Opinion
E069485
06-18-2018
In re G.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. J.C., Defendant and Appellant.
Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, Pamela J. Walls, Special Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.Nos. J265088 & J265089) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Annemarie G. Pace, Judge. Affirmed. Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, Pamela J. Walls, Special Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant J.C. (Mother) challenges the termination of her parental rights by the juvenile court at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. For the reasons set forth post, we affirm the judgment.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified. --------
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PETITION AND DETENTION
On April 21, 2016, plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b), regarding I.C. (male, age 5); and subdivisions (a), (b), (e), and (j) regarding G.C. (female, age 19 months; collectively, Minors). The petition alleged that (1) Mother and K.C. (Father; collectively, Parents) engaged in domestic violence in the presence of Minors; (2) Parents drank excessively and drove with Minors while intoxicated; (3) Parents had extensive criminal backgrounds; (4) Father choked and pushed I.C. to the ground; and (5) Mother injured Minors by driving while intoxicated and had a violent car crash injuring both children.
A social worker made an unannounced visit to the home of the maternal grandmother (MGM) after the Buena Park Police and California Highway Patrol placed Minors with her. Mother had a fight with Father and, while intoxicated, entered her car and crashed in a single-car accident from which she was severely injured and hospitalized in Orange County. Both Minors sustained seat belt injuries. Mother was charged with drunk driving and child endangerment. Officers would not release Minors to Father.
Parents had prior domestic fights and intoxication. Mother had a criminal record for prostitution, being drunk in public, driving while intoxicated, and drugs. Father had a criminal record for pimping and pandering, spousal battery, firearms possession and probation violations. At the hospital, I.C. told law enforcement that Father was really mad and fighting with Mother, choked her, and tried to kill her. Father also choked I.C. and threw him on the ground. Moreover, I.C. said that Parents fight and drink too much, and talked about Father visiting a stripper and fighting with Mother over money Father forgot he had spent. MGM reported that prior to the last fight Mother had changed the locks on the family home in preparation of kicking Father out. Parents, however, were reported to be together at the home of relatives in Buena Park. A warrant was secured and Minors were removed.
On April 22, 2016, the court detained Minors and placed them with MGM.
B. JURISDICTION AND DISPOSITION
At the time of the jurisdiction and disposition hearing on June 17, 2016, Mother was facing criminal charges of drunk driving and child endangerment stemming from the car accident involving Minors. The night of the accident, Mother had a blood/alcohol level of .28.
Five-year-old I.C. was interviewed at a children's assessment center. He described seeing Mother bleeding from the mouth just after impact. He thought Mother was dead. I.C. explained, "I tried to wake my mom up, but she would not wake up. She was sick and drinking and driving, and now she has to pay the police." Mother asked I.C. not to tell "GoGo" (MGM), that Mother was drinking. I.C. thought Mother was dead and he could not be comforted until MGM called the hospital to assure I.C. that Mother was still alive. I.C. explained, "My mom ran into a gate that was metal because she was sick. She was driving crazy and was drinking while driving . . . . My mom was drinking beer. I saw the beer splattered in the car. My mom got beer from a store in a pink cup."
MGM confirmed that Mother often drove Minors in the car while intoxicated and reported a specific incident in February of 2015 where Mother was driving Minors while drunk in Huntington Beach. Both MGM and Father acknowledged that Mother had a drinking problem. MGM described her daughter as an "alcoholic" who becomes violent and needs to be restrained when drinking to prevent her from injuring others. MGM cited an incident in March of 2015 when Mother flew into a drunken rage while hospitalized in Las Vegas. MGM reported that Mother had been in "rehab" for an eating disorder and drinking. MGM further described being summoned to motel rooms several times by Mother who was intoxicated, bruised and beaten. Mother told MGM that Mother had been beaten by Father. Father broke Mother's clavicle when they were both intoxicated. MGM explained that after she would pick Mother up, Mother would become violent and would jump out of the car so she could find another drink and reunite with Father.
