Court Opinion

ID: 9940237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-13 18:02:55.755842+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:39.638042
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/13/24 In re N.M. CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

In re N.M. et al., Persons Coming                               B326368
Under the Juvenile Court Law.
______________________________                                  (Los Angeles County
LOS ANGELES COUNTY                                              Super. Ct. No.18CCJP00713A, B)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN
AND FAMILY SERVICES,
         Plaintiff and Respondent,
         v.

JOSE M.,
         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Jennifer W. Baronoff, Juvenile Court Referee.
Affirmed.

     David M. Yorton, Jr., under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

      Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Kim Nemoy,
Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn K. Louie, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
                    _________________________
      Jose M. (Father) challenges the juvenile court’s order
terminating his parental rights to his son N.M. and his daughter
A.M. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1
He contends the juvenile court erred when it found he had not
established the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to
the termination of parental rights. We affirm.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
      N.M. was born in 2013, and A.M. was born in late 2017.
      In 2016, prior to A.M.’s birth, N.M. was declared a
dependent child of the juvenile court based on sustained
allegations, pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b)(1),
that Father engaged in domestic violence against Brenda G.
(Mother) in N.M.’s presence and Mother failed to protect N.M.
from Father’s violent conduct. In 2017, the juvenile court
granted Mother sole legal and physical custody of N.M. and
terminated juvenile court jurisdiction. Father was granted
monitored visitation at least once per month.
      In January 2018, the family came to the attention of the
Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) based on
another report of domestic violence by Father against Mother.
While interacting with DCFS, Mother exhibited paranoid
behavior and suicidal thoughts. DCFS detained the children on
January 30, 2018, and filed a dependency petition on February 1,
2018. In May 2018, the children were declared dependents of the
juvenile court pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b)(1), based
on the sustained allegation that Mother had mental and
emotional problems, which, if left untreated, rendered her unable

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

                                2
to provide regular care to the children. The court removed the
children from both parents. The parents were granted
reunification services and monitored visitation.
       Later in 2018, DCFS filed another dependency petition
pursuant to section 342, and the juvenile court sustained three
additional allegations of domestic violence and alcohol abuse by
Father. At disposition, the court removed the children from the
parents, ordered reunification services, and granted monitored
visitation.
I.    Detention Through the First Reunification Period: May–
      November 2018
       From February 2, 2018, when monitored visitation was
first ordered, through August 15, 2018, Father’s visitation was
sporadic. The caregiver attributed this to the geographic
distance of the placement and Father’s work schedule.
       On March 3, 2018, Father was one and one-half hours late
to his visit.
       As of May 2018, the children’s caregiver reported Father
visited on weekends but missed some weekends because of work.
One visit was aborted because Father was hostile and appeared
to have been drinking.
       In July 2018, DCFS documented that Father had not been
visiting the children due to his work schedule.
       Starting August 15, 2018, when the children were placed in
foster care, Father’s visitation became more consistent. Between
mid-August and mid-October 2018, Father attended all of his
monitored visits and arrived on time. Father visited the children
once per week for four hours due to his work schedule.

                                3
      At the six-month review hearing in November 2018, the
court ordered six more months of reunification services and gave
DCFS discretion to liberalize visitation.
II.    Second Reunification Period: November 2018–August 2019
      Through April 2019, Father visited the children every
Sunday and telephoned them daily.
      As of early August 2019, Father was reported to visit the
children approximately twice per week and telephone them two
to three times per week. ~(CT 727)~ However, in September
2019, Father was reported to have visited or contacted the
children 12 times in the prior six months.
III.   Post-Reunification Period: August 2019–January 2022
       A.   Remainder of 2019
       On August 8, 2019, the juvenile court terminated
reunification services for both parents.
       Father visited the children on October 3, 2019. His October
9, 2019 visit was canceled because he failed to confirm it in
advance.
       Father did not appear for his visit with the children on
October 17, 2019. The October 24, 2019 visit was canceled due to
a closed highway.
       As of late October 2019, DCFS reported Father tended to
call the children between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m., after their 7:30 p.m.
bedtime.
       On November 21, 2019, Father was scheduled to visit the
children from 4:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. He arrived at 4:26 p.m. and
left at 5:00 p.m., saying he had to go to a class.

