Court Opinion

ID: 9404973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 20:04:06.989884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:38.163573
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/26/23 In re C.A. CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                        (Placer)
                                                            ----

    In re C.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court                                       C096765
    Law.

    PLACER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH                                             (Super. Ct. No. 53005082)
    AND HUMAN SERVICES,

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,

             v.

    C.A.,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

            C.A. (father), who appears before us pro se, appeals from orders terminating his
parental rights to minor C.A. (minor) under Welfare and Institutions Code section
366.261 and denying his section 388 petition. Father argues these orders were erroneous

1           Undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

            Mother is not a party to this appeal.

                                                             1
because (1) the juvenile court improperly failed to find that the beneficial parental
relationship exception applied, and (2) the juvenile court incorrectly believed the time for
reunification services had expired. Father also argues that (1) his due process rights were
violated when the social worker sent documents late and to the wrong address; (2) his
request for a bonding study was improperly ignored; and (3) the social worker did not
consider certain evidence at the beginning of the case. We will affirm.
                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         In June 2020, minor was detained after minor and mother both tested positive for
amphetamines at the time of minor’s birth. Mother subsequently admitted using
methamphetamine every few days for approximately 17 years. Father denied knowing
about mother’s substance abuse and claimed he did not abuse any substances or alcohol.
         Minor was initially placed with father but then removed four days later because
father (1) failed to comply with the agreed-upon safety plan, and (2) tested positive for
amphetamines and methamphetamines.
         That same month, the Placer County Department of Health and Human Services
(Department) filed a section 300 petition naming the minor and based on his parents’
neglect. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).) The juvenile court ordered the minor detained and
subsequently sustained the uncontested petition. The court ordered twice-weekly
supervised visitation with the parents.
         During the August 2020 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, the juvenile court
adjudged minor to be a dependent of the court and ordered reunification services for
parents. The court continued twice-weekly supervised visitation for the parents with
minor.
         Reports from November 2020, February 2021, and July 2021 noted father was
engaging with services but struggled with sobriety. During this period, father visited
regularly with minor, and his visits were appropriate.

                                              2
       During the 12-month review hearing in August 2021, the juvenile court continued
services for mother and supervised visitation for both parents. However, the court
terminated father’s services, finding (1) father had not complied with the reunification
plan, and (2) there was not a substantial probability that minor would be returned to
father’s physical custody within the requisite timeframe.
       The 18-month status report in December 2021 recommended minor be returned to
mother’s care. Mother had multiple successful overnight visits with minor, and the two
had bonded. Meanwhile, father continued to have weekly supervised visits with minor.
The visits went well, and minor appeared bonded with father. The court returned minor
to mother with family maintenance services and continued supervised visits for father.
       In January 2022, the Department filed a section 387 supplemental petition.
Mother and her adult daughter had an argument, and the adult daughter called police and
father because mother was so intoxicated that she was unable to care for minor. Father
took minor and left, even though the court had only ordered supervised visitation. Father
ignored repeated calls from police and eventually returned minor to mother’s home the
following morning. The court ordered minor detained, and he was returned to his
previous caregivers. The court ordered supervised once-a-week visitation for parents.
       The February 2022 jurisdiction/disposition report recommended terminating
services for mother and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Minor’s caregivers reported
that when minor was returned to them in January 2022, minor was having nightmares and
was fearful of baths. He had also become clingy. The caregivers expressed interest in
adopting minor. Father said he had been sober since September 2021 and was
participating in substance abuse services. He said he and minor had “a very special bond,
[minor] gets so upset when I leave and it kills me and hurts my heart.” The report noted
minor was struggling with the transitions to and from his visits with parents.
       The report attached notes regarding the visits between minor and father. Father
appeared engaged with minor during some of the visits, although he repeatedly offered

                                             3
minor his phone to watch videos, explaining he thought minor was “tired.” But, he often
failed to check minor’s diaper, appearing to the social worker that father was not paying
attention to minor.
       During the February 2022 jurisdiction/disposition hearing, mother and father each
submitted on the section 387 petition. The juvenile court sustained the petition,
terminated mother’s family maintenance services, and set a section 366.26 hearing. The
court also ordered twice-monthly supervised visitation for parents.
       A.     Section 388 petition
       In May 2022, father filed a section 388 petition asking the court to reinstate
reunification services. Father argued he was sober, employed, and living in stable
housing with his girlfriend. He further argued he had continued visiting with minor
regularly and was bonded with minor.2
       B.     Section 366.26 report and hearing
       The June 2022 section 366.26 report recommended terminating parental rights and
freeing the minor for adoption by the current caregivers, who had cared for him since
June 2020 (except for the brief period minor was returned to mother from Dec. 2021
through Jan. 2022). Minor was comfortable with his caregivers and looked to them to
meet his daily physical and emotional needs. Minor, who was only 23 months old, had
been out of his mother’s care for 22 months, and had only spent a few days in his father’s
care. During minor’s twice-monthly supervised visits with parents, mother and father
would sometimes bring snacks and toys, but they never brought essential items such as
diapers. Minor continued to struggle with the transitions to and from the visits. And,
although he called his caregivers mother and father, he did not refer to parents by those
names. Minor showed affection toward parents, but he was a generally affectionate child

2      Mother also filed a section 388 petition asking for the return of her son. That
petition is not at issue in this appeal.

