Court Opinion

ID: 9906047
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-30 20:03:29.356771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:04.899915
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/30/23 In re Israel H. CA2/7
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

In re ISRAEL H. et al., Persons                             B328139
Coming Under the Juvenile Court                             (Los Angeles County Super.
Law.                                                        Ct. No. 20CCJP02569)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

RUTH E.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Etan Z. Lorant, Temporary Judge. Affirmed.
      Janette Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court
of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Brian Mahler, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
                   __________________________

       Ruth E. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order
terminating her parental rights over eight-year-old Israel H., six-
year-old Isaac H., four-year-old Ernesto H., almost three-year-old
Noemi H., and 22-month-old Jacob H. under Welfare and
Institutions Code section 366.26.1 Mother contends the court
abused its discretion in failing to apply the beneficial parental
relationship exception to the termination of parental rights. We
affirm.

      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A.     The Dependency Petitions
       On May 8, 2020 the Los Angeles County Department of
Children and Family Services (Department) filed a dependency
petition on behalf of Israel, Isaac, Ernesto, and Noemi alleging
under section 300, subdivision (a) and former subdivision (b), that
Juan H. (Father)2 and Mother had a history of engaging in
violent altercations in the presence of the children; on April 18,
2020 Father choked and pushed Mother; Father previously
threatened to kill Mother; and Mother failed to protect the

1     Further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
2     Father is not a party to this appeal.

                                 2
children from Father’s abuse. At the May 13 detention hearing,
the juvenile court3 ordered the children released to Mother on the
condition, among others, that Mother submit to random drug
testing.
      In February 2021 the Department learned Mother tested
positive for methamphetamine in October 2020, November 2020,
and February 2021. Mother also reported she was six months
pregnant with a baby she was having with Father. On
February 16, 2021 the juvenile court4 issued a protective custody
warrant removing the children from Mother.
      On February 22 the Department filed an amended petition
on behalf of Israel, Isaac, Ernesto, and Noemi adding allegations
under section 300, former subdivision (b), that Mother had a
history of substance abuse and was a current user of
methamphetamine, which rendered her incapable of providing
regular care to the children; and Father knew or should have
known of Mother’s substance abuse and failed to protect the
children. On February 25, 2021 the juvenile court detained the
children from Mother and granted her monitored visitation. The
children were placed in the home of paternal aunt Marissa H.
and her fiancé Rolando P.

3     Judge Sabina A. Helton.
4     Judge Jean M. Nelson issued the protective custody
warrant and presided over the jurisdiction and disposition
hearings and status review hearings.

                                3
       At the July 12, 2021 jurisdiction and disposition hearing,
the juvenile court sustained the amended petition,5 declared
Israel, Isaac, Ernesto, and Noemi dependents of the court, and
removed them from Mother’s and Father’s custody. The court
ordered Mother to submit to weekly random or on demand drug
testing and complete a full drug program with aftercare for a
minimum of six months. The court also ordered Mother to attend
a domestic violence support group and individual counseling to
address child safety, substance abuse, domestic violence, and
codependency. The court granted Mother monitored visits for a
minimum of two to three times per week for two to three hours
each visit.
       On August 26, 2021 the Department filed a dependency
petition on behalf of Jacob (who was born in April 2021) under
section 300, subdivision (a), former subdivision (b), and
subdivision (j), based on substantially similar factual allegations
to those in the sustained petition on behalf of the four older
children. At the August 31, 2021 detention hearing, the juvenile
court ordered Jacob detained from the parents, and on
September 3 Jacob was placed in the home of paternal
grandmother Estela H.
       At the January 21, 2022 jurisdiction and disposition
hearing on Jacob’s petition, the juvenile court sustained the
petition as alleged under section 300, former subdivision (b) and
subdivision (j), declared Jacob a dependent of the court, and
removed him from the parents’ custody. Mother’s case plan

5     The juvenile court struck from the amended petition the
allegation Father should have known about Mother’s drug use
and failed to protect the children.