                                4
      B.    2020
       As of January 2020, DCFS described Father’s visitation as
consistent and reported he visited the children for 90 minutes at
a time, two to three times per month. Father was unable to visit
more frequently due to his work. Father telephoned the children
almost daily, but he frequently called after they had gone to bed.
Father attributed his late calls to work and classes.
       In approximately January 2020, Father’s visits were moved
from weekdays to Saturdays and increased to three hours.
       On April 29, 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Father
agreed to video visits on Saturdays and Sundays, for a duration
appropriate for the children’s attention spans. Additionally,
Father and the caregiver arranged for him to have weekday
monitored video visits with the children from 11:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m., once N.M. finished his online education and as Father’s
work schedule permitted.
       As of July 2020, DCFS reported Father had been “very
sporadic and non-compliant with the visitation plan,” and by
January 2021 DCFS reported he had “never followed the
visitation schedule.” Father had video or telephone calls with the
children on May 12, 16, 20, 26, and 31; June 7; July 2; August 10,
25, and 30; September 1, 2020.2
       Father visited the children in person on October 17, 24, and
31, and November 14 and 21, 2020. The visits were two hours
long, although Father was 30 minutes late to two visits.

2
      Father attempted to call the children on two additional
occasions, but he did not speak with them because he called after
the specified hours.

                                5
    Father visited the children via video call four times in
November 2020 and five times in December 2020.
      C.    2021
       Father had video visits with the children on January 5 and
11, 2021.
       Father had a monitored visit with the children on February
19, 2021; he arrived 15 minutes late. Father failed to appear for
his visit on February 26, 2021.
       Father visited the children on March 5 and 19. 2021. His
March 12, 2021 visit was canceled when he failed to confirm the
visit in advance.
       In March 2021, Father was advised visits could no longer
take place on weekdays because N.M.’s school objected to N.M.
missing school time. Father said he often worked Saturday
mornings but would visit on Saturday afternoons.
       Father visited with the children on April 2, 2021. He
requested a visit on Sunday, April 18, 2021, so N.M. could have
his hair cut.3 Father said the hair appointment was at 11:00
a.m., but he did not arrive at the barbershop until 11:15 a.m.
When Father learned N.M. could not be seen until 1:00 p.m.,
Father said he had other things to do, handed the caregiver
money for the haircut, gave the children some gifts, and left.
Father spent only 20 to 30 minutes with the children.

3     One list of visit dates in the record omits the April 18 visit
and indicates a visit on April 19, 2021. It appears this may be a
typographical error in referring to the April 18 visit.

                                  6
       Father visited the children on April 25, 2021, for 90
minutes. On May 2, 2021, Father arrived nearly half an hour
late for the one-hour visit he requested. The caregiver allowed
the visit to run nearly an hour over the scheduled end time.
       Father visited the children on May 9, 16, 23, and 30, 2021,
and on June 6, 2021. Father was half an hour late to the June 6,
2021 visit.
       In July 2021, Father was late to two visits and did not
appear for a third visit. He declined another visit offered by the
caregiver, saying he was too busy with work.
       Father had no full visits in August or September 2021. He
ended his visit an hour early on August 1, 2021, due to work. He
was late on August 8, 2021, and on August 15, 2021, he was late
to the visit and then ended it early. He was late on August 22,
2021, and he missed his visit on August 29, 2021. On September
5, 2021, Father arrived half an hour late and wanted to leave
after half an hour, although the monitor was able to encourage
him to stay for an additional 20 minutes. He was a no-show for
his September 12 visit and was late to his September 19 and 26,
2021 visits.
       Of five scheduled visits in October 2021, Father arrived
late for three visits and failed to appear for two. He did not
appear for his visit on November 7, 2021. Father visited with the
children for a bonding study on November 13, 2021, and he then
chose not to visit them the following day.
       On November 21, 2021, Father made a hair appointment
for N.M. at 9:00 a.m., for a 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. visit. ~(CT 1633)~
Father called the caregiver and said he had run out of gas.
Although the caregiver took Father gasoline at about 9:10 a.m.
and returned to the barbershop at approximately 9:20 a.m.,

