Opinion
G055441
02-14-2018
In re JOSHUA A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.A., Defendant and Appellant.
Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minor.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. DP026827-001) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gassia Apkarian, Judge. Affirmed. Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Karen L. Christensen and Jeannie Su, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for the Minor.
* * *
A.A. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court's termination of her parental rights to her now two-year-old son, Joshua A., at the permanency placement hearing. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) Mother maintains the court erred by finding the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), parental bond exception did not apply to avoid termination of parental rights. After failing to reunify with Joshua after 22 months, Mother maintains they share a "substantial positive emotional attachment," and the minor should not be adopted by the family he has bonded with. Mother also appeals the juvenile court's denial of her petition for modification under section 388, asking the court to return Joshua to her custody or provide her with additional reunification services. We conclude Mother's contentions on appeal lack merit, and we affirm the judgment.
Joshua's father (Father) is not a party to this appeal.
On June 6, 2017, this court denied Mother's writ petition challenging the juvenile court's decision to terminate reunification services and schedule a permanency placement hearing pursuant to section 366.26. (A.A. v. Superior Court (June 6, 2017, G054627) [nonpub. opn.].)
FACTS
We incorporate by reference our prior summary of facts through the final review hearing that took place on February 14, 2017, at which the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a permanency hearing. (A.A. v. Superior Court, supra, G054627.) We will highlight below only the facts relevant to those issues raised in this appeal.
On November 3, 2015, then five-month-old Joshua entered the dependency system after he was hospitalized for the treatment of multiple broken bones, for which his parents could not provide a plausible explanation. In addition to allegations of physical abuse, the petition noted there was a history of domestic violence. While Joshua was in the hospital, nurses reported Mother had difficulty performing basic parental tasks. At the end of November 2015, the social worker provided Mother with a packet of resources and referrals and encouraged her to enroll in parenting education, individual counseling, and a child abusers treatment program. In February 2016, she informed the social worker that she would wait until counseling was court ordered.
Mother and Father ended their relationship in December 2015, and a few months later Mother, in a jealous rage, vandalized Father's workplace. Mother admitted she was out of control and intoxicated during the incident.
In March 2016, the juvenile court sustained an amended petition and ordered reunification services and a case plan, including counseling, parenting classes, and a 52-week child abuser treatment program. For the first six months, Mother actively participated in her case plan, and she secured housing and transportation. The social worker recommended extending reunification services to the 12-month review hearing. However, this recommendation changed in the social worker's November 2016 addendum report, primarily because Mother's visits with Joshua were problematic.
The social worker determined there was a high risk of harm if Joshua returned to Mother's care. Mother was "not prepared to provide Joshua full-time care, as she [was] unable to integrate the skills she's learned in her court ordered programs—as illustrated when she slapped Joshua on the hand and raised her voice after he hit another child." The social worker observed Mother was jealous of Joshua's relationship with his foster mother, which was concerning because "a child Joshua's age is not capable in engaging in behaviors to incite jealously in others." The social worker noted Mother grunted and ignored Joshua when she became frustrated. She held Joshua's face to get his attention and may have left a bruise. Mother's actions indicated she did not "comprehend what [was] developmentally appropriate behavior for a child Joshua's age . . . ." The social worker added Mother was disorganized and unprepared for visits, failing to bring sufficient food and diapers. "Her lack of organization and challenges managing stress, illustrates she would exhibit challenges if Joshua was placed in her care at this time." The social worker noted the case was past the 12-month mark and concluded Mother lacked a protective capacity.
In a subsequent addendum report, the social worker reported on her conversation with Mother's child abuser's treatment instructor, Samuel Zavala. He recalled that initially Mother was not energetic about the class and she did not want to be there. When she re-enrolled in April 2016, her attitude and level of participation was noticeably better. Zavala reported Mother exhibited empathy but "a lot of the information [was] new to her and she did not know that if she hit, it would leave bruises." He told the social worker it was "as though a baby [was] raising a baby."
In a subsequent addendum report prepared at the end of January 2017, the social worker reported Mother was unemployed, looking for work, and living with her mother (Maternal Grandmother), who had mistreated Mother as a child. Mother stated she planned to have Maternal Grandmother care for Joshua when she found work.