MGM stated that I.C. has questioned why Parents leave their home and get two hotel rooms. I.C. said, "I asked my daddy why do we get two hotel rooms and my daddy said because your mom needs to sleep. But she sleeps with us." MGM confirmed that Mother and Father are "always going to hotels in Orange County or Ontario and they always get two rooms. One is for [Father] and the kids while the other is for [Mother] to do her business." MGM further explained that Mother had a pornography website and some of MGM's acquaintance have met Mother at hotels for sex and have asked her if she is MGM's daughter. Mother's response was "don't tell my mom."
I.C. stated Parents drank too much. He further stated, "my daddy drinks lots of beer and then goes to stripper clubs with all these girls and they took off their clothes and then this girl was really pretty and he gave her five hundred money and then my mom was freaking out she was screaming out of her lungs." I.C. explained, "my daddy drinks lots of beer and then forgets and thinks my mom stole a lot of money, but my daddy gave the girls money."
During the interview, I.C. also described the domestic violence he observed between his Parents: "My daddy wanted to see something and my mom told him no you cannot see. Then my daddy said what did you say to me? Then my daddy put my mom in the shower and was trying to kill her." I.C. reported crying and feeling frightened when Parents fight.
MGM reported Father has an extensive criminal history for domestic violence for which he has spent time in jail. She mentioned an incident where she was called to a hotel after Parents were drinking and fighting, and the room was trashed. When police arrived, Father denied knowing Mother until I.C. started calling him daddy. Police found weapons in the room and Father was arrested for pimping.
MGM described another incident where Mother was found alone in a park; she was unconscious, beat up, and intoxicated. Mother told the police that Father had assaulted her. Mother was arrested that night on an warrant for prostitution in Orange County. I.C., an infant at the time, was found with Father.
MGM described a third incident where she responded to a hotel in Fullerton after receiving a call from Mother that she needed help. MGM reported Mother told the police that she had been in a fight with Father. The hotel room was littered with beer bottles and "trashed." I.C. was sitting on the floor playing with the beer bottles. Mother was bruised with black eyes. MGM tried to take Mother home; Mother demanded a drink and returned to Father. This scenario played out many times over the years where MGM responded to Mother's pleas for help and then found Mother intoxicated and beaten up in a hotel room, claiming that Father assaulted her.
On the night of the car accident, Parents had been drinking to excess. Father was so drunk that he started a fight with his friend. The paternal grandmother (PGM) had to intervene. Father admitted that when he drinks, "he goes overboard." Parents fought; Mother put Minors in the car, drove off, and crashed.
Criminal records revealed Father was convicted of battery on a non-cohabitant in 1996, inflicting corporal injury on a cohabitant in 1997, battery on a non-cohabitant in 1980, inflicting corporal injury on a spouse in 2001 possession of a controlled substance in 2009, prostitution in 2012, inflicting corporal injury and pimping in 2014, and inflicting corporal injury on a spouse in 2014.
Mother's criminal history showed three convictions for driving under the influence (2003, 2009, 2010), and two convictions for hit and run causing damage (2002 and 2004). When questioned, Mother adamantly denied that she drinks, has driven under the influence, or has been a victim of domestic violence; she does not drink anything but water. Mother denied every allegation. Mother also stated that the prostitution and pornography occurred before I.C. was born.
Father similarly denied drinking, domestic violence, and pimping and pandering. Father claimed that Mother was injured "at the gym," or that her injuries were "self-inflicted" and that Mother bruised easily. The social worker assigned to the case opined that with the level of denial by Parents, neither Parent may be able to benefit from services.
Following mediation on June 17, 2016, the juvenile court found, with respect to I.C., that allegations A-1 through A-3 were not true. With respect to G.C., that allegations under A-1, E-10, and J-11 were not true. The parties had agreed in the mediation to dismiss allegations B-4 and B-6, and to submit to the remaining allegations including B-08 and B-9 as rewritten. The juvenile court found these allegations true as rewritten, declared Minors dependents and placed them with MGM. Reunification services were stipulated to include individual counseling, domestic violence treatment, substance abuse treatment, random drug testing, and a 12-step program. Visitation was ordered a minimum of two times weekly for two hours, supervised by CFS or their delegate, with CFS authorized to liberalize as to frequency and duration.
C. DE FACTO PARENT HEARING
On February 22, 2017, MGM was granted de facto parent status.
