Opinion
B298842
04-01-2020
In re JEMINI S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent. v. JOSEPH S., Defendant and Appellant.
John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen D. Watson, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 17CCJP01341A) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Craig S. Barnes, Judge. Affirmed. John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Kristine P. Miles, Assistant County Counsel, and Stephen D. Watson, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Joseph S. (father) appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, Jemini S. (born May 2015) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Father argues that the order should be reversed because the trial court applied the wrong legal test in determining whether the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights should apply. We find no error and affirm the order.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The family members
When the time the petition was filed in October 2017, father and Nicole L. (mother) had been together for about four years. They were homeless, using methamphetamine together, and their relationship was unstable. In addition to Jemini, father had two older daughters who were living with paternal grandmother (PGM).
Initial referral and investigation
In October 2017, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral alleging that mother used drugs all day at a park in the presence of the child. When police responded they found mother with an empty stroller. Mother told police that the child was at her friend's house. When contacted, the friend stated that the child was at the home of the maternal grandmother, Gavina L. (MGM).
When a DCFS social worker made contact with MGM, she stated that she had picked up Jemini the previous night from mother's friend Andrea, who got the child from the parents after the child was sleeping in a shopping cart. Andrea had called MGM to get Jemini because the police had contacted her and Andrea feared the child would be taken away by police.
MGM did not have contact information for mother, and planned to file for legal guardianship as she did not intend to return the child to mother until mother was stable. MGM stated that the parents used methamphetamine together, and the family was aware that mother used methamphetamine while the child was in her care. MGM informed the social worker that mother often left the child with her or with a friend for days at a time, and often appeared to be under the influence of drugs when she picked up the child.
Mother had in the past left Jemini with MGM for as long as a month. MGM had previously attempted to get legal guardianship of Jemini but was told that she could not because the parents' whereabouts were unknown. MGM wanted legal guardianship since mother has refused help with recovery from drug addiction. As far as MGM knew, Jemini had not been seen by a doctor and was not up to date with her immunizations.
The social worker was able to contact and set up an appointment with mother through Facebook. The social worker waited an hour and a half but neither parent appeared for the meeting.
On October 26, 2017, mother contacted DCFS and disclosed that father had been arrested the previous day on a drug-related charge. Mother admitted to engaging in ongoing violence with father and said she wanted to enter a shelter to avoid further contact with him. Mother stated that father was nice when sober, but violent when on methamphetamine.
Dependency petitions and detention
On October 25, 2017, DCFS filed a petition on behalf of Jemini pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). On December 21, 2017, DCFS filed its first amended petition, alleging that Jemini came under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). Pursuant to section 300, subdivision (a), the petition alleged that mother and father had a history of violent altercations which endangered Jemini's health and safety. Pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), the petition alleged that mother and father had histories of illicit drug use, including methamphetamine, which rendered them incapable of caring for the child and placed the child at risk of serious physical harm and damage. The petition also alleged that mother and father had frequently left the child with MGM without an appropriate plan for the child's ongoing care and supervision.
On October 26, 2017, the juvenile court found that a prima facie case had been made that the child was a person described by section 300, and detained the child from parental custody. The parents were granted monitored visits.
Jurisdiction/disposition report
DCFS filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on January 2, 2018. Jemini was detained with MGM, who was able to meet the needs of the child and was providing a safe, stable and nurturing environment. Maternal uncle, his wife and their two minor boys were also residing in the home with the maternal grandparents. There were no safety concerns in the home.
Mother was in limited contact with DCFS through Facebook, and father had made one unannounced visit to the DCFS office. The parents had not made themselves available for an interview.
Father's criminal record indicated that he had several drug-related infractions from 2008 to 2018. He was referred to a substance abuse program as part of a deferred judgment but did not complete the substance abuse program. MGM indicated that father's drug of choice was methamphetamine, which she believed father had been using for many years. Father became aggressive when using methamphetamines, and had completed six weeks of a substance abuse program, but relapsed after about a year.
MGM indicated that she had witnessed father verbally assault mother. PGM had witnessed both mother and father with scratches and bruises, and at least one of father's other children had witnessed a physical altercation between mother and father where father was hitting mother. Mother had a stab wound on her leg at one time that was of concern to family members. At first mother said she had stabbed herself by mistake, but later admitted that father stabbed her.
Adjudication
The parents were not present at the January 2, 2018 adjudication hearing. The court found father to be the presumed father of Jemini. The court sustained the petition pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b), and declared Jemini a dependent of the court, removed her from parental custody, granted the parents monitored visits, and ordered the parents to participate in reunification services. Father was ordered to participate in a full drug and alcohol program with aftercare, random or on-demand drug testing, a 12-step program with court card and sponsor, parenting classes, conjoint counseling with mother if they remained a couple, and individual counseling to address case issues including child safety, domestic violence, and substance abuse.
