Court Opinion

ID: 9950276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 18:02:40.029562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:19.184029
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/13/24 In re F.F. CA2/5
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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

                      SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                    DIVISION FIVE

 In re F.F., et al., Persons Coming
 Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                   B330794

 LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                              (Los Angeles County
 DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN                                          Super. Ct. No.
 AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                            21CCJP02156CD)

          Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

 A.C., et al.

          Defendants and Appellants.

      APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, Gabriela H. Shapiro, Judge Pro Tempore. Affirmed.
      Sarah Vaona, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant A.C.
      Law Offices of Vincent W. Davis & Associates and Vincent
W. Davis for Defendant and Appellant F.M.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

      A.C. (Mother) and F.F.M. (Father) are the parents of F.F.,
born in 2019, and J.F., born in 2021 (collectively, Minors).1 The
juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over Minors based on Mother
and Father’s substance abuse and ultimately terminated Mother
and Father’s parental rights. In this appeal from the parental
rights termination order, we are principally asked to decide
whether the trial court erred in summarily denying Father’s
changed circumstances petition and in finding the parents did
not establish the parental benefit exception applied to law
otherwise requiring termination of their parental rights.

                         I. BACKGROUND
      A.     Investigation and Assumption of Dependency
             Jurisdiction
      J.F. was born in March 2021. Her meconium tested
positive for amphetamines. As hospital staff explained to a social
worker with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and
Family Services (the Department), this test indicated Mother
used drugs in the second or third trimester of her pregnancy.
      After the positive drug screening at J.F.’s birth, a
Department social worker interviewed Mother and Father.

1
      Both parents have additional children, and two of Mother’s
older children were involved in these dependency proceedings.
Because Mother joins Father’s arguments without raising any
separate issues, this appeal concerns only F.F. and J.F.

                                2
Mother disclosed she had a history of substance abuse. She
stopped using drugs years earlier, but relapsed in early 2020.
She claimed, however, that she did not use drugs during her
pregnancy with J.F. Father denied current drug use but
acknowledged using cocaine about three months earlier and
methamphetamine about five months earlier. He used drugs on
four or five occasions in 2020 while at work or at parties, but
never at home or around Minors. Mother and Father denied
knowledge of one another’s drug use.
       In follow-up interviews, Mother and Father sought to
retract some of their admissions. Mother stated that although
she was previously addicted to methamphetamine, she did not
relapse in 2020—she was only drinking. Mother suggested J.F.’s
meconium may have tested positive for amphetamines because
she took two pills a neighbor told her were sleeping pills. Father
claimed he did not know “what he was talking about” during the
initial interview because he was not in his right mind, having
mixed alcohol with pain medication.
       In April 2021, a health care provider notified the
Department that J.F. missed an appointment to monitor for a
possible serious health condition. Mother tested positive for
methamphetamine use around the same time. Father tested
negative for all substances.
       The Department filed a juvenile dependency petition
alleging Minors were at substantial risk of serious physical harm
based on Mother’s substance abuse, including while pregnant
with J.F., and Father’s history of drug use. The juvenile court
sustained the petition and assumed jurisdiction over Minors in
June 2021.

                                3
       The juvenile court held a disposition hearing in August
2021 and ordered Minors removed from Mother and Father. The
juvenile court ordered monitored visitation and services for both
parents. Mother’s case plan included a parenting program,
individual counseling, a six-month substance abuse program with
after-care, random or on-demand testing, and a 12-step program.
Father’s case plan included a parenting program, individual
counseling, six months of random or on-demand drug testing, and
a full rehabilitation program if any test was missed or “dirty.” As
of August 2021, Mother and Father were visiting Minors for one
hour per week, Mother was enrolled in parenting and substance
abuse programs, and Father was enrolled in a parenting
program.

       B.    Reunification Period
       Prior to the six-month review hearing in April 2022, the
juvenile court ordered the Department to assess, among other
things, whether Minors’ caregiver or a human services aide could
monitor Father’s visits. He expressed concern that his visits
were “repeatedly being canceled at the last minute.”
       In a report filed that same month, the Department stated
that, as of March 2022, Mother and Father were scheduled to
visit Minors for three hours every Wednesday and Thursday.
Mother and Father saw J.F. and F.F. only seven times between
August 2021 and February 2022, however. Apart from Father
canceling one visit due to an emergency, the report does not
reveal the reason for the missed visits.
        Mother completed a parenting program and enrolled in a
substance abuse program, but she failed to provide proof of
enrollment in a 12-step program or individual counseling and