D. SIX-MONTH REVIEW
In the six-month status review report filed December 16, 2016, CFS recommended termination of reunification services. While Parents were making progress on their individual counseling, parenting and substance abuse classes, Parents had failed to appear for their random drug tests. Father was a no-show for every drug test for a total of 10 missed tests. Mother had failed to appear for drug testing on nine occasions. When Mother did test, she tested positive for opiates.
Moreover, Parents had another episode of domestic violence. Father failed to appear at a December 12 team decision meeting; PGM appeared for him and reported that Father had just been released from jail for domestic violence. Mother mentioned that she went to Father's home to get some of her belongings and Father "jumped her," giving her a black eye and bruises all over her chest and arms. Mother then attended her scheduled domestic violence group; group members encouraged her to report the incident and drove her to the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department station. Deputies observed multiple bruises on Mother's arms, and a bruised and swollen eye. Mother told police that Father was violent and abused her frequently. Deputies then went to the home; Father was arrested for domestic violence during a visit with Minors, which was being supervised by the paternal grandfather. Police handcuffed Father, in front of Minors, and took him to jail.
MGM reported an additional incidence of domestic violence that occurred November 8, 2016. She said Mother came to her home at 2:00 a.m. stating that Father was going to "kill her." Mother reportedly cried: "I do not want to die mom." Although Mother promised MGM that she was finished with Father, the next morning Mother had changed her mind and returned to him. MGM saw choke marks on Mother's neck. Mother did not file for a restraining order even though MGM encouraged her to do so. During a meeting with the social worker, Parents continued to deny and cover up the incident. Mother later denied any domestic abuse and said that they got along "just fine," and they "don't even argue."
In an addendum report filed on February 21, 2017, a police report was attached. The report detailed the incidents of domestic violence and the efforts of the domestic abuse group and MGM to get Mother to report the violence and to obtain a restraining order against Father. Mother did not apply for a restraining order; instead, she was observed sitting with Father at the juvenile court hearing.
Parents continued to fail to attend all of their drug tests. Mother tested negative on several occasions, but also had four no-shows. Father tested positive for amphetamines and Adderall. Father denied taking or having a prescription for Adderall.
Even though Parents and PGM were admonished that they could not have their visits at the same time, it was reported to CFS by MGM that PGM allowed both Parents in her home at the same time during a visit. Upon further investigation, the social worker learned that on January 4, 2017, Minors spent the entire day with Parents in Orange County at a party. PGM was removed as a delegate supervisor for visitation.
MGM also reported to CFS that she had seen Mother leaving Father's home on the morning of February 14. When questioned, Mother admitted staying at the home but also insisted Father was living alone. Mother continued to retract her statements of domestic abuse by Father even though she had earlier told police that Father "threw her onto the ground and struck her in the right eye with his right fist." Mother had stated Father "beats me up all the time and calls me a whore and a bitch." Later, Mother claimed she had received the bruises and black eye the previous night from another man, while she was drunk in a hotel room in Orange County; contradicting her prior assertions that she did not drink alcohol.
During the hearing on February 22, 2017, the juvenile court determined there was a lack of benefit and compliance with reunification services. Father had been arrested for domestic violence. G.C. was under the age of three at the time of removal. The court terminated reunification services. The court also reduced supervised visitation from two times a week to one time a week for two hours.
E. WRIT PETITION
Mother filed a notice of intent to file writ petition. She abandoned it and we dismissed the petition.
F. SECTION 388 PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
On April 27, 2017, Mother filed a request to change a court order to reinstate reunification services under section 388. In support of her section 388 petition, Mother submitted a copy of a restraining order filed March 20, 2017. She also submitted certificates of completion for parenting, substance abuse, domestic violence, and other classes, sign-in sheets and negative drug tests. Mother, however, omitted the declaration supporting her request for the restraining order.
In response, CFS filed an interim review report dated May 10, 2017, informing the court that Mother recanted the allegations of domestic abuse by Father to the police and the social worker, including the incident that led to Father's arrest. Mother asserted that Father had never hit her and was never abusive.