                                             4
with everyone in his life. In addition, although minor responded positively to his parents
during visits, he responded similarly to strangers, and he never asked for mother or father
or showed excitement when he saw them during visits. Minor did not know any home
other than the home of his caregivers, and he was clingy with caregivers when he was
returned to them in January 2022. In sum, minor needed the security and permanency of
adoption, and he would not suffer from losing his limited relationship with his parents.
       During the July 2022 section 366.26 hearing, father testified he had regularly used
methamphetamine for about six years but had been sober since September 2021. He had
attended 90 Alcoholics Anonymous meetings in 92 days at the start of his sobriety, and
he now had a sponsor and attended meetings twice a month. He did not have any proof
of attending the meetings. He testified that the night in January 2022 when mother was
intoxicated, he took minor to his girlfriend’s house to keep minor safe and avoid respite
care that night. He had missed the calls from police that evening because his phone had
died. Minor had been clingy with him that night. Father was now living with his
girlfriend and worked as a general contractor.
       Father testified his visits with minor were “amazing.” Minor was always excited
to see him at the start of visits. The two played together, read books, watched videos, and
practiced counting, and father changed minor’s diaper when necessary. Although he
could not bring essential things like diapers to the initial meetings due to COVID-19,
father did so when the rules changed. Father once tried to discipline minor when minor
grabbed a remote control. Father testified minor would get upset and cry when father
left, sometimes grabbing father’s leg. Ending visits had gotten easier recently because
father signaled the end of visits by cleaning up. Minor called father “dada” and “daddy
shark.” Father asked the court to extend his reunification services or return minor to him.
       A social worker who had observed minor since the start of the case testified minor
was very bonded with his caregivers. He called them “momma” and “dadda” and was
very affectionate with them. She also testified that although father had recently become

                                             5
more engaged during his visits with minor, some of his prior visits were less successful.
During one of the visits she observed, father just sat nearby in complete silence for nearly
30 minutes, not interacting with minor, who was playing with the window blinds with his
back to father. During another visit, father failed to notice for over 20 minutes that minor
had a dirty diaper that needed changing. The social worker testified that there was only
one visitation note stating that minor referred to father as “dadda,” and she opined minor
may have used this word because both father and the visitation monitor referred to father
by that name. In her opinion, minor viewed father as a friendly visitor and did not
engage with father. Although initially minor had some difficulty leaving father at the end
of visits, these issues resolved once minor became more comfortable at the visitation
center.
          In August 2022, the court denied father’s section 388 petition, reasoning that
father had failed to show that circumstances in his life had changed so permanently as to
justify reinstatement of services, and that to do so would not be in minor’s best interest.
The court did not find father’s testimony regarding his current sobriety credible,
especially since father had previously been dishonest about his sobriety, even when
confronted with positive drug tests.
          With respect to terminating parental rights, the court reviewed the necessary
considerations with respect to application of the beneficial parental relationship
exception. The court found both parents had maintained regular visitation and had a
beneficial relationship with minor. As such, the issue was whether the parents had
established that terminating the relationship would “cause [minor] such detriment that it
would override the compelling need for stability of a permanent home with an adoptive
family.” The court noted the social worker’s testimony that minor had formed a strong
bond with his caregivers. Although parents loved minor, he had lived (and thrived) with
his caregivers for his entire life, except for a short time he was away from their care.
Parents also had failed to present evidence that established “that the relationship with

                                                6
either parent so promotes [minor’s] well being to such a degree that it outweighs the
stability and well being that he would gain in a permanent home.” Finding that the
beneficial parental relationship exception did not apply, the court terminated parents’
parental rights and freed minor for adoption.
                                       DISCUSSION
                                                I
       Father contends the juvenile court erred in denying his section 388 petition.
Although father does not fully develop this argument, or provide citations to the record,
he contends that the court erroneously believed that time had run out for additional
reunification services. We disagree.
       At the time of July 2022 hearing, the minor had been detained for over 24 months,
as properly measured from the date he was taken into protective custody in June 2020.
Section 361.5 makes clear that the maximum time period for reunification services is not
to exceed 18 months from the initial detention, unless the permanent plan for the minor is
to return and safely maintain the minor in the home within the extended time period, and
the court finds a substantial probability that the minor will be returned to the physical
custody of his or her parent within the extended timeframe. (§ 361.5, subd. (a)(3), (4);
San Joaquin Human Services Agency v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 215,
222-223.) The court neither made such findings nor adopted a permanent plan of
returning minor to parents prior to the expiration of the 18-month period. As such, the
court did not err in denying father’s section 388 petition.
                                              II
       Father next argues that the juvenile court erred in finding the beneficial parental
relationship exception did not apply. Here, father contends the social worker was biased
against him and overly focused on the strong bond minor had formed with his caregivers.
He argues the evidence showed he had a strong bond with minor, and disputes the
accuracy of the Department’s reports. Acknowledging that father maintained consistent

