Court Opinion

ID: 9408801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-13 18:03:47.252272+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:46.895522
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/13/23 In re S.L. CA4/2
                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 In re S.L., et al. Persons Coming Under
 the Juvenile Court Law.

 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
 CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,                                           E080522

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. Nos. J289595, J289596,
                                                                          J289597)
 v.
                                                                         OPINION
 S.S.,

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G. Pace,

Judge. Affirmed.

         Cristina Gabrielidis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         Tom Bunton, County Counsel, and Kristina M. Robb, County Counsel, for

Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
                                                I.

                                      INTRODUCTION

       Mother S.S. (Mother) appeals from a juvenile court order terminating her parental
                                                                1
rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, to S.L. (2 years old), V.L. (4

years old), and T.L. (5 years old). Mother contends the juvenile court erred in rejecting

the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption and terminating parental rights.

We conclude there was no error and affirm.

                                               II.

                     FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

       On May 10, 2021, after Mother and her husband (Father) verbally argued, Father

left with their three month old son, S.L. Mother did not know where Father went with

S.L. Two days later, law enforcement told Mother and San Bernardino County Children

and Family services (CFS) that S.L. had been found by the side of the street in a car seat.

Father was located about a block away, under the influence of methamphetamine. He

admitted using methamphetamine a few days before. Father was charged with child

cruelty.

       When interviewed by CFS, Mother said that, in addition to S.L., she had two other
                                                     2
children , V.L. and T.L., by a different father, F.T. V.L. was three years old and T.L. was

       1
          Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
       2
           Neither Father nor F.T. is a party to this appeal.

                                                2
four years old. Mother admitted she had used methamphetamines with F.T. but claimed

she quit when CFS previously became involved with her family. Mother reported that

Father was on parole and had gotten out of prison about two weeks ago. He had been in

prison for assault, domestic violence, and violating his parole.

       CFS prepared a safety plan with Mother, in which she agreed not to allow Father

to be around the children, and not to allow him to be alone with S.L. However, Mother

indicated she wanted Father to have contact with S.L. Mother also agreed to address her

substance abuse issues and obtain a restraining order against Father. Mother failed to

comply with the recommendations outlined in the safety plan and allowed Father to be in

her home while the children were present.

       A. Detention

       Because of concerns Mother was not protecting the children, the children were

removed from Mother on June 18, 2021. On behalf of the children, CFS filed juvenile

dependency petitions under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) (failure to protect) and (g)
                           3
(no provision for support). The petition alleges a risk of harm and failure to protect the

children based on Mother and Father (Parents) engaging in domestic violence, Parents

abusing controlled substances, and Father and F.T. failing to provide support because

their whereabouts were unknown.

       3
        The three petitions are referred to in the singular as the “petition,” as are
subsequent documents and orders filed separately as to each child.

                                              3
         CFS reported in the detention report that Father had an extensive criminal history

dating back to 2003 and mother had a 2017 charge for possession of drug paraphernalia.

Mother also had a prior child welfare history, which included two unconfirmed cases, one

in 2016 for drug abuse, relating to her older children who are not the subject of current

dependency proceedings, and another referral in 2018, involving drug use and the family

home roof collapsing onto T.L.

         At the detention hearing in June 2021, the court ordered the children removed

from their parents and ordered supervised visitation for the parents once a week for two

hours.

         B. Jurisdiction/Disposition

         CFS reported in the jurisdiction/disposition report that Father’s whereabouts were

known but F.T.’s whereabouts remained unknown. As a result of the May 12, 2021

incident, Father was charged with child cruelty. Law enforcement reported Mother did

not seem surprised or concerned about the incident or that S.L.’s whereabouts were

unknown until he was found on the side of the road in his car seat. During CFS’s

interview of Mother on July 1, 2021, Mother said that Father was released from prison in

2020 for assault with a deadly weapon on a neighbor but the assault was actually on her.