                                 4
tested positive for methamphetamine in early December 2021.
Mother told a Department social worker she relapsed because
“she was sad due to not having her family.”
       Father told a Department social worker he had not enrolled
in any court-ordered programs because a social worker previously
assigned to the case “was not providing visitation.” But Father
later produced documents indicating he had completed a
parenting and anger management program and had begun
individual counseling in March 2022. Father had two negative
drug tests, but he was a “no show” for 13.
       At the six-month review hearing, the Department and
counsel for Minors recommended six more months of family
reunification services. Mother and Father submitted on this
recommendation, with Father asking the court “that an effort be
made for monitored visits to take place on Saturdays, perhaps
even just once a month.” The juvenile court continued
reunification services and ordered the Department to attempt to
find a monitor for weekend visits.
       A few months after the six-month review hearing, the
Department reported Mother and Father were “inconsistent”
with their visits. Between April and September 2022, Mother
attended 18 visits with Minors, five visits were canceled due to
illness, and Mother failed to show up for nine visits. Father
attended 14 visits and did not show up for eight visits. The
Department “accommodat[ed] . . . the parents’ schedule on
multiple occasions,” including by making “weekly weekend and
after[-]hour accommodations for [F]ather.” Both parents were
“loving and caring” toward Minors during visits—feeding them,
changing diapers, and playing with them.

                                5
      Mother continued to attend a substance abuse program, but
she missed three out of nine individual counseling sessions and
was unable to provide verification of her participation in a 12-
step program. Mother was a no show for a dozen drug tests
between March and October 2022, although she did have five
negative tests during this period.
      Father continued to attend a parenting and anger
management program and attended 20 individual counseling
sessions. He missed six drug tests and had five negative tests
between April and September 2022.
      In subsequent reports, the Department indicated Mother
and Father continued to visit Minors, but some visits were
canceled by the parents, some were canceled due to illness, and
some were canceled due to miscommunication. Mother tested
negative for drugs once per month between September and
November 2022, but she also missed several tests. Father
continued to test negative and miss tests in roughly equal
measure. He continued to participate in a parenting and anger
management program and in individual counseling.
      The juvenile court terminated family reunification services
in December 2022.

      C.    Father’s Changed Circumstances Petition and
            Termination of Parental Rights
       The Department filed several reports prior to the July 2023
permanency planning hearing. With respect to visitation, the
Department reported Mother and Father attended nearly all of
their twice-weekly visits with Minors, though there had been
some confusion with monitors rescheduling or canceling visits.

                                6
       A human services aide who monitored visits reported “the
parents give the children all their attention and the children
enjoy being with their father and mother. . . . [H]e ha[d] observed
the family bond, communicate, and show compassion. [He] ha[d]
not observed anything negative and the parents [were] always
prepared by arriving to the visits with toys and gifts for the kids
to have a good time.” Minors “seem[ed] to know who their
parents are” and would “run toward their parents and seek to be
embraced by [them].” “Overall, [the aide] ha[d] observed the
family happy, comfortable[,] and appear loving toward one
another.”
       A Department social worker reported the parents
“appear[ed] loving and caring toward the children,” “feeding them
when appropriate and changing their diaper[s].” Although “both
the children and parents appear[ed] to enjoy their time together,”
the social worker believed “there appear[ed] to be a broken
attachment between the children and their parents.”
Specifically, “on multiple occasions the children sought attention
and physical proximity with th[e] [social worker], whom they
seldom [saw], instead of their parents.” Minors’ caregivers told a
social worker that F.F. said “[he] did not want to see [Father]
any[ ]more and gave the impression that he was afraid of
[Father]” following one visit.
       The Department reported Minors were “flourishing” in
foster care and “ha[d] developed a strong attachment with their
current caregivers . . . .” The foster parents intended to adopt the
children.
       Before the permanency planning hearing in July 2023,
Father filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 changed
circumstances petition to reinstate reunification services or