The social worker concluded Mother failed to show she could effectively parent and care for Joshua, despite having participated in individual counseling, a parenting education program, and an in-home coaching program. The social worker found it telling that Mother reported she did not want to discuss how her son got hurt. Mother appeared disorganized and gave poor excuses for missing visits with Joshua. Mother reported being overwhelmed although Joshua was not in her care and she was unemployed. In December 2016, Mother blacked out and was arrested for being drunk in public. Mother denied abusing alcohol and stated she was drinking because she missed her son and was "not coping well with it."
The social worker noted Mother truly believed she was able to take care of Joshua, claiming she had learned a lot from the in-home coach. Nevertheless, the social worker remained concerned about Mother's "protective capacity" defined as "the behavioral, cognitive, and emotional characteristics that can directly and specifically be associated with a person's ability to provide care to and keep a child safe." Mother's statements and actions demonstrated her inability to place Joshua's needs before her own. The social worker was troubled by the fact Mother appeared unable to identify abuse or neglect, although she had participated for nearly a year in child abuser's treatment programs, parenting classes, and individual counseling. Although these topics were discussed repeatedly, Mother stated she was not the victim of abuse, neglect, or trauma, despite previously stating her mother was abusive and admitting she experienced domestic violence with Father. Mother was unable to discuss what happened to Joshua or the reasons he was brought into protective custody. She coped with his loss by drinking to the point of blacking out. The social worker remained concerned about Joshua's safety and concluded permanency rather than additional reunification services would be in his best interests.
Fourteen months after Social Services Agency (SSA) detained Joshua, the court held the six-month review hearing on January 24, 2017. The hearing lasted several days, during which the social worker reported Mother still denied she was the victim of abuse, neglect, or trauma as a child. Yet when asked if Maternal Grandmother abused her, Mother acknowledged she was abused and she had a terrible childhood. Mother explained she was trying to move past her history. Mother indicated Joshua also was not a victim of abuse, trauma, or neglect, and she was not ready to discuss how he was injured. Mother maintained she was a good mother and she was prepared to care for Joshua while she lived with Maternal Grandmother. Mother fondly and lovingly discussed her son and reported Joshua called her "'mama.'" She admitted feeling jealous when Joshua was affectionate with Maternal Grandmother.
Mother missed several visits in November 2016, December 2016, and January 2017. Mother also missed Joshua's audiology appointment. The social worker voiced concern about Mother's protective capacity due to her recent decision to reside with Maternal Grandmother, several incidents of poor impulse control (her arrest and short-lived decision to stop reunification services), and her inability to discuss the reasons why Joshua was brought into protective custody.
The court terminated services and scheduled a permanency hearing for June 2017. It gave several reasons for its decision and noted that due to Joshua's young age "we just don't have the convenience of time." The court concluded an additional six months would be insufficient to achieve reunification. It commented to Mother, "Because you, yourself, admitted, and I received information, that perhaps it has to do with lack of formal education [and/or] lack of an adult to model after. It could be things that have been so intrinsic to your life growing up. I don't know if it can be fixed or not."
A few days before the scheduled permanency hearing, Mother filed a petition for modification under section 388. In August 2017, she filed a supplemental petition. Mother asserted her attendance at weekly Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings was her changed circumstance. After 14 meetings, Mother believed she understood alcoholism better and she was motivated to remain sober. Mother claimed she had not consumed alcohol since her arrest in December 2016.
In addition, Mother described her new parenting class designed for members of the deaf community. After attending three sessions, Mother believed she was being open and honest with her instructor about the dependency proceedings and she was learning how to implement good parenting skills. Mother maintained she was receiving positive support from the AA group, her parenting class, and her church community. Although she lived with Maternal Grandmother for financial reasons, Mother claimed she would move out and find appropriate child care if Joshua were returned to her.
Finally, Mother described her close and affectionate bond with Joshua. She recalled that when she arrived to visits, Joshua would run to her and looked happy to see her. He called her "mom" and responded positively to her parental efforts. Mother explained she often brought Joshua food, toys, and clothes. They would spend time together dancing and singing. She comforted him if he was injured, and also effectively used age-appropriate disciplinary techniques.