                                 4
included an order to attend a full drug program upon any missed
or positive tests. Mother was granted monitored visits with
Jacob for a minimum of two to three times per week for two to
three hours each visit.

B.     Mother’s Visitation During the Reunification Period
       The December 27, 2021 six-month status review report for
Israel, Isaac, Ernesto, and Noemi stated the children continued
to reside with Marissa and Rolando, where the children appeared
to be thriving. Mother was having regular weekly monitored
visits for three hours on Saturdays at a park and virtual visits on
Wednesday evenings. According to one of the caregivers, Mother
struggled to manage her time with the children, and the
caregiver “constantly need[ed] to redirect [M]other to help ensure
that all children are safe.” The social worker observed Mother
sitting with Noemi while the other children played with the
caregivers and had to be prompted to interact with Mother. In
addition, Mother would talk to Isaac and Israel alone and tell
them to misbehave and “not to call the caregivers ‘mom and dad.’”
       Mother continued to have regular visitation (except during
a two-month inpatient recovery program starting in March 2022).
However, the caregivers observed that during the visits in the
park, Mother was distracted on her cell phone as the children ran
around. Mother was also distracted during virtual visits:
sometimes she was driving, and at other times she seemed to
engage with someone off-screen. The children also had difficulty
sitting for 30 minutes during the virtual visits. As a result, the
virtual visits were “mediocre.”
       In the July 1, 2022 six-month status report as to Jacob
(then 14 months old), the Department reported he remained in

                                5
the home of Estela and was meeting his developmental
milestones. The Department did not report on Mother’s
interactions with Jacob.6 As of September 2022 Mother was
having regular in-person visits with all five children in the park.
The caregivers reported Mother had difficulty handling all of the
children at once, and the two toddlers (Noemi and Jacob) tended
to wander off and had to be retrieved by the caregivers. The
caregivers assisted Mother in handling all the children at the
same time. During an unannounced visit, the social worker
observed Mother was “engaged with the children, playing at the
park and sitting to eat with them,” and the “children appear[ed]
to have fun with their mother . . . .”
       At the November 14, 2022 joint status review hearing, the
juvenile court terminated reunification services for Mother as to
all five children. The court found Mother’s progress was not
substantial, and although Mother participated in services, she
continued to have contact with Father in a “co-dependent
relationship[] focused on substance abuse.” The court set a
selection and implementation hearing (§ 366.26) for March 13,
2023.

C.   Mother’s Visitation After Termination of Family
     Reunification Services
     According to the February 23, 2023 section 366.26 report,
Mother “maintained consistent and regular contact with the

6     The Department also reported that Mother tested positive
for amphetamine and methamphetamine on March 17, 2022 after
missing dozens of tests, although in April and May she tested
negative.

                                 6
children,” visiting them weekly in the park or at a restaurant
under the supervision of Estela, Marissa, and Rolando. Mother
was able to engage the children through play and “to discuss
school related events . . . in a healthy manner.” Further, the
children “expressed having fun with their mother” and “appeared
to do well” during the visits.
       Marissa and Rolando expressed interest in adopting the
four older children, and they were able to provide for the
children’s needs. Israel felt safe and happy living with his
caregivers and siblings. He wanted to remain in the caregivers’
home and “only have visits with his parents at the park.” The
social worker observed that Israel referred to Marissa and
Rolando as “Mom” and “Dad.” Isaac likewise referred to the
caregivers as “Mom” and “Dad,” and he reported feeling safe and
happy in his placement with his siblings and wanted to stay with
them, although he also expressed that “he would like to go spend
the night with his parents ‘sometimes.’” Ernesto was emotionally
attached to both caregivers and showed a “strong bond” with
Ronaldo; he stated “he enjoys going to see his parents but wants
to live in the house with his siblings and caregiver.” Noemi
appeared to have a strong, healthy attachment to the caregivers.
       Jacob continued to live with Estela, who was providing him
with a stable and nurturing environment. The social worker
observed Jacob would run to Estela for comfort, support, and
assistance. Jacob did well during visits with his parents, and he
had “no issues transitioning back to his placement.”
       The Department recommended as the permanent plan
adoption of the four older children by Marissa and Rolando, and
Jacob by Estella.

