Opinion
H044136
07-21-2017
In re G.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. G.M., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 115JD023097)
I. INTRODUCTION
In this juvenile dependency matter regarding Ga. M. (the child), the juvenile court terminated parental rights and selected adoption as the permanent plan pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. On appeal, Ge. M. (the father) contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by terminating his parental rights after determining that the beneficial parent/child relationship exception did not apply. (See § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We will affirm the juvenile court's orders.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Section 300 Petition
On February 9, 2015, the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services (the Department) filed a petition under section 300, subdivisions (b) [failure to protect], (d) [sexual abuse], and (g) [no provision for support], alleging that the child, then 22 months old, came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.
The petition alleged that the child had suffered or was at risk of suffering serious physical harm as a result of the mother's (K.C.) substance abuse, and that the child was at risk of sexual abuse because the mother had previous and current relationships with men she knew to be registered sex offenders.
On February 5, 2015, the mother had been arrested for driving under the influence of methamphetamine while the child and her four half-siblings were in the vehicle. The mother expressed that she was overwhelmed from taking care of the children and had reached her "breaking point." The mother was taking prescribed psychotropic medication for anxiety and depression at the time, but she chose to self-medicate with methamphetamine as well. The whereabouts of the father were unknown. The children were taken into protective custody after the mother's arrest left the children with no appropriate caregiver.
Section 300 petitions were also filed as to the child's four half-siblings.
On February 10, 2015, the father was identified and located, and he was given notice that the initial hearing would be held the following day.
B. Detention Hearing
At the detention hearing held on February 11, 2015, the juvenile court ordered the child to remain detained, finding that removal from parental custody was necessary to protect the welfare of the child. The court determined that a prima facie showing had been made that the child came within section 300. Both the mother and the father were granted a minimum of two supervised visits per week for two hours at a time.
C. First Amended Petition
On March 4, 2015, the Department filed a first amended petition, which identified the father as the registered sex offender from the mother's past relationship. In March 2004, the father had been convicted of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of 14. The petition alleged that the father's continued denial that he had committed a sexual offense placed the child at risk of harm if she were to be released to his care.
D. Jurisdiction Report
The Department filed a jurisdiction report dated March 4, 2015. The report stated that the child and her four half-siblings had been placed in the care of P.C and F.C., the paternal grandparents of the child's half-siblings. The child was doing well in that placement.
The report also stated that the mother, the father, and the mother's former husband (M.C.) had seven prior child welfare referrals spanning from November 2013 to January 2015. The mother had no prior criminal history, but in addition to his sexual offense, the father had prior convictions for driving under the influence and possession of narcotics.
The jurisdiction report provided further details regarding the father's sexual offense. In 2004, the father was accused of inappropriately touching his three or four-year-old niece. He told the social worker he did "not remember the details" of what happened that day. The father had accepted a plea bargain and served five years in prison, yet he continued to deny the incident occurred. Upon his release from prison, the father had completed approximately two years of group and individual counseling and had successfully completed parole.
E. Disposition Report
The Department filed a disposition report dated March 25, 2015. The child was "developmentally on track." The child continued to remain with her half-siblings at their paternal grandparents' house, and the caregivers were willing to be a concurrent home for the child if reunification was unsuccessful.
The mother had missed random drug tests and had recently tested positive for methamphetamine. In addition, the mother had downplayed the seriousness of her current husband's (J.A.) past sexual offense, which put the child at further risk if released to the mother's care.
The father wanted the opportunity to care for the child, "but [understood] that the court would not allow her to be placed in his care due to his criminal conviction." The father indicated he would like to pursue services in order to remain a part of the child's life. He had not missed a visit with the child, and he was very affectionate with the child during his visits, often giving the child hugs and kisses. However, the Department was concerned that the father continued to be dismissive of his past sexual offense, as the father had reiterated that "he would like to start over and not dwell on the past."
F. Addendum Report
In an addendum report prepared on April 20, 2015, the Department recommended that the mother receive family reunification services. However, the Department recommended that reunification services be bypassed as to the father pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12) [parent convicted of a violent felony] and subdivision (b)(16) [registered sex offender].