As further support for her petition, Mother attached Maternal Grandmother's declaration. She confirmed Mother was committed to her sobriety, attended church, and lived with her. Maternal Grandmother noted Mother often brought Joshua food and taught him age-appropriate lessons during visits. She believed Mother and Joshua had a strong bond because he did not want to leave her side and cried when she left him.
The juvenile court determined Mother made a prima facie case for a section 388 hearing and ordered it held concurrently with the permanency hearing. At the hearing, the court heard testimony from social worker Stephanie Peterson-Duran (Duran). She described Joshua's loving relationship with his prospective adoptive parents. She explained the likelihood of adoption was high because they had cared for Joshua since December 2015, and they were strongly bonded. Duran stated Joshua appeared to be healthy, happy, and developmentally on track. Joshua called his prospective adoptive mother, "mama," and he was excited to see her after short periods of separation.
With respect to Mother, Duran opined she had not demonstrated a commitment to addressing the issues that brought Joshua into the dependency system. Duran was still concerned about Mother's protective capacity, her ability to keep Joshua safe, and her lack of insight about how her actions impacted her son. Duran recognized Mother admitted she failed to protect Joshua when Father caused his injuries, however, it was troubling Mother had never explained what she could have done to protect Joshua.
Duran testified Mother was still participating in services. Mother completed the 52-week child abuser program, but, she did not receive a certificate of completion because she would not take responsibility for the child's physical abuse. Duran stated the teachers at previous parenting classes and her in-home parenting coaches did not know American Sign Language, but Mother was provided sign language interpreters.
Duran commented Mother had not progressed beyond 10 hours of supervised visitation per week. Mother demonstrated a lack of responsibility by sometimes missing and forgetting visits. After reunification services concluded, Mother ended two visits early because she said he was not himself and was not engaging with her.
On a more positive note, Duran concluded Joshua's visits with Mother were affectionate and went well. She described Joshua as a generally happy child who got along well with others. He enjoyed eating, playing, cuddling, dancing, singing, and watching movies with Mother during visits. Duran testified Mother appropriately comforted Joshua and she used age-appropriate discipline. Duran concluded Mother interacted with Joshua as if she were somebody taking care of children at a childcare center. Joshua referred to Mother, his prospective adoptive mother, and Duran all as "Momma." At the end of visits, Joshua did not cry or smile and easily separated from Mother. Duran admitted Joshua cried at the end of one visit when he went with the transporter.
Maternal Grandmother testified she attended several visits with Mother and Joshua. She described Joshua's affectionate and happy reaction when he saw Mother during visits. She said Joshua would look for Mother if she left to use the restroom. He would not take a nap unless Mother laid down next to him. Joshua would ask Mother for food and she would help him with his other needs. Maternal Grandmother stated Joshua was happy to see his caretakers but sometimes he looked sad or whimpered when it was time to end visits. She claimed to be sober for over two years. She did not remember physically abusing Mother because she was intoxicated at the time.
Mother testified she understood Joshua was in the dependency system because she and Father injured him by tugging his body back and forth during an argument over whether Father should toss Joshua in the air. Mother said she felt partially responsible for Joshua's injuries because she pulled on her son when Father would not let him go. If the situation were to occur again, she would call the police. When asked if Father abused her or Joshua, Mother replied Father never harmed her but "it's a 50/50" with respect to Joshua. Mother added she tried to stop Father from hurting Joshua.
Mother explained she was now able to talk about what happened with Joshua because of the counseling she received in her new parenting class. She claimed this class was different from the others because she was working with an instructor who could communicate directly with her using sign language, which was better than having an interpreter. After only four classes, Mother believed she had learned about what it meant to be a good role model and other lessons important to being a good parent.
When Mother was asked how she planned to financially provide for Joshua if he was returned to her, Mother stated she was unemployed and receiving government assistance. She was aware more benefits were available to her if she lived with Joshua. Mother admitted her current living arrangements with Maternal Grandmother were "not working out." Mother recognized Maternal Grandmother would not be an appropriate babysitter and stated she planned to take Joshua to a day care.