Moreover, after obtaining the restraining order against Father, Mother was observed leaving Father's home at 7:24 a.m. on May 3, and again on May 4, 2017, and going to the rear of the apartment complex where she had parked her car. When the social worker confronted Mother and asked why she was violating her own restraining order, Mother responded, "I don't know what you're talking about"; then said she wanted to speak with her attorney.
G. SECTION 388 AND SECTION 366.26 HEARINGS
On June 13, 2017, CFS submitted a section 366.26 report recommending termination of parental rights and a permanent plan of adoption. While Minors, then six and two years old, were in good physical health, I.C. was having a difficult time processing "what had happened" with Parents. MGM wanted to adopt Minors; she had been present in their lives since birth. She owned her own home and physical therapy business for over 30 years. MGM had no criminal history or substance abuse issues. She, in fact, divorced her husband because of his substance-abuse issues. MGM loved Minors, advocated for more therapy for I.C., and wanted to provide Minors with a stable home.
On June 22, 2017, the juvenile court ordered an evidentiary hearing on Mother's section 388 petition and ordered a bonding study at Mother's expense. The court also directed Mother to drug test following the hearing.
On August 11, and September 7, 2017, CFS filed two additional information reports notifying the court that Mother had tested positive for opiates on June 22, 2017, following the hearing. Mother did complete substance abuse, domestic violence and parenting classes, a relapse prevention class, and narcotic anonymous meetings.
A bonding study was submitted on behalf of Mother. In preparing the bonding study, Mother's expert, Dr. Chand, met with Mother twice for two hours each. During the second visit, Dr. Chand observed Mother and Minors interacting through a one-way mirror. Dr. Chand concluded:
(1) Mother "has had a history of criminal behavior and has engaged in a lifestyle that has included prostitution, drugs and alcohol. Although she has taken many positive steps toward being a better parent, she has not had enough time to consistently demonstrate following the new lifestyle."
(2) Even though Mother had reported having no contacts with Father, "and there is a restraining order in place, the relationship between them is unclear. Given their history of domestic violence, there is need for further understanding of their relationship."
(3) "Efforts towards reunification of mother and [Minors] may need to follow gradual stages, from weekly supervised visitation to reunification with [Minors] may need several stages in between."
(4) Although Mother "has taken numerous positive actions towards becoming an appropriate parent, there is a lack of evidence that these changes have been fully internalized."
(5) "In spite of the major progress made, it is not yet clear that the new parenting environment offered by the mother is at the present time in the best interest of [Minors]. There is undeniably a deep bond between the mother and [Minors], and to sever that bond would be detrimental to [Minors]. Regular contact, even increasing contact with the mother, may be in the best interest of [Minors]."
On September 7, 2018, MGM testified that she did not agree that the bond between Mother and Minors was so significant that it would be detrimental to terminate Mother's parental rights. MGM stated that she had always been in the lives of Minors and had given them consistency, a safe and loving home, and a moral environment. While Mother loved her children, MGM stated that Parents provided a horrible environment as far as what they do for a living and how they treat each other. MGM believed that Parents were still together because she saw them together in May. MGM wished to adopt Minors, rather than have guardianship of Minors, because she did not believe Father was any benefit to Minors and was a poor role model for I.C.
MGM testified that she was with Mother during the visits. Although Mother visited and played with Minors, she did not do any of the day-to-day parenting such as homework, toilet training and disciplining. Minors did not ask for Mother. They also did not miss Mother or have any distress after the visits. I.C. told the social worker that he was fine living with MGM until he was 18. In fact, I.C. stated, "That's great!"
MGM also told the court that she was amenable to continuing the supervised visits with Mother after the finalization of adoption but did not want to supervise the visits. MGM no longer wished to supervise the visits because Father has threatened MGM in the past and he "is violent." Also, Mother would be texting or contacting Father during the visits; once when MGM requested that Mother not do so, Father got mad and choked Mother that night. MGM urged Mother to get a restraining order but Mother did not do so because she did not want Father to go to jail.
