHMANN

- G ERST

We concur :

_________________________ , P. J. LUI

_________________________, J. HOFFSTADT