                                7
       In the March 9, 2023 last minute information for the court,
the Department reported, “Although the parents are visiting with
the children regularly, it appears the quality of the visits [is]
mediocre.” Eight-year-old Israel would interact with Mother for a
short period of time, but he would spend the remainder of the
visits with the caregivers while Mother was occupied with the
other children. He would not follow Mother’s directions, instead
waiting for the caregiver’s instruction, and Mother “struggle[d]
with [asserting] her authority and boundaries” and instead
appeared to create a “friendship-relationship.” Sometimes Israel
expressed that he did not want to go to the visits.
       Six-year-old Isaac needed encouragement to engage with
Mother during visits, and he looked to the caregivers for
reassurance or comfort. At the end of visits Isaac did not have
any difficulty leaving, and “instead [was] observed to be ready
and willing to return to his placement.” Four-year-old Ernesto
appeared to have fun during visits interacting with Mother and
playing with his siblings. But Mother had difficulty asserting her
authority, and Ernesto would become disruptive and test
Mother’s boundaries, requiring the caregivers’ intervention. At
the end of visits, Ernesto did not appear to be in distress or to
resist leaving.
       Two-year-old Noemi played with Mother during visits, but
she would often walk off, with the caregivers bringing her back,
and Noemi looked to the caregivers first if she fell or needed help
opening a snack. She was able to leave the visits without any
issues. Likewise, 22-month-old Jacob would play with Mother at
times, but he would also wander off. He often made sure Estela
was still there, and he stood by Estela if he felt uncertain or
uncomfortable.

                                8
      The Department concluded the “children struggle [in]
looking to the parents for comfort, assistance and direction” and,
having been out of the parents’ care for nearly three years at
young ages, “it does not appear that the children have developed
a substantial attachment to the parents.” The Department
asserted that terminating parental rights would be less likely to
cause emotional instability because the children “have shown
improvement and continue to thrive in their current
placement[s].”

D.    The Selection and Implementation Hearing
      At the March 13, 2023 section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile
court7 admitted the Department’s reports into evidence, including
the section 366.26 report, the last minute information for the
court, and an unidentified status review report. No testimony or
additional evidence was presented. The Department
recommended the court terminate parental rights, and Father’s
counsel submitted. Mother’s counsel opposed termination of
parental rights, stating Mother “would be instead asking for legal
guardianship.” The attorney explained Mother had addressed
her case issues: she was no longer in a relationship with Father,
she had been sober for a year, she was attending meetings, and
she had secured her own apartment. The attorney concluded,
“While [Mother] doesn’t have an issue with the paternal
grandmother and the aunt being the caregivers of her children,
Mother still believes that there is a bond worth saving between
her and her children, and I think if we look throughout the

7    Etan Lorant presided over the hearing as a Temporary
Judge by the stipulation of the parties.

                                 9
.26 report, Mother has been having consistent visitation, and by
all accounts those visits go very well. So . . . there is enough here
for Mother to be granted the legal guardianship.” Mother’s
counsel did not specifically address the beneficial parental
relationship exception.
       Minors’ counsel joined in the Department’s
recommendation to terminate Mother’s parental rights, arguing
that although “Mother’s counsel brings up the parental bond
exception,” Mother failed to meet the three-prong analysis for
application of the exception articulated by the Supreme Court in
In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 630 (Caden C.). Further,
although Mother had consistent visitation, the Department’s
reports showed termination of Mother’s relationship with the
children would not be detrimental to the children. Minor’s
counsel also argued that given the children’s young ages and that
they had spent the last two years with their relative caregivers,
adoption would provide the children with more stability, safety,
and continued contact with their siblings than legal
guardianship.
       Following argument, the juvenile court found by clear and
convincing evidence that all five children were adoptable and it
would be detrimental to return them to the parents. The court
terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights as to all five
children. The court did not address the beneficial parental
relationship exception or make any findings as to the Caden C.
factors.8