Mother also stated that when Father took S.L. on May 10, 2021, he was gone with S.L.

for two nights. Father would usually take off with S.L. after arguing with Mother, and

put S.L. in the car seat while Father would walk around. Mother denied the domestic

violence allegations. She claimed that when she and Father argued, the children were

                                              4
sleeping in a separate bedroom. Mother admitted having a history of methamphetamine

use in 2015 and 2016, denied receiving treatment, and denied currently using

methamphetamine.

       CFS reported T.L. and V.L. had speech delays, ate inedible objects, and did not

like to bathe. T.L. was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, was frequently angry,

physically attacked V.L., had difficulty sleeping, threw objects, and hit himself. V.L. had

extreme anger when told “no” and physically fought with T.L. S.L. was too young to

determine if he had any developmental delays or behavioral issues.

       When visiting T.L. and V.L. on July 2, 2021, Mother reportedly struggled to

manage the children. CFS reported that it appeared that the children were not bonded

with Mother. There were no concerns regarding Mother’s separate visit with S.L. on July

6, 2021. F.T.’s whereabouts were still unknown.

       At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on July 14, 2021, the court declared the

children dependents of the court and ordered reunification services for the parents.

       C. Six-Month Review

       CFS reported in the six-month status report filed on January 3, 2022, that on June

4, 2021, Father was convicted of willful cruelty to a child and sentenced to summary

probation. On October 25, 2021, he was arrested for battery and violating the terms of

his probation. On November 2, 2021, he pled no contest to battery and was placed back

on probation. Father was currently in residential treatment. Mother was unemployed.

F.T.’s whereabouts remained unknown.

                                             5
         Mother tested positive for methamphetamine in July and September 2021, and did

not show up for testing on nine occasions. She also tested positive for methamphetamine

on November 29, 2021, the day of intake for her outpatient care program.

         Mother visited the children every Tuesday. During the visits, Mother brought food

and overfed the children. T.L. would “stress-eat” so much that he would vomit. Mother

fed V.L. cheese and milk even though she knew V.L. was lactose intolerant. Mother used

profanity during the visits and smacked V.L. in the mouth with the front of her hand when

V.L. whined, and told her to “shut up” three or four times. Mother said she could “flick”

the child. Mother denied hitting her in the mouth but admitted “flicking” her on the

mouth. When Mother told V.L. to take a timeout in the corner, V.L. ran under a chair and

cried.

         During a visit in September 2021, T.L. broke out in hives and defecated in his

pants. When the visit ended, T.L. and V.L. ran to their caregivers’ van, pushing and

shoving to get in. The CFS notes for Mother’s visits in August, September, and October

2021, stated that Mother told the children it was not her fault when they were upset, she

brought junk food to the visits, she allowed T.L. to overeat, and she told V.L. she was

disgusting and a “nasty ass” during two visits.

         CFS reported that Mother and Father were participating in services but had made

minimal progress in changing their behaviors. CFS noted that Mother was taking

parenting classes and participating in counseling but “her behaviors during visitation with

the children [were] very concerning. Mother has not appeared to have benefited from the

                                              6
services she has completed. The mother is exhibiting inappropriate behaviors and

interaction with the children.”

       T.L. was being evaluated for autism and was going to receive physical therapy and

behavior modification services. He needed assistance with dressing, bathing, and

brushing his teeth. V.L. had no medical or mental health issues. S.L. had motor skills

developmental delays and was referred for physical therapy.

       CFS reported in an additional information report that Mother completed 10 out of

12 parent education sessions, and completed anger management and domestic violence

programs. She was enrolled in a substance abuse treatment program but her attendance

was inconsistent and she had failed to show for testing.

       At the six-month review hearing in February 2022, the court continued Mother’s

reunification services and terminated reunification services for Father and F.T. The court

granted Mother supervised visits once a week for three hours.