Mother discussed her relationship with Joshua. She understood that if Joshua were returned to her care, it would take some time for him to adjust to living with her and it would be "a process for him to get to know his mother again." Mother said she could help Joshua with this by taking him to the park to play and by letting him spend time getting to know her family.
Mother testified she began attending AA meetings created for the deaf on May 6, 2017, because she did not want Joshua to see her as an alcoholic and wanted him to believe she was a "good mom." She believed AA would help her "be aware of what is right." Mother admitted she did not remember the first of the 12 steps and had trouble reading the "big book." Mother stated her reading level was between "second to third grade levels." She believed her sponsor's reading level was lower than her ability to read, however, she stated he was good at sign language. Mother said participation in AA meetings was the most important change in her life. When asked why it was such a significant change, she replied "because of my son." Mother later commented she did not have "alcohol problems."
The court considered argument from the parties, including minor's counsel, who maintained the section 388 petition should be denied. Minor's counsel noted Mother had not provided any information to support her claim she had addressed the initial reasons Joshua was detained. Counsel argued attendance at AA meetings and parenting classes did not address the allegations of physical abuse and history of domestic violence. Substance abuse was not alleged to be a reason warranting Joshua's removal. Counsel maintained there was little evidence of a change regarding Mother's ability to protect Joshua from physical abuse. She opined Mother's testimony was confusing, or perhaps disingenuous, because she only took responsibility for the bones broken during the tug-of-war incident. Mother failed to acknowledge Joshua had older healing fractures. Counsel concluded Mother had only just begun to address some of her issues and had failed to prove an actual change of circumstances.
In denying the section 388 modification petition, the juvenile court stated it did not find there were changed circumstances. "I am not even sure I would be willing to say circumstances are changing. [¶] The only thing that I have heard and seen is that Mother has realized that there is a lot she needs to work on. And I don't believe alcohol is one of them. [¶] And perhaps Mother is seeking help in AA [meetings] because she is trying to find programs that help improve her parenting role in this child's life . . . . It's hard to find programs that have sign language and are led by sign language teachers. Perhaps that's why mom is attaching herself to these AA [meetings]. [¶] Based on the initial petition, the facts under which this case came to us . . . there is not an alcohol problem per se, here."
The juvenile court discussed the history of domestic violence and the fact Mother had a story for how Joshua may have broken some bones, but she offered nothing to explain his older injuries. The court concluded, "I think [Mother] has a problem facing facts. These are harsh facts to deal with. Perhaps [Mother] has a lifetime of counseling therapy and seeking help. To do for herself and for her future. However, I don't find, by any means, that there are changing circumstances other than the fact that [Mother] is in some programs where communication between the teacher and herself is better. [¶] And I will talk about the gravity of this case: [¶] This is [as] serious as a case can be and Mother has not been able to address or admit to what really happened. [¶] Mother had ample time to seek . . . services prior to services terminating. For various reasons that I've stated in the past when I terminated services, [Mother] was unable to seek the right services and take advantage of services. [¶] Whatever changes are happening for [Mother,] they are for her, but not with regards to the case or the child."
A few days later, the juvenile court proceeded to the permanency planning hearing and considered argument from the parties on the issue of the benefit exception to termination of parental rights. County counsel argued Joshua, who was then 27 months old, had spent almost his entire life with his foster parents who were willing to adopt him. County counsel reviewed the evidence of the parent/child bond and concluded that although visits were not detrimental, they were not significant enough to apply the exception to terminating parental rights. Minor's counsel agreed. She added there was ample evidence Joshua was adoptable and his caretakers wished to adopt him. She characterized the quality of the parent/child bond as being similar to one between a friendly visitor and a child and stated Mother did not play a parental role in Joshua's life. Joshua looked to his caretakers to have his everyday needs met. Counsel noted Mother had only attended one of Joshua's doctor appointments, and most importantly, had missed two audiology appointments within the past year.