8    Although the juvenile court did not discuss any exception to
termination of parental rights at the hearing, the minute order

                                 10
      Mother timely appealed.

                          DISCUSSION

A.     Governing Law and Standard of Review
       “At the section 366.26 hearing, the focus shifts away from
family reunification and toward the selection and implementation
of a permanent plan for the child.” (In re S.B. (2009)
46 Cal.4th 529, 532; accord, Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at
p. 630.) “‘Once the court determines the child is likely to be
adopted, the burden shifts to the parent to show that termination
of parental rights would be detrimental to the child under one of
the exceptions listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1).’” (In re
B.D. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1218, 1224-1225 (B.D.); accord, In re
Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53 [“the court must order adoption
and its necessary consequence, termination of parental rights,
unless one of the specified circumstances provides a compelling
reason for finding that termination of parental rights would be
detrimental to the child”].)
       Under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), the parent
may avoid termination of parental rights if the parent establishes
by a preponderance of the evidence “that the parent has regularly
visited with the child, that the child would benefit from
continuing the relationship, and that terminating the
relationship would be detrimental to the child. [Citations.] The

states, “The Court finds that no exception to adoption appl[ies] in
this case.” Given the lack of discussion of any exception to
termination of parental rights at the hearing, we give no weight
to the statement in the minute order.

                                 11
language of this 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
pp. 629-630; accord, B.D., supra, 66 Cal.App.5th at p. 1225.)
       A parent has regular visitation and contact when the
parent “‘visit[s] consistently,’ taking into account ‘the extent
permitted by court orders.’” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at
p. 632; accord, In re I.E. (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 683, 691.)
Whether “‘the child would benefit from continuing the
relationship’” with his or her parent is shaped by 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.’”
(Caden C., at p. 632; accord, In re Katherine J. (2022)
75 Cal.App.5th 303, 317.) When determining whether
termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child,
courts need to consider “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.” (Caden C., at p. 633; accord, In re D.P. (2022)
76 Cal.App.5th 153, 164.)
       “‘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.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at
p. 633; accord, In re Katherine J., supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at

                                 12
p. 317.) “While application of the beneficial parental relationship
exception rests on a variety of factual determinations properly
reviewed for substantial evidence, the ultimate decision that
termination would be harmful is subject to review for abuse of
discretion.” (Caden C., at p. 630; accord, In re I.E., supra,
91 Cal.App.5th at p. 691.)

B.     The Juvenile Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in
       Terminating Mother’s Parental Rights
       Mother’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court
erred in terminating her parental rights without addressing the
beneficial parental relationship exception under section 366.26,
subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), and the Caden C. factors. The
Department counters that Mother forfeited the issue by failing to
raise the exception at the section 366.26 hearing, and in any
event, Mother failed to present evidence supporting the second
and third Caden C. factors. The court did not abuse its
discretion.
       A parent forfeits any exception to adoption not raised at the
section 366.26 hearing. (In re Daisy D. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th
287, 292 [mother forfeited sibling relationship exception by
failing to raise it in the juvenile court]; In re Erik P. (2002)
104 Cal.App.4th 395, 402-403 [father forfeited sibling
relationship exception by not raising it at the section 366.26
hearing].) However, “application of the forfeiture rule is not
automatic.” (In re S.B., supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1293; accord, In re
F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 710 [“neither forfeiture nor
application of the forfeiture rule is automatic”].)
       Mother’s attorney did not raise the beneficial parental
relationship exception at the section 366.26 hearing, stating only

                                13
that “Mother believes there is a bond worth saving between her
and her children” and Mother had consistent visits that “go very
well.” However, minors’ counsel interpreted the argument by
Mother’s counsel as raising the exception, and minors’ counsel
addressed the Caden C. factors.9 Because the exception was
raised at the hearing, and in light of the significant consequences
flowing from termination of parental rights, we exercise our
discretion to consider Mother’s argument on appeal that the
beneficial parental relationship exception applies.
      With respect to the second Caden C. factor,10 Mother points
to the Department’s statement in the section 366.26 report that
during her visits with the children, Mother engaged the children
in play and discussed school-related events with them, the
children “expressed having fun with their mother,” and the
children “appeared to do well” during the visits. Mother also
points to her consistent visitation, arguing, “The frequent and
consistent visits of Mother, throughout the life of the case,
established that relationship had developed between the children
and Mother that was strongly beneficial to them.”

