Court Opinion

ID: 9943235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-22 21:04:02.991563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:33.430530
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/22/24 In re K.G. 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 K.G., a Person Coming                                  B330331
Under the Juvenile Court Law.                                (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No.
                                                             17CCJP00200D)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES,

         Plaintiff and Respondent,

         v.

DANIEL G.,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Nancy A. Ramirez, Judge. Affirmed.
      Jane B. Winer, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, Sally Son, Deputy County Counsel, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.

             ____________________________________

                     I.     INTRODUCTION

     Daniel G. (father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order
terminating parental rights to his child K.G. (the child), born in
2014, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1
Father asserts the juvenile court erred by finding the parental-
benefit exception to adoption did not apply. We affirm.

                      II.   BACKGROUND

A.    Jurisdiction

      In December 2017, the juvenile court sustained a
dependency petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1) on
behalf of the child and the child’s older sister. The court
subsequently terminated jurisdiction, granted mother sole
physical custody, and granted father monitored visitation.
      On July 16, 2020, the Department detained the child and
placed him with maternal grandmother, who had custody of the

1     Further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.

                                 2
child’s older sister and had cared for both children for three years
in connection with the prior dependency proceeding.
       On July 20, 2020, the Department filed a section 300
petition on behalf of the child, which, as later amended and
sustained, alleged that mother had endangered the child’s
physical safety by engaging in criminal activity while the child
was in her care and that father had left the child without any
provisions or support.
       On March 1, 2021, the juvenile court ordered the child
removed from the parents’ custody and placed with maternal
grandmother. The court granted father monitored visitation and
ordered that the visits be unmonitored if father had no missed or
positive drug tests.

B.    Six-Month Review Hearing

      On August 16, 2021, the Department filed its status review
report, explaining that father failed to appear for 14 drug tests
and tested positive for marijuana metabolites on March 10, 2021.
      At the time of the status review report, father’s case plan
included one monitored visit per week for three hours at
maternal grandparents’ home. The child’s caregivers reported
that father engaged with the child during the visits. They
expressed concern, however, over father’s lack of patience with
the child, who had Downs syndrome and behavior problems,
including tantrums, loud screaming, and excessive running.
Although father was initially consistent in his weekly visits, after
father began attending parenting classes, he visited the child
only once in two months. Father did not request a make-up visit

                                 3
or an alternative time for the visits. Nor did father contact the
child by telephone.
       At the six-month review hearing on August 30, 2021, the
juvenile court ordered that father’s visits be liberalized to
overnight visits on the condition that father not miss any drug
tests or have any positive drug tests.

C.    Twelve-Month Review Hearing

      On November 12, 2021, the Department filed its status
review report. The Department had not liberalized father’s visits
with the child because, among other things, he had seven no
shows for drug tests and did not provide information the
Department had requested of him, including a driver’s license,
car insurance information, or contact information for his
proposed monitor.
      The caregivers reported that father engaged with the child
during his weekly visits.
      In a last-minute information for the court filed on
December 10, 2021, the Department reported that father had not
visited the child in October, had one two-hour visit in November,
and one two-hour visit in December. Father did not stay long
during these visits. The child used sign language to try to
communicate with father, but father did not understand sign
language and did not attempt to learn it. The child therefore
became frustrated.
      At the 12-month review hearing on December 13, 2021, the
juvenile court ordered continued family reunification services.
The court granted father unmonitored visits, on the condition

                                 4
that he have two consecutive low-level positive or negative drug
tests.

D.    Eighteen-Month Review

       On February 25, 2022, the Department filed another status
review report. Father sporadically visited the child on weekends.
Because father had been inconsistent with his case plan and drug
testing, his visits remained monitored, and he continued to visit
the child at maternal grandparents’ home.
       Maternal grandmother reported that the child appeared to
be happy when father visited and would hug him. She provided
the Department with a visitation log dated January 16, 2021, to
February 19, 2022. The Department reported on father’s
visitation during the period September 2021 to February 2022.
On two weekends, maternal grandparents and the child were out
of town, and father therefore was unable to visit. Father did not,
however, ask to make up these visits. As to the remaining
weekends, father did not visit on 11 occasions. Father explained
why he missed two weekends: he was attending a parenting
class and had car problems. Father provided no explanation for
why he missed the other nine weekends.
       The Department reported that the total hours per month
that father spent visiting the child ranged from a low of one and
one-half hours in December 2021 to a high of eight and one-half
hours in February 2021.
       At the 18-month review hearing on March 14, 2022, the
juvenile court terminated family reunification services and set a
section 366.26 hearing. The court also ordered a bond study.

                                5
E.   Section 366.26 Reports

       The Department filed its section 366.26 report on
July 1, 2022. Maternal grandparents were committed to
adopting the child, who had lived with them since July 2020 and
was bonded with them.
       Since March 2022, father had visited the child only three
times. According to maternal grandmother, although father
made efforts during his visits, he was unable to engage with the
child. Maternal grandmother reported that the child was “not
bonded” to father. When father missed visits, the child proceeded
with his day as usual.
       On August 25, 2022, the Department filed a status review
report, and explained that between February to August 2022,
father was supposed to have 28 visits but had only visited 10
times. Of the 18 missed visits, the caregivers and the child were
out of town for one weekend. Father missed two visits because of
a fractured finger and a lack of gas money. The total time father
spent visiting with the child ranged from four hours in February
2022 to no visits in June or July of 2022.
       In February 2023, the Department reported that from
August 2022 to February 2023, father visited the child once a
month, with two visits in November 2022. Maternal
grandparents reported father tended to end his visits early and
did not stay the full three hours.

