H. would suffer any
detriment as a result of terminating parental rights.
Mother and Father rely on In re S.B. II, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th 289. In In re S.B.
II, a bonding study described the bond between the child and parent as " 'fairly strong' or
'moderate.' " (In re S.B. II, supra, at p. 295.) "During the study, S.B. sat in [the father's]
lap, played games and colored. [The father] was responsive to her requests. In the
middle of coloring, S.B. said to [the father], 'I love you,' and he responded in kind. S.B.
whispered and joked with [the father] and then spontaneously said, 'I wish I lived with
you and Mommy and Nana.' " (Ibid.) At the hearing, the author testified that "because
the bond between [the father] and S.B. was fairly strong, there was a potential for harm to
S.B. were she to lose the parent-child relationship." (Id. at p. 296.) The trial court found
that the beneficial relationship exception did not apply and the Court of Appeal reversed.
(Id. at p. 301.)
In explaining the reasons for reversing the trial court, the In re S.B. II court stated:
"For the first year after she was removed from parental custody, S.B. continued to display
a strong attachment to [the father]. She was unhappy when visits ended and tried to leave
with [the father] when the visits were over. [The father] was sensitive to S.B.'s needs.
Social worker Brown noted, '[the father] consistently puts his daughter[']s needs and
safety before his own.' S.B. responded to [the father's] attention. During one visit, S.B.
'sat on [the father's] lap . . . [and] proudly showed off the pink tennis shoes he had
bought her.' The record clearly establishes S.B. initiated physical contact with [the
father]. Dr. Kelin observed that S.B. 'ran into [the father's] arms, again getting her father
to pick her up.' [The father] and S.B. shared an affectionate relationship. S.B. 'nestle[d]
up to [the father's] neck' and 'whispered and joked with him.' The record also shows
S.B. loved [the father] and wanted their relationship to continue. S.B. whispered to her
father, 'I love you.' As [the father] started to leave, S.B. stated, 'I'll miss you,' and then
she gave him another hug. S.B. spontaneously said, 'I wish I lived with you and Mommy
and Nana.' " (In re S.B. II, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 298.) The court concluded:
"The record shows S.B. loved her father, wanted their relationship to continue and
derived some measure of benefit from his visits. Based on this record, the only
reasonable inference is that S.B. would be greatly harmed by the loss of her significant,
positive relationship with [the father]." (Id. at pp. 300-301.)
The present case is distinguishable from In re S.B. II. The child's clear desire to
live with the parent in that case is not present here. Although H. enjoyed her visits with
Mother and there is evidence in the record to suggest a bond between Mother and H.,