       D. Twelve-Month Review

       CFS reported in its 12-month status review report in June 2022, that Mother and

Father separated. CFS was concerned that Mother might be having a relationship with

someone in jail who was incarcerated for involvement in a police pursuit and shooting at

a deputy. Mother said she was only talking to the inmate and not dating him. During

visits with the children, Mother reportedly made statements about her “‘new daddy.’”

After enrolling in outpatient treatment in November 2021, Mother drug tested negative in

                                             7
December 2021, January 2022, February, March, April, and June 2022. Mother missed

drug testing in May and July 2022.

       Mother’s visitation with the children was sporadic. She had not visited the

children since April 22, 2022. She claimed she had had some medical issues which

required treatment but she did not provide CFS with any substantiating documentation.

CFS reported that during visits Mother called the children names, such as “‘brat’” and

“‘cry baby’” and told the children to “‘shut up.’” Mother continued to bring to visits

dairy products and feed them to V.L. and S.L., even though she was aware they were

lactose intolerant. CFS reported that “There does not appear to be a significant

attachment between the children and the parents. There are concerns regarding the

quality of the visits due to some inappropriate behaviors exhibited by the parents.”

       CFS reported in the visitation logs that there were concerns that during visits,

when S.L. cried, Mother would tell him, “quit it” or “be quiet,” and had forced him to go

down a slide when he was scared, which made him cry even more. She then said she had

had enough of his crying, put him in his stroller, and left him unsupervised. She forced

the children to sit at a park table and watch a movie for an hour instead of letting them

play. During a visit, S.L. became distressed when Mother picked him up and when she

spoke to him. She reportedly was on her phone a lot during visits and became easily

frustrated with the children. During another visit, she appeared irritated throughout the

visit, glared at the children, and made nasty faces at them. During an April 2022 visit,

she said she was in pain and did not interact with the children much.

                                             8
      The children were healthy, had made good progress in meeting developmental

milestones, and had adjusted well to their placement and caregivers. The children had

been placed together with Ms. H. and Ms. G. since August 19, 2021.

      CFS reported in its July 2022, additional information report that Mother failed to

drug test in June and July 2022, although she also had a negative drug test in June 2022.

      At the contested 12-month review hearing in July 2022, the court found Mother

had made minimal progress, her drug testing and visitation were inconsistent, and the

court had significant concerns with her visits. The court terminated Mother’s

reunification services, scheduled a section 366.26 hearing, and granted Mother

supervised visits twice a month for two hours.

      E. Section 366.26 Hearing

      CFS reported in its section 366.26 hearing report filed in November 2022, that the

children were physically healthy and making good progress in their placement with Ms.

H. and Ms. G. Mother was not consistent with her visits and often failed to confirm or

show up for visits. The caregivers were committed to caring for the children on a

permanent basis. The caregivers and children were strongly bonded.

      In November 2022, Mother filed a section 388 petition seeking reinstatement of

services based on her entry into inpatient treatment. Mother reported she was not in a

relationship. The court summarily denied her section 388 request.

                                            9
       In December 2022, CFS reported that supervised video visits for Mother were

scheduled on Fridays for two hours. Her last visit was November 6, 2022. Mother was

still in her recovery program.

       At the section 366.26 hearing on December 15, 2022, Mother testified she had a

bond with the children and objected to termination of her parental rights. Mother stated

that in 2021 through June 27, 2022, she visited the children every week, and after that,

visited bi-weekly. According to Mother, she had four in-person visits during the period

from June through October 2022. The children ran to her, called her “Mom,” and gave

her hugs and kisses. Mother testified that, after enrolling in her in-patient program, she

visited the children once “because they have sports and other stuff and I’m not going to

sit them here and try to get them out of their sports to just sit on the phone.” Mother also

explained she had a long recovery program schedule, which made it difficult to

accommodate visits.

       The court found that the children were adoptable, found no exceptions to adoption

applied, ordered adoption as the permanent plan, and terminated parental rights.