                                 7
return Minors to his care.2 Father argued he had completed the
individual counseling portion of his case plan, he continued to
attend AA meetings, and he provided 13 negative drug tests after
the juvenile court terminated reunification services in December
2022. Father also emphasized his recent consistent visitation
and the positive accounts of these visits.
       The juvenile court denied Father’s changed circumstances
petition without a hearing. The court explained Father failed to
make a prima facie showing that circumstances had changed (as
opposed to being in the process of changing) or that Father’s
requested relief was in Minors’ best interest.
       At the permanency planning hearing, Mother and Father
argued the juvenile court should apply the parental benefit
exception to forgo terminating their parental rights. Minors’
attorney and the Department argued the exception was
inapplicable and recommended terminating Mother and Father’s
parental rights to permit Minors to be adopted. In so arguing,
the Department contended none of the exception’s elements were
satisfied. Minors’ attorney, on the other hand, conceded two of
the three elements of the exception were arguably satisfied (the
parents had visited consistently and there was evidence of a
beneficial relationship with Minors) but argued the third was not
because terminating the relationship would not be detrimental to
Minors.
       The juvenile court terminated Mother and Father’s
parental rights. The court determined the parental benefit
exception did not apply, “focus[ing] . . . on the third prong.”

2
     Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Welfare and Institutions Code.

                                8
Specifically, the court believed “the real question . . . is whether
the relationship is substantial enough that terminating the
attachment would be detrimental when balanced against the
benefits of adoption.” The juvenile court emphasized F.F. had
spent about half his life and J.F. nearly all her life outside of
Mother and Father’s care. Additionally, there was “no
evidence . . . that the children [were] difficult after the visits, that
they’re constantly asking when they’re going to be seeing their
biological parents.” Similarly, there was “no evidence” that they
were not “on track developmentally” or that they “[did] not feel at
home in their current placement.”

                          II. DISCUSSION
       Several of the issues raised in Father’s opening brief,
including his arguments that the Department did not provide
visitation and that the juvenile court should not have removed
Minors from his custody or should have returned them to his
custody, are untimely because they address status review hearing
orders that needed to have been challenged earlier. The two
issues he briefs that are timely raised—the juvenile court’s denial
of his changed circumstances petition and its order terminating
parental rights—both lack merit.
       Even assuming Father made a prima facie showing of
changed circumstances, he did not show returning Minors to his
custody or resuming reunification services would be in their best
interest—indeed, he advances no argument to the contrary on
appeal. As for the parental rights termination order, Father
(joined by Mother) contests issues that did not serve as the basis
for the juvenile court’s order: consistent visitation and the
existence of a beneficial relationship with Minors. The failure to

                                   9
challenge the basis of the order made operates as a forfeiture,
and, in any event, the court did not exceed the bounds of reason
in finding that terminating the parental relationship would not
be detrimental to Minors when balanced against the benefits of
the prospective adoptive home.

      A.      Father’s Challenges to Status Review Hearing Orders
              Are Untimely
       Father argues that because “[the Department] and the
caregivers knowingly and intentionally denied [Father]
visitation, . . . the [j]uvenile [c]ourt’s finding cannot stand,” but
he does not identify the defective finding. His remark that the
Department “failed to provide essential and reasonable services
to [Father]” suggests he disputes the juvenile court’s findings
that reasonable services were provided at status review hearings
in April and December 2022. Any challenge to these findings,
however, is untimely. (In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 10 [“‘An
appeal from the most recent order in a dependency matter may
not challenge earlier orders for which the time for filing an
appeal has passed’”].) Father’s contentions that the juvenile
court “violated [his] right to retain the care of his children and
have custody of them” and “abused its discretion by not
returni[ng] custody of [Minors] to [him]” are likewise untimely to
the extent that they challenge the juvenile court’s disposition
order or status review hearing orders issued in 2022.

                                 10
      B.     There Was No Error in Finding That Granting
             Father’s Changed Circumstances Petition Was Not in
             Minors’ Best Interests
             1.    Legal framework
       “Section 388 accords a parent the right to petition the
juvenile court for modification of any of its orders based upon
changed circumstances or new evidence. [Citations.] To obtain
the requested modification, the parent must demonstrate both a
change of circumstance or new evidence, and that the proposed
change is in the best interests of the child. [Citations.] [¶] . . . [¶]
To obtain an evidentiary hearing on a section 388 petition, a
parent must make a prima facie showing that circumstances
have changed since the prior court order, and that the proposed
change will be in the best interests of the child. [Citations.]” (In
re Alayah J. (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 469, 478, fn. omitted, emphasis
added.) Where, as here, reunification services have been
terminated, “the parents’ interest in the care, custody and
companionship of the child are no longer paramount” and a court
considering the child’s best interest in the context of a section 388
petition “must recognize this shift of focus . . . .” (In re Stephanie
M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317; accord Alayah J., supra, at 478; In
re K.L. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 52, 62.)
       In deciding whether a prima facie showing has been made,
a juvenile court “may consider the entire factual and procedural
history of the case.” (In re Daniel F. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 701,
711.) We review the summary denial of a section 388 petition for
abuse of discretion. (In re Samuel A. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1, 7;
In re C.J.W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1079.)