                                7
Father did not arrive at the barbershop until 9:50 a.m. N.M. said
he did not want a haircut, and Father ended the visit at
approximately 10:15 a.m.
       The caregiver told Father he could visit the children any
time during the week of Thanksgiving break, but Father said he
could not visit them. He visited the children on November 28,
2021, but he arrived late and left early.
       DCFS reported in November 2021 that although the date,
time, and location of the visits were selected by Father, the visits
that did occur were usually brief: Father was in a hurry and
spent only about an hour playing with the children.
       As of December 2021, the caregiver reported Father was
regularly 20 to 30 minutes late for his two-hour visits and then
ended them 45 minutes early; and he also canceled visits at the
last minute. Father canceled his December 5, 2021 visit while
the children were already waiting for him; he said he was ill. On
December 12, 2021, he was late to the visit and left after less
than an hour. He again arrived late and left early at the
December 19, 2021 visit. The children and caregiver were sick
and could not attend the December 26, 2021 visit; Father was
offered a video visit but he did not contact the children. Father
was also offered additional visits with the children during their
school break, but he responded, “[W]e’ll see.”
       As of December 2021, Father had not called the children for
six or seven months.
IV.   Third Reunification Period: January–July 2022
      On January 4, 2022, the juvenile court partially granted
Father’s section 388 petition, awarding him six additional
months of family reunification services and a minimum of three
three-hour monitored visits per week. Father’s written visitation

                                 8
schedule provided for monitored visits with the children on
Saturdays and Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Father chose
to visit on Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
       Over the review period, Father attended seven visits and
missed 11 or 12. On January 16, 2022, Father was scheduled for
a visit, but although the monitor and the children appeared, the
visit did not take place due to confusion over the visit time and
location. Father visited the children three times in February,
twice in March, and twice in April 2022. He missed one visit in
February, two visits in March, two visits in April, all four of his
May visits, and both of his June visits.4 As of the writing of
DCFS’s status report in mid-June 2022, Father had not seen the
children in more than two months.
       Father’s brother monitored all of Father’s visits during this
period. DCFS suggested Father choose a neutral monitor in
addition to family members, and Father indicated he would
contact the evaluator who had performed the bonding study. In
May 2022, Father told DCFS his family was unable to monitor
visits and he would like the caregiver to monitor his visits. The
social worker reminded Father that he and his attorney did not
want the caregiver to monitor visits, and Father said, “Oh yeah[,]
that’s right.” The social worker offered to monitor visits and
suggested Father let the social worker know when he had an
opening in his day schedule because the children would soon be
on summer break and potentially could visit Father on weekdays.
Father said he would let the social worker know.

4    Father attributed his March 20, 2022 absence to work and
his March 27, 2022 absence to illness.

                                 9
      On July 12, 2022, the trial court terminated Father’s
reunification services.
V.    Post-Reunification Period: July–December 2022
      As of November 2022, DCFS reported it had provided
Father with times he could contact the children from 8:30 a.m. to
6:30 p.m., but Father did not adhere to the schedule and had only
had brief video and telephone calls with the children on a few
occasions.
      In August 2022, DCFS offered Father a referral to an
organization that might be able to provide a monitor for visits,
but Father said he would obtain a monitor from the agency where
he was receiving counseling services.
      DCFS applied to neighborhood monitored visitation centers
for Father’s visits with N.M. and A.M. and Father’s third child,
also a dependent child. The first visit was to take place on
October 8, 2022, but the mother of Father’s third child canceled
that visit and the following visit, scheduled for October 15, 2022.
The caregiver offered to bring N.M. and A.M. to visit Father on
October 15 so that he could at least see two of his children, but
Father declined and chose to go to work instead.
      Father visited the children on October 29, 2022, and
November 5, 2022, but he then missed his next three visits,
causing the visitation center to terminate his services for non-
compliance.
      The section 366.26 hearing took place on December 22,
2022. Relying heavily on a positive November 2021 bonding
study, Father argued the beneficial parental relationship
exception to the termination of parental rights applied. The
juvenile court found Father had failed to establish he had