The contested section 388 and section 366.26 hearings were continued to November 13, 2017. At the hearing, Mother's bonding expert, Dr. Chand testified. He stated that he did not think it was a good time to return Minors to Mother's care because he had some concerns. Dr. Chand, however, did think that it would be detrimental to sever the relationship between Mother and Minors, and that I.C. might need to see a therapist to address that. On cross-examination, Dr. Chand admitted there could be positive benefits or outcomes if the relationship between Mother and Minors were severed—as an example he said some children will invest themselves in their studies and excel in that way. Dr. Chand also acknowledged that Parents' patterns "of coming in and out of" Minors lives have been problematic, and could have a long-term negative effect on Minors.
Mother testified she was "a great mother" that loved her children—who were then seven and three years old—and that she visited with them, played with them, brushed their hair, painted their toes, did arts and crafts, and played with toys and games with them. Mother admitted that Minors were "happy" to see MGM after the visits, and that MGM provided great care for them.
At the conclusion of the section 366.26 hearing on November 13, 2017, the court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father and referred Minors for adoptive placement. The court observed as follows:
"As to the parental bond exception, it is the mother's burden to prove that bond to the Court. There's no denying there is a bond between the mother and the children, and Dr. Chand described that bond. [¶] However, I had a bit of trouble with Dr. Chand's testimony in describing a grandparental bond versus a parental bond and the kind of cases we see in dependency court because we see so many cases where the grandparents step into the role of a parent. And while the children recognize that the parent and the grandparents are two different people and they call them by those different names, what it means to be a parent is what's important. [¶] The mother has never graduated to unsupervised visits in this case. She hasn't provided day-to-day care for the children in a significant period of time; [MGM] has. And I just can't find that the mother has met her burden to demonstrate to me that the detriment to the children, while there may be some, is not to the extent that it would outweigh the need for permanency that the [MGM] can provide. And she has provided that for the children and will continue to provide that for the children. [¶] So I am going to follow the recommendation of the Department and terminate parental rights."
The same day, Mother filed her notice of appeal. Father has not appealed.
DISCUSSION
A. THE JUVENILE COURT PROPERLY FOUND THE PARENTAL BOND EXCEPTION DID NOT APPLY
Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights because the beneficial parental bond exception to the termination of parental rights applies.
This "may be the most unsuccessfully litigated issue in the history of law." (In re Eileen A. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1248, 1255, fn. 5, overruled on other grounds in In re Zeth S. (2000) 31 Cal.4th 444, 413-414.) While it can have merit in an appropriate case (e.g., In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 296-301), this is not such a case.
In general, at a section 366.26 hearing, if the juvenile court finds that a child is adoptable it must terminate parental rights. (§ 366.26, subds. (b)(1) & (c)(1).) This rule, however, is subject to a number of statutory exceptions (§ 366.26, subds. (c)(1)(A) & (c)(1)(B)(i)-(vi)), including the beneficial parental bond exception, which applies when "termination would be detrimental to the child" because "[t]he 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).)
"When applying the beneficial parent-child relationship exception, the court balances the strength and quality of the parent-child relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and sense of belonging that a stable family would confer on the child. If severing the existing parental 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 B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1234-1235.)
" '[F]or the exception to apply, the emotional attachment between the child and parent must be that of parent and child rather than one of being a friendly visitor or friendly nonparent relative, such as an aunt.' " (In re Jason J. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 922, 938.) The parent must show more than frequent and loving contact or pleasant visits. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 229.) " 'A biological parent who has failed to reunify with an adoptable child may not derail adoption merely by showing the child would derive some benefit from continuing a relationship maintained during periods of visitation with the parent. [Citation.] A child who has been adjudged a dependent of the juvenile court should not be deprived of an adoptive parent when the natural parent has maintained a relationship that may be beneficial to some degree, but that does not meet the child's need for a parent.' " (Jason J., at p. 937.)
"The parent contesting the termination of parental rights bears the burden of showing both regular visitation and contact and the benefit to the child in maintaining the parent-child relationship." (In re Helen W. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 71, 80-81.) This court must affirm a juvenile court's rejection of these exceptions if the ruling is supported by substantial evidence. (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 809.) We review "the evidence most favorabl[e] to the prevailing party and indulg[e] in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the court's ruling." (In re S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 297.) Because Mother has the burden of proof, we must affirm unless there was "indisputable evidence [in her favor, which] no reasonable trier of fact could have rejected." (In re Sheila B. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 187, 200.)