9     Because minors’ counsel addressed the Caden C. factors, we
are troubled by the juvenile court’s failure to make any findings
on the beneficial parental relationship exception. Although
specific findings are not required (see In re A.L. (2022)
73 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1156), the better practice would have been
for the court to make findings as to each factor for the benefit of
the parties and potential appellate review.
10     The Department does not contend the first factor of regular
visitation was not met.

                                14
       Despite Mother’s conclusory assertion her relationship with
the children was “strongly beneficial,” substantial evidence does
not support an implied finding by a preponderance of the
evidence of a “substantial, positive, emotional attachment”
between Mother and the children. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th
at p. 633.) Mother’s visits with the children were generally
positive, but the children’s relationships with Mother were
similar to those between a child and a friendly relative on a
playdate. (See In re Katherine J., supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at
p. 318, [“the beneficial relationship exception demands something
more than the incidental benefit a child gains from any amount of
positive contact with her natural parent”]; B.D., supra,
66 Cal.App.5th at p. 1230 [“an emotional attachment is one
where the child views the parent as more than a mere friend or
playmate and who’s [sic] interactions with the parent were not
ambivalent, detached, or indifferent”].)
       In the March 9, 2023 last minute information for the court,
the Department reported Israel had a “friendship relationship”
with Mother, but she struggled to assert authority, and Israel did
not follow her directions, looking instead to Marissa and Ronaldo.
Israel was sometimes reluctant to go to visits, and during visits
he would interact with Mother for only a short period of time.
Likewise, Isaac needed encouragement from the caregivers to
engage with Mother, and he looked to his caregivers for comfort.
At the conclusion of the visits, Isaac was “ready and willing to
return to his placement.” Ernesto, who developed a “strong bond”
with Ronaldo, tested Mother’s authority and would become
disruptive during visits, requiring the caregivers’ intervention.
Noemi tended to wander off during visits and looked to the
caregivers if she needed something. Jacob also wandered off and

                               15
sought assurance Estela was nearby. Israel and Isaac referred to
the caregivers as “Mom” and “Dad,” and all three older boys
stated they wished to live with the caregivers. None of the
children had any difficulty parting from Mother after visits.
Based on these observations, the Department described Mother’s
visits as “mediocre” and concluded, “[I]t does not appear that the
children have developed a substantial attachment to the
parents.” Mother identifies no contrary evidence that there was a
substantial bond.
       As to the third Caden C. factor, the record would support a
finding the benefit and security provided by the children’s
placement with their relative caregivers outweighed any harm
that would be caused by the loss of their relationships with
Mother. (See In re A.L. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1158-1159
[affirming finding beneficial parental relationship exception did
not apply where father regularly visited daughter and developed
beneficial bond with her, but she viewed father as “‘a fun,
friendly person’ to have visits with,” not a parental figure].) At
the time of the section 366.26 hearing, the children had been
living with their caregivers for two years, the majority of Noemi’s
and Jacob’s lives. As discussed, although the children had fun
with Mother and enjoyed her visits, the children had a strong
bond with the caregivers and did not show any sadness in leaving
Mother at the end of visits. Marissa and Ronaldo had been
meeting the four older children’s needs, and the children were
happy and thriving in their home. Jacob was likewise happy in
Estela’s care, and she was meeting his needs.

                                16
                         DISPOSITION

      The juvenile court’s order terminating Mother’s parental
rights is affirmed.

                                         FEUER, J.
We concur:

             SEGAL, Acting P. J.

             MARTINEZ, J.

                               17