                                10
maintained regular visitation with the children. The court
terminated parental rights. Father appeals.
                         DISCUSSION
      Applicable Law
       At a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing, the
court determines by clear and convincing evidence whether the
child is likely to be adopted. If the court so finds, the court is
statutorily required to terminate parental rights unless there is a
compelling reason to find that termination of parental rights
would be detrimental under one of the six exceptions enumerated
in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B). (In re Mary G. (2007)
151 Cal.App.4th 184, 206–207). One of the exceptions is the
beneficial parental relationship exception in section 366.26,
subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), which applies when a parent has
maintained regular visitation and contact, the child would benefit
from continuing the relationship, and terminating the
relationship would be detrimental to the child. (In re Caden C.
(2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 629 (Caden C.).)
       Three elements must be satisfied to establish the beneficial
parental relationship exception: 1) regular visitation and contact,
taking into account the extent of visitation permitted; 2) a
substantial, positive, emotional attachment to the parent—the
kind of attachment implying that the child would benefit from
continuing the relationship; and 3) a showing that terminating
the 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.) 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

                                11
parental rights. In that case the court must select a permanent
plan other than adoption. (Id. at pp. 636–637.)
      The parent has the burden to show the statutory exception
applies. (In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 826.) When a
party with the burden of proof does not carry that burden, “the
question for a reviewing court becomes whether the evidence
compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law.
[Citations.] 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.’ ” (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528,
disapproved of on other grounds by Conservatorship of O.B.
(2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010, fn. 7.)
      Because the court concluded Father failed to prove the
exception applied, we determine on appeal whether the evidence
compels a finding in his favor as a matter of law. (In re I.W.,
supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 1528.) Father has failed to show
that the evidence, taken as a whole, compelled a finding in his
favor. Father’s visitation consistency varied over the 4 years
10 months the children were removed from his custody prior to
the termination of parental rights. Initially in 2018, Father
visited the children only sporadically, but when their placement
changed in August 2018, he began visiting the children
consistently once per week. For approximately one year, Father
maintained close contact with the children, visiting regularly,
telephoning them daily, and conducting video calls with them
when the caregiver was available.

                               12
       Once reunification services were terminated for the first
time in August 2019, Father began missing or cutting short some
visits. Still, as of January 2020, DCFS considered his visitation
consistent and reported he visited the children two to three times
per month for 90 minutes at a time. Father continued to
telephone the children almost daily, but often they had already
gone to bed.
       Father’s visits during the COVID-19 pandemic became
sporadic again. He was scheduled for video visits on both
weekend days, as well as weekday video visits after N.M.’s online
school, but he did not comply with the visitation plan. From May
2020 through December 2020, Father had 20 video visits with the
children and saw them in person five times; he was late to two of
the five in-person visits.
       In 2021, Father appeared on time and stayed for his entire
scheduled visit with the children approximately 11 times. He
missed or canceled at least nine visits. He arrived late, left early,
or both, at approximately 20 visits. Father declined
opportunities to visit with the children four times. As of
December 2021, he had not telephoned the children for six or
seven months.
       When Father’s reunification services were reinstated in
January 2022, he was afforded monitored visits with the children
on Saturdays and Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and he
chose to visit on Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. During
this final reunification service period at the start of 2022, Father
missed 11 or 12 visits and attended seven.