Status review report and six-month review hearing
On June 4, 2018, DCFS filed a status review report, noting that Jemini remained with MGM and was happy and healthy. Jemini's initial behaviors of hitting, throwing objects, hoarding food, and having tantrums had significantly decreased. She appeared comfortable in her surroundings and engaged in play with the other children in the home. She had been receiving mental health services. DCFS had no safety concerns with Jemini continuing to reside in the home.
Mother continued to be homeless and was not in compliance with her case plan.
Father was incarcerated due to an outstanding warrant. Prior to his incarceration, he was unemployed and receiving public assistance. He was homeless and reported frequenting "homeless camps." When father met with DCFS, he admitted to using methamphetamines. He participated in a sober living program but relapsed upon leaving the facility. Father stated that he could get a job if he wanted to, but he was fearful of making much money because he might overdose on drugs. The social worker offered to help father receive services but father failed to show up for several appointments. Father failed to enroll in services and missed numerous drug tests.
Mother and father had attended monitored visits at the DCFS office. Their behavior was indicative of substance abuse. Father fell asleep during visits and frequently wore dark glasses for the duration of the visit. Mother informed the social worker that father had been huffing aerosol cans to get high. During father's last visit, an aerosol can fell out of his jacket while he was attempting to give Jemini candy. Father wanted to see mother get herself into a position to care for Jemini. He also saw a need to get himself together, but mainly seemed to defer the responsibility to mother.
The six-month review hearing was held on July 2, 2018. The parents did not appear. Father had not appeared at any hearings. DCFS recommended that the court terminate reunification services and set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. The juvenile court found that the recommendation was "well supported," stating:
"I just will indicate that the report does reflect more than reasonable efforts by [DCFS] to engage the parents in the services set forth in their case plans, and they have persisted in doing nothing or less than nothing toward resolving the issues that brought the child into dependency court. So it looks to me like the recommendation is entirely appropriate."
The juvenile court terminated reunification services for both parents and set a permanency planning hearing for November 5, 2018. DCFS was directed to initiate an adoptive home study.
Father's petition pursuant to section 388
On September 12, 2018, father filed a petition pursuant to section 388, stating that he was presently in a drug rehabilitation home and that he was changing his life. He indicated that he loved his daughter and had visited her every Wednesday since he got out of jail and became sober. He asked the court for the chance to prove that he was fit to be in his daughter's life.
Section 388 permits a parent of a child who is a dependent of the juvenile court to file a petition to "change, modify, or set aside" an order of the juvenile court on the grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence. (§ 388, subd. (a)(1).)
On September 14, 2018, the juvenile court denied father's petition on the grounds that it did not state new evidence or a change of circumstances, and the proposed change was not in the child's best interests.
Subsequent reports
On October 19, 2018, DCFS filed a report pursuant to section 366.26. Jemini was in preschool, which she loved attending. She was making friends and learning how to socialize. The child was also receiving mental health services. The maternal grandparents were willing to adopt Jemini if reunification with her birth parents failed. They were providing the child with a safe, stable and nurturing home environment and meeting her mental health needs. The child appeared bonded to the caregivers and other family members living in the home.
Father started visiting Jemini weekly in August 2018. He brought snacks and played with her. DCFS did not report any problems or concerns.
On December 18, 2018, DCFS filed a status review report. Jemini remained placed with the maternal grandparents. Father was residing at a recovery home and visiting the child weekly for one hour per visit.
The maternal grandparents' adoptive home study was approved on November 8, 2018. Jemini's therapist provided a letter stating that Jemini and MGM had participated in family therapy. MGM was active in treatment and supported Jemini in meeting her goals. Because Jemini met her goals, and MGM was able to support her socio-emotional development, no further services were needed at that time.
Permanency planning review hearing
The permanency planning review hearing was held on January 7, 2019. After considering the evidence, the court found that the return of the child to the physical custody of the parents would create a substantial risk of detriment to the child. Adoption was ordered as the permanent plan.
Following the hearing, DCFS continued to report that Jemini was secure and comfortable in MGM's home, and was closely bonded to her. DCFS continued to recommend that it was in Jemini's best interests to be adopted by MGM.
Father's second petition pursuant to section 388
On January 15, 2019, father filed a second petition pursuant to section 388. In the petition, father argued that DCFS did not exercise due diligence to locate and notify him of the dependency proceedings, thus the dependency court lacked jurisdiction.