In this case, although Mother has demonstrated that she has maintained contact with Minors as permitted, she failed to show that Minors would benefit from continuing the relationship and that they would be greatly harmed should parental rights terminate. As previously stated, "the parent must show more than frequent and loving contact or pleasant visits. [Citation.] 'Interaction between natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child . . . The relationship arises from day-to-day interaction, companionship and shared experiences. [Citation.]' [Citation.] The parent must show he or she occupies a parental role in the child's life, resulting in a significant, positive, emotional attachment from child to parent." (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 953-954, quoting In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.)
The second requirement for the parental bond exception to apply requires that Mother prove I.C. would benefit from continuing the relationship. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).) "The existence of this relationship is determined by '[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child's life spent in the parent's custody, the "positive" or "negative" effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child's particular needs.' " (In re Jerome D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1206, citing In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) "In other words, for the exception to apply, the emotional attachment between the child and parent must be that of parent and child rather than one of being a friendly visitor or friendly nonparent relative, such as an aunt." (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.)
Here, while Mother acted as a "friendly visitor" playing with toys and games, MGM took care of the daily parenting of homework, toilet training, meals and discipline. MGM provided stability and permanence for Minors. Mother claimed she was grateful for the good care MGM gave Minors. In contrast, Mother's life continued to spiral—to the detriment of her children, particularly I.C., who had witnessed Mother's frequent beatings, trashed hotel rooms, intoxication, and her near death.
Mother failed to place Minors' need for stability ahead of her volatile relationship with Father and their dangerous lifestyle. Even though Mother attended classes for substance abuse, domestic violence, and parenting, she failed to participate in random drug testing and tested positive twice for opiates when she did test. Mother never produced a prescription for the opiates after being directed to do so by the court and social worker. Mother continued to endure beatings by Father and feared that he would "kill her." Yet, Mother returned to the abusive relationship and would lie and recant the domestic violence. Even after Mother obtained a restraining order, Mother was observed on three different occasions, twice by the social worker and once by MGM, with Father or at his home. Parents continued to engage in prostitution and pandering; Mother used her deceased grandmother's identity as her online call name. These actions showed that Mother did not occupy a parental role in the lives of Minors, or that she had developed a deep bond with them. At most, Mother's regular visits with Minors were merely that of a "friendly visitor"; not of a parental figure concerned with Minors' stability and well-being.
Moreover, application of the parental bond exception requires the parent to show "more than that the relationship is 'beneficial.' " (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52, fn. 4.) The parent must demonstrate the relationship " 'promote[s] the well-being of the child to such a degree that it outweighs the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive Parents.' " (Ibid.; see also In re Elizabeth M. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 [parent must occupy more than a "pleasant place" in the child's life for the parental bond exception to apply]; In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1418-1419 [parental bond exception did not apply; loss of mere "frequent and loving" contact with parent was insufficient to show detriment from termination of parental rights].)
In this case, Mother's expert Dr. Chand opined there was a "deep bond" between Mother and Minors and that severing that bond could be detrimental. Mother contends that there was no contrary evidence presented. We disagree. On cross-examination, Dr. Chand testified that there also could be positive benefits or outcomes as well, if Minors were permanently removed, with Minors deciding to invest themselves by excelling in their studies. Dr. Chand acknowledged that Parents coming in and out of Minors' lives had been problematic and could have long-term negative effects on Minors should the pattern continue. In her reply brief, although Mother would like us to consider Dr. Chan's testimony, she would also like us to disregard Dr. Chand's testimony that "there was a positive benefit of terminating Mother's parental rights in this case." Here, the court—being the trier of fact—had the ability to assess Dr. Chand's testimony in light of all the other evidence presented.
Moreover, MGM testified she did not agree that the bond between Mother and Minors was so significant that it would be detrimental to terminate parental rights. While Minors were happy to see Mother at the visits they were also happy to see MGM. Minors never asked for Mother and they did not miss her or show any distress when the visits ended. I.C. stated that he was fine to live with MGM until he was 18 years old and exclaimed that it would "be great" to do so. G.C. was an infant when she was detained and is now three years old; she lived most of her life with MGM. Additionally, Mother's visits of once a week for two hours never increased, and the visits never became unsupervised. The parental bond exception is "difficult to make in the situation, such as the one here, where the Parents have [not] advanced beyond supervised visitation." (In re Casey D., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 51.)