A letter written by the father was attached to the addendum report. In the letter, the father explained that he had been abusing alcohol and using drugs at the time of the alleged sexual offense regarding his niece, and he stated that he could not believe he could do such a thing. The father also wrote, "I did not say it didn't happen, am saying it's really hard to think I did that." Yet, once a second victim under the age of 14 came forward alleging the father had molested her as well, the father agreed to the plea deal in order to "get it over with." The letter stated that the father had tried to better himself since his conviction, and that he had refrained from using drugs and alcohol since his release from prison.
In November 2003, a second victim came forward to disclose that the father had molested her four times since 1998, when she was seven years old. The victim alleged that the father forced her to touch his penis on multiple occasions, and that the father forced her to have sexual intercourse with him when she was 10 or 11 years old. The father was "a close family friend" of the victim.
The Department acknowledged the bond between the father and the child and recommended that the father participate in services, such as Parenting Education classes and individual counseling, in order to enhance the quality of his visits with the child. Also, the report recommended that the father be allowed one supervised visit with the child per week for two hours at a time.
G. Jurisdiction/Disposition Hearing
At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on May 14, 2015, the father submitted the matter on the Department's report. The juvenile court sustained the petition and adopted the Department's recommendations, which included bypassing family reunification services as to the father but providing him with supervised visitation two times per week.
H. Interim Review
In an interim review report dated July 16, 2015, the Department reported that the child was doing well with her caregivers and appeared to be "happy and healthy." While the mother had failed to attend multiple parenting and substance abuse classes that were part of her case plan, the father had completed the Parenting Orientation course and the Nurturing Fathers class. The father had remained in contact with the social worker via telephone, and he had been visiting with the child regularly. During a supervised visit, the father brought the child to a family barbecue for Father's Day.
I. Six-Month Review
The Department filed its six-month status review report on November 16, 2015, in which it recommended that the mother continue to receive family reunification services. The mother alleged that the father had been verbally and physically abusive toward her, and she feared that the father was "grooming" the child for future abuse. The father denied the mother's accusations. The father continued to "be on time and well-prepared for his visits with [the child]," and the father had shown that he cared for the child. The father had also begun specialized counseling for sex offenders. The child remained happy at her current placement with her caregivers and her half-siblings.
At the six-month review hearing held on November 16, 2015, the juvenile court adopted the Department's recommendations. The mother continued to receive family reunification services and the father was allowed to continue visiting the child twice a week.
On January 11, 2016, the mother filed a request to change the court order regarding her visits with the child and her half-siblings, because the mother had moved to North Dakota. The court granted the mother's request. --------
J. Father's Section 388 Petition
The father filed a section 388 petition on March 17, 2016, seeking a court order allowing him to participate in family reunification services. The father provided evidence that he had been participating in sex offender treatment since October 2015 and that he had been scored as a "low risk" for re-offense. The father noted that he had maintained twice weekly visits with the child along with "daily contact through her caregivers" and that he had been "addressing the issues that led to [the child] being removed from his care."
Attached to the father's petition was a treatment progress report from the Counseling and Psychopathology Center. The report stated that the father needed more therapy in order for him to "stop minimizing his actions" and "develop an increased understanding of how he affected his victims." The report recommended that the father "continue[] his supervised visits with [the child] as he completes his sex offender behavior treatment."
The Department responded to the father's section 388 petition, asserting that it would not be in the child's best interest for the father to receive reunification services. The social worker pointed out that despite progress in his treatment, the father still failed to acknowledge the gravity of his past sexual offenses, and he continued to blame alcohol and drugs for his actions, which placed the child at risk.
K. 12-Month Review
In the 12-month status review report dated March 23, 2016, the Department recommended that the mother's family reunification services be terminated and that a section 366.26 hearing be set. The Department acknowledged that the mother "care[d] deeply for her child" but stated that the mother had "not been able to demonstrate consistent sobriety or dedication to her sobriety." The father continued "to be on time and well-prepared for his visits with [the child]" and had "participated in occasional extended visits" supervised by family. The Department recognized the father's progress but determined that the child needed "consistency and permanency in her life." The Department recommended the child remain with her caregivers where she would "be stable, safe, and able to have constant contact with her siblings."
In an addendum report prepared on May 4, 2016, the Department added further information regarding the Counseling and Psychotherapy Center's assessment of the father's progress. The father's doctor clarified that the father had not acknowledged or taken responsibility for his sex offenses and that his treatment could take "months and months."