The petition was called for hearing on March 8, 2019, and father filed two exhibits. One was a letter stating that father had successfully completed a 60-day portion of a drug rehabilitation program at "My Father's House." The November 30, 2018 letter indicated that father had completed phase I of the program, stating that father "was in our live in home and stayed with us for only 60 days." He then transferred to an outpatient program. He was watching over his older daughters, ages six and nine. The letter opined that father appeared "to be determined to stay focused and is preparing for a healthy life style [sic]."
The second exhibit was a letter from Tarzana Treatment Centers dated March 5, 2019, indicating that father had enrolled in treatment the previous November. The program usually lasts six to nine months. Father had been attending the program three days per week for three hours, and was working with an individual counselor. Father had been encouraged to attend at least three 12-step meetings per week outside of the program, but had not provided proof of compliance. Father had submitted 14 negative drug tests between November 2018 and February 2019. Father had internalized the concept of the disease of addiction, and had been able to demonstrate insight into the negative impact his use of drugs had on his life.
In what appears to be a typographical error, the letter indicates that father enrolled in the program on November 28, 2019. Since the letter is dated March 5, 2019, we assume father enrolled on November 28, 2018.
Father testified at the hearing that he had been sober for about 10 months. He wanted to regain custody of Jemini. He added that he had been visiting Jemini once a week and would bring food, read to and play with the child. Father stated that Jemini runs up to him, gives him a big hug, and holds on to him when she sees him. Father described Jemini as "joyful" when they are together. When asked about his time in jail, father stated that he was in jail for three weeks in January 2018, and again between May 2018 and the end of July 2018. Father's counsel asked that he be given another opportunity to reunify with Jemini.
DCFS and counsel for the child argued that the section 388 petition should be denied. Jemini's counsel argued that the child was nearly four years old, and had been with MGM since October 2017. She had a strong bond with MGM and the relatives in her home, and was thriving under their care.
The juvenile court denied father's section 388 petition on the ground that there was no new evidence or a change of circumstances.
Selection and implementation hearing
Father requested a contested selection and implementation hearing so that he could assert the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) DCFS was ordered to prepare and submit a supplemental report addressing father's visitation.
On May 13, 2019, DCFS submitted a last minute information for the court indicating that father participated in monitored visitation at the DCFS office on Tuesdays from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Father maintained consistent visitation during this period. Father was punctual, and often arrived with snacks and candy, as well as toys. Father was interactive with Jemini, playing and reading with her. Father would engage with the child by asking her about school and her home life with her grandmother. Jemini would sometimes address father as "daddy" and sometimes as "Joe." Jemini enjoyed her visits with father and gave him hugs when saying hello and goodbye.
The contested selection and implementation hearing was held on June 17, 2019. Father testified at the hearing that he had been visiting Jemini consistently once a week since his release from jail. He would bring food and toys. Father explained that Jemini would run up to him and hug him, and that she was very affectionate with him. She would ask about father, mother, and her half-sisters. Father stated that Jemini called him "daddy" and recognized him as her father. Father testified that he would be devastated if his parental rights were terminated. He wanted to be in Jemini's life and take care of her.
DCFS and the child's counsel argued that the court should proceed with termination of parental rights because father did not demonstrate a relationship that met the legal standard of a beneficial parental relationship. Both attorneys acknowledged that father's progress was admirable and that his visitation had recently been consistent. However, they argued that father had not shown that termination of the parental relationship outweighed Jemini's right to permanency.
The court found that father had failed to establish the beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights. While father met the first prong of the test by maintaining regular visitation, and had made progress since the case began, it was not in the best interests of the minor to deny her a permanent home with MGM. The court terminated parental rights and ordered adoption as the permanent plan.
Notice of appeal
On June 27, 2019, father filed a notice of appeal challenging the order terminating his parental rights.
DISCUSSION
I. Applicable law and standard of review
"By the time of a section 366.26 hearing, the parent's interest in reunification is no longer an issue and the child's interest in a stable and permanent placement is paramount. [Citations.]" (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1348 (Jasmine D.).) "[W]hen the court has not returned an adoptable child to the parent's custody and has terminated reunification services, adoption becomes the presumptive permanent plan and parental rights should ordinarily be terminated at the section 366.26 hearing." (Id. at p. 1350.)