                                 13
       After Father’s reunification services were again terminated
in July 2022, his contact with the children declined further.
Father only had brief video and telephone calls with them on a
few occasions. He declined a mid-October visit. He visited the
children twice, but then missed his next three visits, prompting
the visitation center to terminate his services for noncompliance.
       From the record before us, it appears Father visited
sporadically at the start of the case, was in regular and
consistent contact with the children for a period of the
dependency proceedings, but then became erratic in his
visitation, culminating in a near-total complete loss of contact in
the months leading up to the termination of his rights. As of
December 2022, Father had visited the children only twice in the
past seven months, and he had called them only rarely. We
cannot say the evidence of Father’s visitation compels a finding
that he regularly visited N.M. and A.M.
       Father contends the juvenile court “erred by limiting its
consideration of [Father’s] visitation with his children to the year
2022,” and he claims the court only considered two 2022
documents in reviewing his visitation history. Our review of the
hearing transcript does not support these assertions. At the
termination of parental rights hearing, the court admitted into
evidence 20 different DCFS reports dating back to 2019, and the
earliest report chronicled Father’s visitation back to the
children’s initial months in their first placement. The full history
of Father’s visitation, therefore, was before the court, and it
specifically stated it had considered all the evidence.

                                14
      At the December 2022 hearing, Father’s argument against
the termination of parental rights was based almost exclusively
on the November 2021 bonding study. Not surprisingly,
therefore, the court began its ruling by acknowledging, “[W]e do
have a very positive bonding study.” The court, however, noted
the bonding study was already more than a year out of date.
Appropriately, the court did not consider the bonding study to be
the last word, saying, “So I have to look at what has happened
since the bonding study.” The court then described the record of
Father’s highly inconsistent, declining visitation in the year after
the bonding study, all the way through Father’s loss of visitation
monitoring services because he had canceled too many visits.
The court concluded Father had not demonstrated he maintained
regular visitation and contact.
      Although Father argues the court’s lack of reference to
evidence from earlier in the case equates to a lack of
consideration of that evidence, we understand the court’s
comments to indicate its recognition that despite Father’s periods
of consistency in visitation in the early years of the out-of-home
placement and the glowing bonding study, the evidence indicated
circumstances had dramatically changed in the prior year. No
discussion of prior visitation is necessary to make this point.
Visitation over the course of the dependency must be sufficiently
consistent to be characterized as “regular” as required by the
statute. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) After at least a year of
extremely inconsistent and decreasing visitation, we cannot say
that as a matter of law the record compelled a finding that
Father maintained regular visitation and contact with N.M. and
A.M., taking into account the extent of visits permitted. (See In
re Breanna S. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 636, 647 [sporadic visits in

                                15
the first 18 months of the dependency proceedings, coupled with
more regular visits during the final six months before the section
366.26 hearing, were not sufficient to show regular visitation],
disapproved on other grounds in Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at
pp. 637–639, fns. 6 & 7; In re Eli B. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1061,
1070–1071 [father failed to show regular visitation where his
visitation “throughout the years-long dependency proceeding was
sporadic and also entailed significant gaps”].)5
       We need not address Father’s argument the juvenile court
erred in analyzing the other factors of the beneficial parental
relationship exception. (See In re Eli B., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at
p. 1068 [court need not address arguments regarding the second
and third elements of the exception if the parent fails to prove the
first element].)

5     Father also asserts the court “incorrectly found that [he]
‘was afforded visits each Saturday and Sunday . . . [But] [h]e
elected for Sunday[]s,’ ” and that this finding “completely ignores
the evidence presented throughout the case that [Father] worked
on Saturdays.” The court made no such finding: it actually stated
that a report submitted by DCFS said that Father was afforded
six-hour visits on both Saturdays and Sundays but elected four-
hour visits on Sundays. This description of the report was
accurate. Moreover, while there was evidence in the record that
Father worked on Saturdays, there was also evidence he
arranged and conducted Saturday visits.

                                16
                         DISPOSITION
     The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                        STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, J.

             WILEY, J.

                              17