                                             10
                                             III.

                                       DISCUSSION

       Mother contends the court erred when it found the beneficial parental relationship

exception to adoption did not apply and terminated parental rights. We conclude there

was no such error.

       A. Applicable Law

       After the juvenile court terminates a parent’s reunification services, “‘the focus [of

the proceedings] shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability.’” (In re

Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 52.) Adoption then becomes the preferred permanent

plan for the child. Section 366.26 requires the juvenile court to terminate parental rights

if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child is likely to be adopted.

(§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) A parent may avoid termination of parental rights, however, if

the parent establishes an exception to adoption. (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614,

630-631 (Caden C.).)

       One such exception is the beneficial parental relationship exception. (Caden C.,

supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 630-631; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) To establish the

exception, the parent bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, three

elements: (1) regular visitation and contact with the child, taking into account the extent

of visitation permitted; (2) the existence of a substantial, positive, emotional attachment

between the child and the parent—the kind of attachment implying that the child would

benefit from continuing the relationship; and (3) that terminating the parent–child

                                             11
relationship would be detrimental to the child even when balanced against the

countervailing benefit of a new adoptive home. (Caden C., supra, at p. 636; § 366.26,

subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)

       In Caden C., the California Supreme Court explained that the statutory language

of the beneficial parental relationship exception, “along with its history and place in the

larger dependency scheme, show that the exception applies in situations where a child

cannot be in a parent’s custody but where severing the child’s relationship with the

parent, even when balanced against the benefits of a new adoptive home, would be

harmful for the child.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 630.)

       In determining if the beneficial parental relationship exception applies, “the court

acts in the child’s best interest in a specific way: it decides 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.] That subtle, case-specific inquiry is what the

statute asks courts to perform: does the benefit of placement in a new, adoptive home

outweigh ‘the harm [the child] would experience from the loss of [a] significant, positive,

emotional relationship with [the parent?]’ [Citation.] When the relationship with a parent

is so important to the child that the security and stability of a new home wouldn’t

outweigh its loss, termination would be ‘detrimental to the child due to’ the child’s

                                             12
beneficial relationship with a parent.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 633-634,

italics omitted.)

        The court clarified in Caden C. that a parent’s failure to make adequate case-plan

progress or to address the issues that led to the child’s dependency, while relevant, is not

a categorical bar to establishing the exception. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 637-

638.) The critical question is whether the child’s relationship with his or her parent is so

significant that it outweighs the benefits of adoption, not whether the parent has

satisfactorily addressed the issues that led to dependency proceedings. (Id. at pp. 635-

636.)

        In understanding these elements, we are guided by the seminal decision

interpreting the exception, In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567. (Caden C.,

supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 631.) “What the appellate court emphasized in Autumn H. is a

crucial aspect of the trial court’s responsibility in these cases: in assessing whether

termination would be detrimental, the trial court must decide whether the harm from

severing the child’s relationship with the parent outweighs the benefit to the child of

placement in a new adoptive home. (See In re Autumn H., supra, at p. 575.) By making

this decision, the trial court determines whether terminating parental rights serves the

child’s best interests.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 631-632.)

                                             13
       “When the parent has met that burden, the parental-benefit exception applies such

that it would not be in the best interest of the child to terminate parental rights, and the

court should select a permanent plan other than adoption. (See § 366.26, subd.

(c)(4)(A).)” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 636-637.)

       B. Standard of Review

       The juvenile court’s findings on the first two elements—regular visitation and

whether the child would benefit from continuing the relationship—are reviewed for

substantial evidence. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 639-640.) Courts review the

third element using a hybrid standard: reviewing factual determinations for substantial

evidence and the weighing of the relative harms and benefits of terminating parental

rights for an abuse of discretion. (Ibid.)