Section 366.26 sets forth the procedures for permanently terminating parental rights for children who are adjudged dependent children of the juvenile court. It provides that the court "shall" make an order to "[t]erminate the rights of the parent or parents and order that the child be placed for adoption." (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(1).) When it is likely that a child will be adopted, the court must terminate parental rights unless an exception applies. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) One such exception is the beneficial parental relationship exception. This exception applies when termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child and (1) the parent has maintained regular visitation; and (2) the child would benefit from continuing the relationship. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
The parent bears the burden of proving the beneficial relationship exception applies. (In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 (Aaliyah R.).) To meet this burden, the parent must show that "the parent-child relationship is sufficiently strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) In short, the relationship must be one that "'"promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents."' [Citations.]" (Ibid.) "A child who is determined to be a dependent of the juvenile court should not be deprived of an adoptive parent when the natural parent has maintained a relationship that may benefit the child to some degree but does not meet the child's need for a parent. [Citation.]" (Ibid.)
The Legislature has expressed a preference for adoption as the permanent plan for a child if it is likely the child will be adopted. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573 (Autumn H.).) "'Only if adoption is not possible, or if there are countervailing circumstances, or if it is not in the child's best interests are other, less permanent plans, such as guardianship or long-term foster care considered.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 574.) "Adoption, of course, requires terminating the natural parents' legal rights to the child." (Ibid.)
"Interaction between natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child." (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) A parent does not show that the beneficial parental relationship exception is applicable by showing such incidental benefit. Instead, "[t]he exception applies only where the court finds regular visits and contact have continued or developed a significant, positive, emotional attachment from child to parent." (Ibid.) Factors to be considered in determining whether such a significant, positive bond exists are: "(1) the age of the child, (2) the portion of the child's life spent in the parent's custody, (3) the positive or negative effect of interaction between the parent and the child, and (4) the child's particular needs. [Citation.]" (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 467, fn. omitted.)
Courts are divided over the appropriate standard of review for an order concerning the applicability of the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights. Some have applied the substantial evidence test. (See In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1166, fn. 7.) Others have applied the abuse of discretion standard. (See Jasmine D., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1351.) Others have applied a hybrid test, applying the substantial evidence standard to the factual findings regarding the existence of the relationship, and the abuse of discretion standard as to the question of whether termination of the parental relationship would be detrimental to the child. (In re Noah G. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1300-1301.) The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the appropriate standard of review regarding the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption. (In re Caden C. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 87, review granted July 24, 2019, S255839.) Accordingly, we apply both standards in this review.
A juvenile court abuses its discretion when it applies an incorrect legal standard. (In re Shannon M. (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 282, 289.)
II. The juvenile court did not apply an incorrect legal standard
Application of the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights requires the parent to show two elements. First, the parent must show regular visitation. Second, the parent must show that his bond with the child promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents. (Aaliyah R., supra, 136 Cal.App.4th at p. 449.)
Here, the parties agreed that father had met the first prong of the beneficial parental relationship exception. The court noted that DCFS "did not cross-examine" father on the visitation element of this exception, but instead focused on the "bonding and what's been established and how . . . there's a balancing that takes place that's important to decide what is in the best interest of the child." In this instance, the court found that balancing test weighed in favor of terminating parental rights and freeing up the child for adoption.
Father takes issue with certain of the juvenile court's statements on the record, suggesting that these statements imply the application of an erroneous test. First father states that the court erred in relying, in part, on the fact that father's reunification services had been terminated. Father notes that the juvenile court mentioned that a long period elapsed before father "became engaged" in these proceedings. In fact, the court noted, father's engagement with the proceedings occurred after family reunification services had been terminated. Father argues that these statements show that the court injected an improper factor into the analysis. (Citing In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102, 128 [court erred in injecting improper factor -- caregivers' willingness to permit future contact with mother -- into parent-child bond exception weighing].)
The juvenile court did mention that father's reunification services had been terminated prior to the time that he became engaged in the proceedings. However, the juvenile court's comments do not reflect a misunderstanding of the proper test, nor an insertion of an improper factor. Instead, this was a reference to the "long period of time" during which "father was not engaged in the process at all and how during that period of time a bonding occurred with maternal grandmother and the child." That bonding with MGM, which occurred throughout the approximately 20 months that Jemini was placed with the maternal grandparents throughout the proceedings, was a proper factor for the court to consider in determining whether the beneficial parental relationship exception applied. (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.)
Father also argues that the juvenile court erred in making a comparison of placement with MGM versus removal from MGM's home. Father argues that he was not seeking a return of Jemini to his custody. Instead, he was asking that his parental rights not be terminated.
The statements made by the juvenile court at the section 366.26 hearing do not suggest that the court was simply comparing potential households. Instead, the juvenile court made it clear that it was engaging in a "balancing" in order to decide "what is in the best interest of the child." The record shows that the juvenile court considered both the testimony of the father and the arguments of DCFS in making its determination. Father has failed to show that the juvenile court applied an improper legal standard.
