Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JD226674
Raye, J.
Appellant Nicholas N. challenges the juvenile court’s orders issued at a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing denying him visitation with his son, N.N. (the minor). (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 361.5, 395.) Appellant contends the order denying visitation was an abuse of discretion. We reject the contention and shall affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
The eight-year-old minor was removed from his mother’s custody on November 19, 2007, after an officer spoke to him while investigating a dispute between the minor’s maternal grandmother and her landlord. The minor told the officer his family was homeless. The officer took the minor to several locations in an unsuccessful attempt to find his mother.
On November 21, 2007, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a petition alleging jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b) based on domestic violence and the mother’s substance abuse problem.
During the intake interview, the minor told the social worker the family was homeless and had lived in motels for a few months, then lived in abandoned houses. The mother’s boyfriend physically abused the minor, the mother, and the maternal grandmother. The mother initially denied any domestic violence but later admitted to frequent fights with her boyfriend.
The mother admitted prior drug use but asserted she did not have a drug problem. She had two prior misdemeanor convictions and an extensive child welfare history. At the initial hearing on November 26, 2007, the court continued removal of the minor from the mother’s custody.
In a written response to the social worker, appellant expressed an interest in his son and said he wanted to do all he could for the boy. His extensive criminal record included prior felony convictions for evading a police officer, assault with a deadly weapon likely to produce great bodily injury, and grand theft. On December 7, 2006, he was convicted of second degree robbery, and on January 4, 2007, he was sentenced to 16 years in prison for that offense.
Due to his incarceration, defendant had not seen the minor since the boy was about four years old. When asked about appellant, the minor replied that his father “shot someone in the head at the bank” and then added that he felt safe with his mother.
The social worker found a connection between the minor and appellant based on “knowledge of and a love for one another” but concluded “the child does not have a deep emotional investment in his father nor has he relied on his father for his care or welfare.” The minor did not ask to visit appellant and did not show emotion where appellant was concerned. The social worker concluded the minor had not bonded with appellant.
The minor was very bonded to the paternal grandmother. When asked to express three wishes, the minor said they were to live with his mother, to live with the paternal grandmother, or to live with an aunt.
Appellant petitioned the court under section 361.2 for custody of the minor and placement with appellant’s wife. Although the juvenile court ordered the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to deliver appellant to the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing on April 14, 2008, appellant declined to attend because he did not want the minor to see him in shackles and prison clothing.
The court sustained the petition and ordered reunification services for the mother but denied services for appellant based on his lengthy incarceration. The court also denied visitation for appellant but ordered DHHS to assess him for visitation should he be released from prison before the case concludes.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by not allowing him visitation with his young son while serving a 16-year prison term for robbery. We disagree.
Appellant does not contest the denial of reunification services. Visitation for a parent who has been denied reunification services is governed by section 361.5, subdivision (f), which provides, in relevant part, that when reunification services are denied, “[t]he court may continue to permit the parent to visit the child unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child.” We review the juvenile court’s order denying visitation for abuse of discretion. (In re J.N. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 450, 459 (J.N.).) “‘[“]The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.”’ [Citation.]” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)
Since appellant was denied reunification services, it was not necessary for the juvenile court to first establish detriment before denying visitation. The use of the term “may” in section 361.5, subdivision (f) is “permissive, i.e., as giving the juvenile court discretion to permit or deny visitation when reunification services are not ordered, unless of course it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child, in which case it must deny visitation.” (J.N., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 458.)
Accordingly, we reject appellant’s contention that the court was required to find visitation detrimental to the minor. The cases he cites in support of this assertion are inapplicable as they involve the denial of visitation when reunification services have been offered. (See In re Dylan T. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 765, 768; In re Jonathan M. (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1234, 1236-1237, disapproved on other grounds in In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 413-414.)
Nothing in the record establishes that visitation will benefit the minor. Although there was some connection between the two, the minor had not bonded with appellant and showed no emotional attachment to him. This is unsurprising as appellant has been largely absent from the minor’s life because of his repeated incarcerations. While the minor is closely bonded to the paternal grandmother, visitation with appellant is not necessary to maintain this bond. Visits with grandparents are allowed under the case plan, and the paternal grandmother is maintaining a schedule of weekly one-hour visits with the minor.
Appellant incorrectly asserts that the court denied visits while he is incarcerated but will allow visitation once he is out of prison. The court only allowed for the possibility of visitation if defendant were released from prison before the case ended, stating: “If he is released from custody before this case is over, which I seriously doubt, then the Department should assess him for visits at that point.”
A “court may deny visitation to an incarcerated parent who has been denied reunification services, even in the absence of any showing that continued visitation would be detrimental to the child.” (J.N., supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 460.) Since there was no showing that visitation would benefit the minor, denial of visitation was not an abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: BLEASE, Acting P.J., ROBIE, J.