Mother's counsel argued the parental bond exception should apply in this case. She argued Mother consistently visited Joshua and the social worker was to blame for several missed visits. Mother's counsel argued a parent need not show a child is primarily attached to him or her and need only show the bond is substantial, positive, and emotional. Counsel argued Joshua and Mother share this type of strong bond. She noted there was evidence Joshua used sign language to communicate with Mother and looked to her to meet his needs during their visits together. She found it very telling that when Mother arrived for visits, Joshua would start talking excitedly about all the things he wanted to do with her during the visit. Counsel concluded this emotional reaction showed Mother was more than a friendly visitor. She stated there was overwhelming evidence in the visitation logs showing Joshua was consistently loving and affectionate with Mother, he called her "mom," and ran to her when he saw her. One of their favorite things to do was to watch the Trolls movie and dance. Counsel stated there was evidence Joshua and Mother shared many special moments and traditions together, such as when Mother told Joshua "I love you to the moon," and two-year-old Joshua always finished the sentence by replying "and back." Counsel concluded Mother did more than most friendly visitors because she came prepared with items Joshua specifically needed, she listened to what he wanted to do, and she came prepared for those activities.
Before making its ruling, the court stated that in addition to considering testimony, it had spent time reading the visitation logs, supplemental declarations, exhibits, and social workers' reports. The court noted Mother's visits with Joshua were positive. "This child just seems to be a happy kid who's enjoying time with this person he calls . . . 'momma' several times a week, almost like a babysitter or a good friend. [¶] I don't have an indication from the reports that this child looks up to [Mother] in a way different than one would look up to a trusted adult or with whom they like to spend time with or play with. [¶] The relationship or the bond between a child and a caregiver is different than one between a child and an adult that they like or love or trust."
The court concluded there was insufficient evidence of the necessary type of parental bond between Joshua and Mother. It reasoned termination of parental rights would not be detrimental to Joshua. It stated, "There is no doubt in this court's mind that this mother loves her child and has done whatever she thinks she can do to be with this child, shar[ed] time with this child, play[ed] with this child. But there's a lack of evidence that shows this court that there is this developing, significant, positive, emotional attachment from child to parent." The court ruled the quality of the mother/son relationship did not outweigh the security and sense of belonging Joshua would receive from a family that wishes to adopt him.
DISCUSSION
I. Section 388 Petition
Mother contends she made a sufficient showing to justify an order granting her custody of Joshua and vacating the section 366.26 hearing. We disagree.
A juvenile court dependency order may be changed, modified, or set aside at any time. (§ 385.) A parent may petition the court for such a modification on grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence. (§ 388, subd. (a).) The parent, however, must also show the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child. (§ 388, subd. (a)(2); In re Michael B. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1698, 1703.)
Whether the juvenile court should modify a previously made order rests within its discretion, and its determination may not be disturbed unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318 (Stephanie M.).) "'["]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."' [Citations.]" (Id. at pp. 318-319.) We conclude that in this case, the court did not abuse its discretion.
Mother's newfound interest in sobriety and renewed interest in parenting classes did not show changed circumstances. Mother had already received extensive counseling and parenting classes, which facilitated some improvements in her parenting skills. However, after two years, Mother was unable to demonstrate she gained the necessary "protective capacity" and level of insight needed to keep Joshua safe from harm. When Mother was receiving reunification services, she made the same assertions she is raising now. Her actions did not match her self-serving statements back then, and there is nothing to suggest that a handful of additional classes facilitated a changed circumstance. As aptly noted by the juvenile court, Mother's testimony indicated she was still unable to take full responsibility for Joshua's injuries because she did not acknowledge he sustained older healing fractures. The record amply supports the juvenile court's conclusion Mother had only begun to address her issues.
Moreover, as noted by minor's counsel, alcoholism was not a reason Joshua was brought into the dependency system. The juvenile court properly recognized AA meetings designed for the hearing impaired may help Mother in other respects, but her allegations of newfound sobriety are somewhat meaningless because Mother steadfastly maintained throughout these proceedings that she did not have a problem with alcohol. Thus, her interest in learning about sobriety would not be a changed circumstance.