       Where, as in this case, the mother contends that the juvenile court erred in

rejecting the beneficial parental relationship exception, we must determine whether the

evidence compels a finding in favor of mother as a matter of law. (In re I.W. (2009) 180

Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528, disapproved of on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B.

(2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010, fn. 7.) “Specifically, the question becomes whether the

appellant’s evidence was (1) ‘uncontradicted and unimpeached’ and (2) ‘of such a

character and weight as to leave no room for a judicial determination that it was

insufficient to support a finding.’ [Citation.]” (In re I.W., supra, at p. 1528.)

                                              14
       C. Analysis

       Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that Mother did not meet

the first requirement of consistent visitation with the children. At the beginning of the

juvenile dependency proceedings, during the first six-months, she consistently visited the

children once a week. Thereafter, Mother’s visitation became sporadic and she did not

visit the children for a month. Mother claimed this was because she had health issues but

Mother did not provide CFS with any supporting documentation. In June 2022, Mother

missed a visit, which she claimed was because she did not know she had to confirm the

visit beforehand. Mother also ended early another visit in July 2022. CFS reported in its

November 2022, that Mother’s visitation remained inconsistent and she often failed to

show up for visits or confirm she intended to attend visits.

       During testimony at the section 366.26 hearing in December 2022, Mother

acknowledged her visitation was inconsistent. Although her visits were scheduled to be

biweekly, she visited the children in person only four times out of 10 scheduled visits,

from June through October 2022. Beginning in October, after Mother entered her in-

patient program, she was only able to visit by video. During that time, until the section

366.26 hearing in December 2022, she only had one video visit. We conclude Mother

has not met her burden of establishing consistent visitation.

       There is also insufficient evidence establishing the second element of the

beneficial parental relationship exception; that the children would benefit from

continuing their relationship with Mother. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). The court in

                                             15
Caden C. states regarding the second element that “the focus is the child. And the

relationship may be shaped by a slew of factors, such as ‘[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.’ [Citation.] As

the trial court and Court of Appeal did here, courts often consider how children feel

about, interact with, look to, or talk about their parents. [Citations.] Doing so properly

focuses the inquiry on the child, even as courts must remain mindful that rarely do

‘[p]arent-child relationships’ conform to an entirely consistent pattern. [Citations.]”

(Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.)

       Mother argues that guardianship, rather than adoption, was more appropriate

because the children had a substantial, positive emotional attachment to her. But

substantial evidence does not support such a finding. The children were young when

removed from Mother. S.L. was four months old, V.L. was two years old, and T.L. was

four years old. The portion of the children’s lives spent in Mother’s custody was short.

At the time of the section 366.26 hearing, the children had been placed three times and

had been in foster care for a year and a half. They had lived with their current caretakers,

Ms. H. and Ms. G., since August 19, 2021, and were doing well in their placement. The

children and their caretakers had bonded and the caretakers were willing to provide a

permanent home for the children.

       The evidence disclosed that Mother’s visits often had a negative effect on the

children. All visits were supervised, including the video call visitation. During many of

                                              16
the visits, she brought the children unhealthy food and overfed them, resulting in T.L.

vomiting. She also fed V.L. and S.L. dairy foods, even though she knew they were

lactose intolerant and dairy food made them sick.

       There was also evidence Mother had difficulty managing the children, she became

easily irritated with them, and she did not appear to be bonded with them. Mother used

profanity during visits, called the children names, such as “brat,” “nasty ass,” “cry baby,”

and “disgusting.” She told them numerous times to “shut up” and smacked V.L. in the

mouth, causing her to hide under a chair and cry. After disruptive interaction between

Mother and Father in the children’s presence at the beginning of one visit, T.L. broke out

into hives and defecated on himself. After the visit, the children fled to their caregivers’

van, pushing and shoving to get in.

       We conclude the evidence in the record shows that, even though Mother testified

the children ran to her at the beginning of visits, hugged and kissed her, and called her

“Mom,” much of Mother’s interaction with the children was negative, harmful, and

problematic. There was substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s finding that

Mother and the children did not have a substantive positive emotional attachment.