In In re G.B., supra, 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, the appellate court determined that substantial evidence supported the court's order that the parental bond exception did not apply. There, the court observed that the mother had failed to meet her burden. Similar to this case, in In re G.B., there was evidence that the mother's visits with her children went well and that her children had positive reactions to her during the visits. The appellate court, however, noted that the juvenile court's order will be affirmed "if supported by substantial evidence, even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion." (Id at p. 1166.) The appellate court stated that "this evidence fell short of establishing that mother's relationship with her children promoted their well-being to such an extent that it outweighed the well-being the children would gain in a permanent home with adoptive Parents. [Citation.] Mother's visits with her children were always supervised, Mother was only at the beginning stages of working on the effects of domestic violence in her life, and there was still instability and dysfunction surrounding her relationship with father. By contrast, the children were in a secure placement and were bonded with their current and prospective caretakers." (G.B., at p. 1166.)
The facts in this case are similar to the facts in In re G.B., supra, 227 Cal.App.4th 1147. Here, Mother is only at the beginning stages of working on the effects of domestic violence in her life, and there continues to be instability and dysfunction surround her relationship with Father. Mother's relationship with Minors does not outweigh the well-being Minors would gain in a stable, permanent and loving home with MGM—the same home they have lived in most of their lives.
In this case, the juvenile court similarly found that Mother failed to satisfy her burden of proof. Although Dr. Chand stated that Mother had a bond with Minors, the court had trouble with Dr. Chand's testimony minimizing the role of a caretaking grandparent. The juvenile court observed that Mother never had unsupervised visits with Minors, and had not provided day-to-day care for Minors in a significant period of time, while MGM did. The juvenile court concluded that "Mother has [not] met her burden to demonstrate to me that the detriment to Minors, while there may be some, is not to the extent that it would outweigh the need for permanency that [MGM] can provide."
Based on the above, we find there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that Mother failed to meet her burden of proof to establish the beneficial parental relationship exception applied in his case. We agree with the juvenile court. There was insufficient evidence that Minors would benefit more from continuing their relationship with Parents than from adoption.
In her reply brief, Mother argues the juvenile court erred because it substituted the expert testimony of Dr. Chand with its "lay opinion." Mother argues the court erred in finding that no parental bond exception applied because CFS "offered no rebuttal witnesses or rebuttal evidence from a qualified expert on the question of the parent-child bond or detriment to Minors if parental rights were severed." We disagree with Mother. As noted in detail ante, although Mother had a bond with Minors, it was not very close. She only visited with Minors, and the visits were never unsupervised. She did not live with Minors for a significant period of time. Minors were never sad for the visits to end and never asked for Mother when she was not with them. Moreover, as provided above, even Dr. Chand reported that Mother "has not had enough time to consistently demonstrate following the new lifestyle." And, even though Mother has taken positive actions to become an appropriate parent, "there is a lack of evidence that these changes have been fully internalized." Looking at the evidence presented during the time of this dependency, the evidence clearly shows that since Mother never moved beyond supervised visits, the parental bond exception did not apply.
In sum, while there is some evidence supporting a finding of a positive relationship between Mother and Minors, there is also evidence supporting a reasonable conclusion that Minors would gain a greater benefit from being placed in a permanent adoptive home with MGM. Mother simply did not meet her burden to show that the bond between her and Minors was so strong and beneficial to Minors that it outweighed the benefit Minors would receive from having a stable, adoptive home. As the record clearly shows, Minors were bonded to MGM and interacted with her as their parental figure. Minors were doing very well in their prospective adoptive home and they were emotionally stable there. Minors were attached to MGM and looked to her for comfort, love, and safety; and the caregiver was committed to providing a permanent, stable, loving home for Minors. In sum, Mother has the burden to establish the applicability of the parental bond exception in the lower court; on appeal, she has the burden of showing that the juvenile court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. We conclude that Mother has failed to meet this burden.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. McKINSTER
J.