                                              7
visitation with minor, the Department argues the trial court did not err because father has
failed to establish (1) a significant, positive, emotional attachment with minor, or (2) that
the harm minor would experience if the parental relationship were terminated is
outweighed by the benefit provided by an adoptive home. We find no merit to father’s
arguments.
       A.     Applicable law
       At the section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing, a juvenile court must
choose one of the several “ ‘possible alternative permanent plans for a minor child. . . .
The permanent plan preferred by the Legislature is adoption. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] If
the court finds the child is adoptable, it must terminate parental rights absent
circumstances under which it would be detrimental to the child.” (In re Ronell A. (1996)
44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1368, italics omitted.) There are only limited circumstances
permitting the court to find a “compelling reason for determining that termination [of
parental rights] would be detrimental to the child.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).) Such
circumstances include when the parents have maintained regular visitation and contact
with the child, the child would benefit from continuing the relationship, and termination
of parental rights would be detrimental to the child. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)
[beneficial parental relationship exception]; In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 639-
640 (Caden C.).)
       For the beneficial parental relationship exception to apply, the parent “must show
regular visitation and contact with the child, taking into account the extent of visitation
permitted. Moreover, the parent must show that the child has a substantial, positive,
emotional attachment to the parent—the kind of attachment implying that the child would
benefit from continuing the relationship. And the parent must show that terminating that
attachment would be detrimental to the child even when balanced against the
countervailing benefit of a new, adoptive home.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 636.)

                                              8
       The beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption “must be examined on a
case-by-case basis, taking into account the many variables which affect a parent/child
bond. The 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 are some of the variables which logically affect a parent/child bond.”
(In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.) The factual predicate of the
exception must be supported by substantial evidence, but the juvenile court exercises its
discretion in weighing that evidence and determining detriment. (Caden C., supra, 11
Cal.5th at pp. 639-640; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 622.)
       B.      Analysis
       The record demonstrates minor enjoyed his visits with father, and they were
somewhat bonded. The minor was only a few days old when he was removed from
parents’ care, and he had lived with the same caregivers for almost his entire life, except
for about a month that he spent with mother and a few days with father. Although their
visits mostly went well, father often played videos during their limited times together,
and he regularly failed to check minor’s diaper. While minor was affectionate with
father, he also was friendly and affectionate with almost everyone in his life. As the
social worker testified, minor only viewed father as a friendly visitor. (See Caden C.,
supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632 [whether minor has a substantial, positive, emotional
attachment to a parent involves numerous factors, such as the child’s age, the portion of
the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, the positive or negative effect of interaction
between parent and child, the child’s specific needs, and how the child feels about and
interacts with, looks to, or talks to the parent].)
       Given this limited bond between minor and father, it was reasonable for the court
to conclude that terminating minor’s relationship with father would not be detrimental
when balanced against the countervailing benefit of a new, adoptive home. Although
father testified minor was sometimes sad at the end of their visits, the social worker

                                                9
testified this had not been an issue once minor had become comfortable at the visitation
center. The Department noted in its report that minor did not seem excited to see his
parents during visits, and he never asked for them. In contrast, he was clingy with his
caregivers when he was returned to them in January 2022 after his brief stay with mother.
As the Department opined, minor would benefit from a sense of stability, and this benefit
is not outweighed by the harm he would suffer from losing his relationship with his
parents. Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that
father had failed to establish the beneficial parent relationship exception to adoption.
(See Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 639-640.)
                                             III
       Father makes several additional claims, including that (1) his due process rights
were violated when the social worker sent documents late and to the wrong address;
(2) the father requested a bonding study but there was no follow-up; and (3) the social
worker did not consider certain evidence at the beginning of the case. As a preliminary
matter, we note that father has only appealed from the juvenile court’s orders denying his
section 388 petition and terminating parental rights pursuant to section 366.26. With
respect to the bonding study, father has not demonstrated that he made this request to the
court, and we therefore cannot address it on appeal. (See Guthrey v. State of California
(1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1115-1116 [failure to cite to supporting evidence forfeits
claim on appeal].) In addition, to the extent the social worker did not consider certain
evidence at the beginning of the case, we note that the juvenile court considered the entire
case file in making its orders, including testimony from father and other supporting
witnesses. (See Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 639-640 [the juvenile court exercises
its discretion in weighing the evidence].) Finally, we note that father failed to
specifically identify which documents were late or sent to the wrong address. Father
does not point to any instance where he missed a court hearing, or that he otherwise
suffered prejudice as a result of any purportedly late document, especially since he was

                                             10
represented by counsel throughout the proceedings in the juvenile court. (See Guthrey,
supra, at pp. 1115-1116 [an appellate court is not required to search the record to
ascertain whether it contains support for an appellant’s contentions].) Under the
circumstances, we must find that father’s additional claims are without merit.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.

                                                       KRAUSE                , J.

We concur:

      MAURO                 , Acting P. J.

      MESIWALA              , J.

                                             11