Mother also did not meet the best interests prong. "To understand the element of best interests in the context of a [section] 388 petition filed, as in this case, on the eve of the [section 366.26] hearing, we turn to the Supreme Courts' language in Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th 295: '[A]t this point "the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability" (In re Marilyn H. [(1993)] 5 Cal.4th 295, 309) . . . . A court hearing a motion for change of placement at this stage of the proceedings must recognize this shift of focus in determining the ultimate question before it, that is, the best interests of the child.' [Citations.]" (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 526.)
Mother's evidence did not come close to establishing Joshua's need for permanency and stability would be advanced by an order returning him to her care. The evidence showed Joshua had a loving and stable placement with his long-term caregivers who wished to adopt him. They had cared for Joshua for over a year and had assumed full parental responsibilities for him. For two-year-old Joshua, the prospective adoptive parents were the only constant and stable caregivers he had known. Mother does not dispute Joshua's strong bond with his caregivers, and she said she would take steps to help him transition away from them by taking him to the park. We conclude Mother failed to present sufficient evidence Joshua's best interests in permanency and stability would be furthered by the proposed modification under Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at page 317.
II. Exception to Termination of Parental Rights
Mother contends we must reverse the order terminating parental rights because the juvenile court erred by finding the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption did not apply. We disagree.
Adoption is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.) If the court finds that a child may not be returned to his parents and is likely to be adopted, it must select adoption as the permanent plan, unless it finds a compelling reason for determining that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child under one of the exceptions set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B). One such exception is the beneficial parental relationship exception set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), which applies when "the parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
The court did not rule on the first prong regarding regular visitation and contact, stating only visitation was generally positive. The record shows Mother had difficulty consistently visiting Joshua during the case. Nevertheless, we need to consider the issue because we affirm the order based on our finding there was adequate evidence to support the court's conclusion Mother did not satisfy the second prong requiring a "benefit" showing. --------
The phrase "benefit from continuing the relationship" refers to a parent/child relationship 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. In other words, the court balances the strength and quality of the natural parent/child relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer. If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent's rights are not terminated." (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 (Autumn H.).)
It was Mother's burden to show that the beneficial parental relationship exception applied in this case. (In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1345.) In support of her position, Mother essentially argues there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding because there was some evidence that supports application of the exception. She points to favorable evidence, such as her ability to set limits for Joshua, the positive nature of their visits, and her ability to provide affection and good parenting skills. Mother argues she was much more than a mere casual visitor and terminating the relationship would be detrimental to Joshua because they formed and maintained special traditions, evidencing a strong positive emotional attachment.
Mother does not discuss the evidence showing Joshua was thriving in the care of his prospective adoptive parents. She does not dispute Joshua has a close emotional bond with his caregivers, who have met his emotional, physical, and educational needs for most of his life. He has resided with them for over a year, and his caregivers want Joshua to become a permanent member of their family. They are committed to providing him with a stable and loving forever home.
As in most dependency cases, the juvenile court had the difficult task of determining whether Mother's relationship with Joshua promoted his well-being "to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents." (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) This evaluation required the juvenile court to engage in a complex weighing process, considering conflicting and competing evidence regarding the strength of the parent/child bond. Mother does not suggest the juvenile court failed to consider the favorable evidence supporting her position, and the record shows the court weighed all the submitted evidence before determining Mother failed to carry her burden of proof. Our job is not to retry the case. Rather, we must determine if the juvenile court abused its discretion, while also recognizing the substantial evidence test applies to findings of fact. (In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102, 123.) This is simply not a case where undisputed facts lead to only one conclusion.
Moreover, none of the variables that logically affect a parent/child bond favors Mother. These include the age of the child; the portion of the child's life spent in parental custody; the interactions between parent and child; and the child's particular needs. (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) Joshua was detained when he was five months old after it was determined he had multiple broken bones. He was placed with the prospective adoptive parents soon after he celebrated his first birthday. It is undisputed he looks primarily to his current caregivers for his daily emotional and physical needs. Mother was a friendly supervised visitor for merely 10 hours a week and he easily separated from her. There is no hint in the record that Joshua would be harmed in any way if these visits end. A biological relationship and friendly affectionate visits do not outweigh the benefit of a permanent adoptive home. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 51.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
O'LEARY, P. J. WE CONCUR: MOORE, J. ARONSON, J.