F.   Bond Study

      On May 12, 2023, Dr. Nancy Kaser-Boyd filed the results of
her bond study. She explained that she had conducted a forensic

                                6
interview and psychological test of father on March 3, 2023, and
observed one visit between father and the child on April 29, 2023,
at maternal grandparents’ home. She noted father was involved
in the child’s life during the child’s early years and had formed an
attachment with him. Dr. Kaser-Boyd opined that father loved
the child, and the child would benefit from a continued visitation
relationship with him. She recommended legal guardianship.

G.    Section 366.26 Hearing

       On June 13, 2023, the juvenile court conducted a hearing
pursuant to section 366.26, and received into evidence the
Department’s reports.
       Father’s counsel argued that the parental benefit exception
(§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) applied. Although counsel
acknowledged that father’s visits were inconsistent, counsel
explained that “he has been a consistent presence in [the child’s]
life.” Counsel asserted that father visited as often as he could
and termination of father’s parental rights would be detrimental
to the child. The Department’s counsel argued that the parental
benefit exception did not apply.
       Following argument, the juvenile court found Dr. Kaser-
Boyd’s bond study to be unpersuasive because it was conclusory,
lacked sufficient detail and analysis, and the doctor had formed
her opinion based only on one observed visit and one interview of
father.
       The juvenile court then made findings regarding the
parental benefit exception and cited the three elements described
in In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 (Caden C.). For the first
prong, which the court explained was “whether there have been

                                 7
regular visits and contact,” the court found father did not satisfy
this requirement, stating: “[Father] has not seen [the child] to
the full extent allowed by law. . . . [¶] The reports state
consistently he does not stay the duration of the visits. . . . . And
when the court reviews the record the court find that he has
consistently not visited as much as he was allowed under the
court-ordered visits.”
       As to the second prong, whether the continued relationship
would benefit the child, the juvenile court found that father had
not met his burden to demonstrate that the child had a
“substantial positive emotional attachment” to father.
       As to the third prong, whether termination of the
relationship would be detrimental to the child, the juvenile court
found there would be no such detriment: “[The child] has been in
the care of his maternal grandparents consistently since July of
2020, almost three years. He lives with his sister, who he
appears to be attached to. His grandparents have provided for
his security and stability. They understand his special needs.”
       The juvenile court found the child suitable for adoption and
terminated the parents’ parental rights. Father timely appealed.

                        III.   DISCUSSION

A.    Legal Standard

       “[T]he goal at the section 366.26 hearing is ‘specifically . . .
to select and implement a permanent plan for the child.’
[Citations.] To guide the court in selecting the most suitable
permanent arrangement, the statute lists plans in order of
preference and provides a detailed procedure for choosing among

                                   8
them. [Citation.] According to that procedure, the court must
first determine by clear and convincing evidence whether the
child is likely to be adopted. [Citation.] If so, and if the court
finds that there has been a previous determination that
reunification services be terminated, then the court shall
terminate parental rights to allow for adoption. [Citation.] But if
the parent shows that termination would be detrimental to the
child for at least one specifically enumerated reason, the court
should decline to terminate parental rights and select another
permanent plan. [Citation.]’” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at
pp. 630–631.)
       One such enumerated exception to the termination of
parental rights is the beneficial parental relationship exception.
(§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) In order to demonstrate that this
exception applies, a parent must show: “(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 p. 631.)

B.    Analysis

       “The first element—regular visitation and contact—is
straightforward. The question is just whether ‘parents visit
consistently,’ taking into account ‘the extent permitted by court
orders.’ [Citation.] Visits and contact ‘continue[ ] or develop[ ] a
significant, positive, emotional attachment from child to parent.’
[Citation.] Courts should consider in that light whether parents
‘maintained regular visitation and contact with the child’
[citation] but certainly not to punish parents or reward them for

                                  9
good behavior in visiting or maintaining contact—here, as
throughout, the focus is on the best interests of the child.”
(Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.) We review the juvenile
court’s findings for substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 639.)
       Father contends on appeal that the juvenile court made a
mistake of law when considering the first prong of the parental
benefit exception. According to father, the court’s use of the term
“full extent allowed by law” demonstrates it mistakenly believed
that father could not satisfy the first prong if he missed any
visits, and failed to take into account the many legitimate
circumstances that prevented father’s visits. We disagree.
       We do not interpret the juvenile court’s reference to “full
extent allowed by law” as evincing a misapprehension about the
elements of the parental benefit exception. Indeed, the court
accurately described the first element as “whether there have
been regular visits and contact.” (See J.H. v. G.H. (2021) 63
Cal.App.5th 633, 644 [“Error on appeal must be affirmatively
shown by the record, and ‘[w]e presume the trial court knew and
properly applied the law absent evidence to the contrary’”].)
Instead, the record demonstrates that the court considered the
consistency of father’s visits in light of the court’s orders. And,
regardless of the court’s orders, the court found father did not
visit consistently, but sporadically. Substantial evidence
supports a finding that father did not maintain regular visitation
and contact with the child. After the child was removed from
father’s custody at the disposition hearing, father missed
multiple visits for which he provided no excuse. Further, during
the course of the dependency proceedings, father reduced the
frequency of his visits from weekly to monthly to eventually not
visiting for long periods of time. Substantial evidence therefore

                                10
supports the court’s finding that father did not have regular
visitation and contact with the child. We therefore need not
discuss the parties’ arguments concerning the second and third
elements of the beneficial parental relationship exception. The
court did not err in terminating parental rights.

                      IV.   DISPOSITION

     The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                         KIM, J.

We concur:

             BAKER, Acting P. J.

             MOOR, J.

                               11