                                  11
             2.    Analysis
       Father’s argument that the juvenile court erred in
summarily denying his petition focuses exclusively on the
question of whether circumstances had changed. By failing to
present any reasoned argument regarding Minors’ best interest,
Father has forfeited his challenge to that aspect of the juvenile
court’s ruling. (Christoff v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (2005) 134
Cal.App.4th 118, 125). That forfeiture is alone sufficient to reject
his assignment of error.
       Even if the point were not forfeited, there would be no basis
to disturb the juvenile court’s ruling. Under the more parent-
advantageous approach described in In re Amber M. (2002) 103
Cal.App.4th 681, the juvenile court acted within its discretion.
Minors were placed in foster care when J.F. was just over one
month old and F.F. still less than 18 months old. Father filed his
changed circumstances petition more than two years later.
Minors had developed a strong attachment to their caregivers in
the interim, and although Minors appeared to enjoy visits with
Father, there was no evidence that they were impacted by their
separation from him.

      C.    The Juvenile Court Did Not Err in Terminating
            Parental Rights
            1.     Legal framework
      When a parent is unable to remedy the issues giving rise to
dependency jurisdiction, the juvenile court holds a hearing under
section 366.26 to determine “whether to terminate parental
rights, making way for adoption, or to maintain parental rights
and select another permanent plan.” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11
Cal.5th 614, 625.) “To ease the court’s difficult task in making

                                12
this important decision, the statute provides a carefully
calibrated process. Even if a court finds by clear and convincing
evidence that the child is likely to be adopted, the parent may
avoid termination of parental rights by establishing at least one
of a series of enumerated exceptions.” (Ibid.)
       One of these exceptions, set forth at section 366.26,
subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), is the parental benefit exception. A
parent proves the exception applies by satisfying three elements:
“(1) regular visitation and contact, and (2) a relationship, the
continuation of which would benefit the child such that (3) the
termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child.”
(Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at 631.) Only the third element is
really at issue in this appeal.
       Analyzing whether terminating a parental relationship
would be detrimental to a child requires the juvenile court to
determine “whether the harm of severing the relationship
outweighs ‘the security and the sense of belonging a new family
would confer.’ [Citation.] ‘If severing the natural parent/child
relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive
emotional attachment such that,’ even considering the benefits of
a new adoptive home, termination would ‘harm[ ]’ the child, the
court should not terminate parental rights. [Citation.]” (Caden
C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at 633, citing In re Autumn H. (1994) 27
Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) Relevant factual determinations include
“the specific features of the child’s relationship with the parent
and the harm that would come from losing those specific
features,” “how harmful in total that loss would be,” and “for the
particular child, how a prospective adoptive placement may offset
and even counterbalance those harms.” (Caden C., supra, at

                               13
640.) Our review of a juvenile court determination on this score
is for abuse of discretion. (Ibid.)

             2.    Analysis
       Father’s discussion of the parental benefit exception in his
opening brief, which Mother joins, conspicuously addresses only
visitation and the existence of a beneficial relationship. But
these are only two of the three elements that must be satisfied for
the exception to apply. Indeed, the juvenile court assumed these
elements were satisfied, emphasizing it was “focus[ing] . . . on the
third prong” and deciding what it thought was “the real
question,” namely, whether the relationship is substantial
enough that terminating the attachment would be detrimental
when balanced against the benefits of adoption. The failure to
challenge the basis of the juvenile court’s ruling again forfeits the
issue.
       Even putting aside the forfeiture for the sake of argument,
the juvenile court’s analysis was not an abuse of its discretion.
The court balanced Minors’ relationship with Mother and Father
against countervailing considerations—principally the amount of
time Minors had already spent in foster care (more than two
years), their attachment to their prospective adoptive parents,
and the lack of evidence that Minors suffered any degree of
separation anxiety, even after visits with Mother and Father. In
light of the strong evidence that Minors were thriving in their
prospective adoptive placement and the lack of evidence that they
suffered significant detriment from their separation from Mother
and Father, the juvenile court did not exceed the bounds of
reason in finding the parents had not proven the parental benefit
exception applicable.

                                 14
                          DISPOSITION
      The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                       BAKER, Acting P. J.

We concur:

      MOOR, J.

      LEE, J.*

*
      Judge of the San Bernardino County Superior Court,
assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of
the California Constitution.

                                15