       There is also insufficient evidence as to the third factor; that terminating the

parent–child relationship would be detrimental to the children even when balanced

against the countervailing benefit of a new adoptive home. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th

at p. 636; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)

                                             17
       The court in Caden C. states as to the third element that “the court must decide

whether it would be harmful to the child to sever the relationship and choose adoption.

(§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B); see also id., subd. (c)(1)(D).) Because terminating parental

rights eliminates any legal basis for the parent or child to maintain the relationship, courts

must assume that terminating parental rights terminates the relationship. [Citations.]

What courts need to determine, therefore, is how the child would be affected by losing

the parental relationship — in effect, what life would be like for the child in an adoptive

home without the parent in the child’s life. . . . [T]he effects might include emotional

instability and preoccupation leading to acting out, difficulties in school, insomnia,

anxiety, or depression. Yet as the experts in this case discussed, a new, stable home may

alleviate the emotional instability and preoccupation leading to such problems, providing

a new source of stability that could make the loss of a parent not, at least on balance,

detrimental.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 633.) Thus, “the question is just whether

losing the relationship with the parent would harm the child to an extent not outweighed,

on balance, by the security of a new, adoptive home.” (Id. at p. 634.)

       Here, the children were young when they were removed from Mother and had

been living with their current caretakers in a stable home environment for 14 months.

They were bonded to their caretakers and making progress with their developmental and

behavioral issues. Mother has not demonstrated that the children would be detrimentally

affected by severing their relationship with her, whereas the record demonstrates that the

children would benefit from the stability of being adopted by their caretakers. There was

                                             18
evidence the children and Mother were not closely bonded. Mother’s visits were

supervised and were for only two to three hours a week, at most.

       During visits, Mother was easily irritated by the children’s behavior, resulting in

Mother calling the children names, hitting them, and telling them to “shut up.” Mother’s

conduct feeding the children dairy and junk food, and overfeeding them, making them

sick, did not seem to concern Mother, because she continued such detrimental conduct,

even though she knew it was inappropriate and harmful. In addition, there was one visit

that had been particularly traumatizing, in which the children fled to their caretaker’s van

at the end of the visit as quickly as they could. Evidence showed that at some of the

visits the children were uncomfortable, anxious, and unhappy. There is no evidence that

the children expressed any desire to live with Mother.

       As noted in In re A.L. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1157, in assessing potential

detriment, it was proper for the juvenile court to consider the nature of the caregivers’ and

Mother’s relationships with the children. The Supreme Court acknowledged in Caden C.

that “[i]n many cases, ‘the strength and quality of the natural parent/child relationship’

will substantially determine how detrimental it would be to lose that relationship, which

must be weighed against the benefits of a new adoptive home.” (Caden C., supra, 11

Cal.5th at p. 634.) Thus, the strength and quality of Mother’s relationship with the

children “is a relevant consideration to the court’s detriment finding.” (In re A.L., supra,

at p. 1157.)

                                             19
       Even assuming the children were bonded with Mother, Mother has not established

that such bond was strong enough to outweigh the benefit of the children being adopted.

We conclude Mother therefore has not met her burden of demonstrating that severing her

relationship with the children would deprive the children of a substantial, positive

emotional attachment and would harm the children. (See Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at

p. 636; In re A.L., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 1153 [“The burden is on the parent to prove

the parental-benefit exception by a preponderance of the evidence.”]) Under such

circumstances, the juvenile court did not err in rejecting the beneficial parental

relationship exception and terminating parental rights.

                                             IV.

                                      DISPOSITION

       The order on December 15, 2022, terminating Mother and Father M.’s parental

rights is affirmed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                CODRINGTON
                                                                                          J.

We concur:

MILLER
                 Acting P. J.

MENETREZ
                           J.

                                             20