III. The evidence supports the juvenile court's decision that the beneficial parental relationship exception did not apply
Father acknowledges that he bore the burden of proof at trial as to the application of the beneficial parental relationship exception. (In re C.B., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 122.) Thus, he is required to show, on appeal, that "the evidence compels a finding in [his] favor . . . as a matter of law. [Citations.]" (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528.) "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.]" (Ibid.) Father argues that he meets this standard.
Father points out that section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) does not define the type of parent-child relationship that triggers the exception. However, case law has suggested that the parent need not be the child's caretaker during the dependency case. (In re Brandon C. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1534.) Day-to-day contact is not required. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 51 (Casey D.).) Nor is it required that the child have a "'primary attachment'" to the parent. (In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 299 (S.B.).) What father must establish is "the existence of such a strong and beneficial parent-child relationship that terminating parental rights would be detrimental to the child and outweighs the child's need for a stable and permanent home that would come with adoption." (Casey D., at p. 51.)
Father argues that this case is similar to In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681. In Amber M., the child Amber, who was seven at the time of the section 366.26 hearing, had lived with mother for most of her life. (Id. at p. 689.) A psychologist conducted a bonding study and concluded that mother and Amber shared a "'primary attachment'" and a "'primary maternal relationship'" and that it would be detrimental to sever that relationship. (Ibid.) In addition, the child's therapist believed that the child shared a strong bond with her mother and that "it was important that their relationship continue." (Ibid.) The "common theme running through the evidence" was that the beneficial parental relationship outweighed the benefit of adoption. (Id. at p. 690.)
The evidence father presented in this matter did not include the type of strong, objective evidence present in Amber M. At the time of the section 366.26 hearing, Jemini had not spent the majority of her life with father. Nor did any professionals testify to the importance of the relationship in Jemini's life.
In re Scott B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 452, is similarly distinguishable. In Scott B., the child had spent the first nine years of his life under the care of his mother, and the child made it clear that he did not want to be adopted. (Id. at pp. 463-464, 471.) Professionals involved opined that it would be detrimental to the child if his relationship with his mother was disrupted. (Id. at p. 465.) The child indicated he would run away if he were adopted. (Id. at p. 468.) Due to the statements from social workers, as well as the child's repeated insistence that his preference would be to live with mother, the appellate court determined that a compelling reason existed for application of an exception to termination of parental rights. (Id. at p. 471.) The matter before us is distinguishable due to Jemini's young age during the proceedings, and her relationship with father, which only became stable in the 10 months prior to the section 366.26 hearing.
Finally, father cites S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th 289. In S.B., the father was the child's primary caretaker for the first three years of her life. The record showed that the child wanted the parental relationship to continue, as she was heard telling the father that she loved him, missed him, and that she wished she lived with him. (Id. at p. 298.) The father's devotion to the child was apparent "as evinced by his full compliance with his case plan and continued efforts to regain his physical and psychological health." (Id. at p. 300.) Under those circumstances, the only reasonable inference was that the child would be greatly harmed by the loss of her "significant, positive" relationship with the father. (Id. at p. 301.)
The record before us does not compel such a finding. When the case began in October 2017, Jemini was just two years old. Jemini had already spent considerable time at MGM's home because the parents had left her there for extended periods with no plan for her care. Father was homeless and using methamphetamine. His whereabouts were unknown and he only minimally participated in the proceedings until after his reunification services were terminated in July 2018. Father did not enroll in a drug rehabilitation program for over 10 months after Jemini's initial detention. It was not until over a year after Jemini's detention that he enrolled in an outpatient drug and alcohol program. In the interim, father was not a regular part of Jemini's life, and Jemini was forming a close familial bond with MGM and the other maternal relatives with whom she was residing.
Furthermore, father never progressed beyond monitored visitation with Jemini. The parent-child bond is difficult to establish where, as here, the parent has not had custody of the child throughout the proceedings and has not advanced beyond supervised visitation. (Casey D., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 51.) While father's visits became consistent after August 2018, and were enjoyable to both father and Jemini, the weekly one-hour visits did not create "such a strong and beneficial parent-child relationship that terminating parental rights would be detrimental to the child." (Ibid.) Under the circumstances, father failed to "establish a parental, rather than a caretaker or friendly visitor relationship with the child." (Ibid.)
The juvenile court did not err in determining that father failed to establish that the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights was applicable in this matter.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
/s/_________, J.
CHAVEZ We concur: /s/_________, P. J.
LUI /s/_________, J.
ASHMANN-GERST