beneficial relationship is determined by "[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child's
life spent in the parent's custody, the 'positive' or 'negative' effect of interaction between
parent and child, and the child's particular needs . . . ." (Id. at p. 576.) Examining the
evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment (ibid.), we conclude substantial
evidence supports the court's finding that the bond between D.B. and L.B. was not so
strong as to outweigh L.B.'s need for permanence.6
Two-year-old L.B. had been out of D.B.'s care for 16 months, nearly two-thirds of
her life. D.B. never progressed beyond supervised visitation. During visits, D.B. was
6 The court did not address the regularity of D.B.'s visitation and contact with L.B. As noted above, D.B. visited L.B. at least once a week after services were terminated, but was late to some visits. Earlier in the case, D.B. visited inconsistently.
affectionate with L.B. In general, L.B. was excited to see D.B. and was affectionate with
her.7 L.B. enjoyed visits and seemed comfortable with D.B.
D.B. often played and interacted with L.B. appropriately, empathized with her and
assumed a parental role. L.B. regularly brought food to visits and fed L.B., and
sometimes changed her diaper. D.B. praised L.B. when she listened to instructions. At
one visit, when L.B. hit herself, D.B. redirected L.B. and consoled her when she became
upset.
However, D.B. was sometimes inappropriate during visits. In 2011, she fed L.B.
foods that caused her to choke, argued with visitation monitors and needed to be
reminded to focus on L.B. In 2012, D.B. sprayed hand sanitizer all over L.B.'s body,
ostensibly to treat a rash, and ignored requests to stop because L.B.'s doctor had not
approved the spray. In February 2013, D.B. applied makeup to L.B. during a visit,
although she was aware L.B.'s skin was very sensitive and L.B.'s doctor said L.B. should
not have anything on her skin except unscented soap and lotion. Both before and after
services were terminated, D.B. asked whether Jesse could accompany her to visits,
although the case plan provided for separate visits and D.B. had signed an agreement to
visit separately. D.B. referred to Jesse as "a deadbeat father" in L.B.'s presence.
7 L.B. was also excited to see her daycare provider, her Head Start worker and playmates. Social worker Garnett believed L.B. had a bond with D.B.,8 but it was not a
parent-child bond and L.B. viewed D.B. as a friendly visitor. L.B. had a secure and
healthy bond with the aunt and needed the safety, security, stability and consistency the
aunt provided. L.B. sometimes asked D.B for help during visits, but also sought help
from Garnett and asked for the aunt. L.B. called D.B. "mommy" and the aunt "auntie,"
"momma" and "mommy." L.B. did not ask for D.B. between visits.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HALLER, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
McDONALD, J.
8 Previous social workers stated D.B. and L.B. had a strong bond.