The 12-month review hearing was held on May 4 and 5, 2016. The father withdrew his section 388 petition at the hearing. The juvenile court adopted the Department's recommendations, terminating the mother's reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for August 31, 2016.
L. CASA Report
The child's Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) filed a report on August 12, 2016. The CASA described the child's visits with the mother and the father as "not beneficial" and recommended that their visitation with the child be decreased. The CASA stated, "[the child] appears to be thriving in her current placement and I believe adoption by her grandparents will continue to provide the secure, loving home she now has with them."
M. Section 366.26 Report
The Department filed a section 366.26 report dated August 31, 2016. The Department recommended that the juvenile court select adoption as the permanent plan for the child.
The Department reported that the child's caregivers continued to meet all her "physical, social, and emotional needs." Since being placed with her caregivers in February 2015, the child had "developed a strong attachment" to them, and the child looked to her caregivers in "times of distress and for attention and affection."
At the time of the report, the father continued to have two supervised visits per week. The father remained well-prepared for his visits and continued to demonstrate his care for the child. The social worker believed that the father needed to "improve his general knowledge of childhood development and appropriate milestone goals." The father expressed a willingness to expand "his parenting knowledge."
In an addendum report filed October 28, 2016, the Department provided information regarding how the father's visits affected the child. From July to September, the child had become more reluctant to visit with the father, and transitions to and from visits with the father had become more difficult. The father routinely brought the child "toys, gifts and food," which helped transitions, but the social worker described the father as a "Disneyland Dad." The child had become more vocal regarding her reluctance to visit with the father, which led the child to "increased behaviors, decreased sleep, and on a few occasions bed[-]wetting."
N. Section 366.26 Hearing
A section 366.26 hearing was held on October 28, 2016. The Department called the social worker as its only witness. The father called three witnesses and testified himself at the hearing. The father's witnesses were a friend the father met through a mentoring program after being released from prison, the maternal aunt, and the paternal aunt. The mother testified at the hearing as well.
1. The Social Worker
The social worker testified as an expert witness in risk assessment and permanency planning. The social worker believed the child was adoptable due to her young age, intelligence, and physical health. The child had "blossomed" while in her caregivers' custody, and the social worker identified the caregivers as prospective adoptive parents. The caregivers had gone "above and beyond" while caring for the child, and the social worker saw no barriers that would prohibit the caregivers from adopting the child. In addition, the child was extremely bonded with her half-siblings, and they protected the child. The child's oldest sister said the child was "pretty upset" at the prospect of leaving the caregivers' custody. The social worker believed it was in the child's best interest to terminate parental rights and for the child to remain with her caregivers as her permanent home.
The social worker opined that the child saw the father as "someone to play with rather than a father figure." The father's visits lacked structure and discipline, and the father did not take a "parent[al] role." In addition, the child struggled to transition from the caregivers to the father prior to visits. The child cried, protested, and clung to the caregivers on her way to visits. She would often ask why she had to go to the visits. During visits, the father presented the child with "enticing item[s]," like candy or a toy, and the visits became "play time for [the child]." The social worker acknowledged that the child occasionally had difficulty leaving visits with the father, but noted that she transitioned easily back to the caregivers.
The child had been referred to mental health services because she had been suffering from nightmares and bedwetting, and the social worker believed that behavior stemmed from the visits with the father. The child had often been reluctant to speak on the phone with the father.
The social worker addressed the mother's fear that the father was grooming the child due to the father's status as sex offender. The father frequently took the child to the pool, and the father's "excessive need to change the child" stood out to the social worker. In addition, the social worker noted that the father "completely stripped down" the child during "almost every visit."
The social worker stated that the child did not ask about the father outside of visits, and that the father's weekly visits were confusing the child, as her siblings no longer had to attend visits and "[the child] want[ed] to be like them." The father's visits and his constant assertion to the child that he was her "daddy" undermined the parental roles of the caregivers. While there is "some level of loss with any adoption case," the social worker believed that there was no "significant benefit to [the child] in maintaining a relationship with [the] father."
The social worker also testified that the father had not shown "any parent[al] strategy" or conflict resolution skills with the child during his visits, and that the father's visits lacked control and structure.
2. The Father's Witnesses
The father's first witness was a lawyer the father met after being released from jail through a mentoring program in 2008. The program "coupled lawyers with people that had just gotten out of jail," and the two had "maintained an ongoing friendship" since then, mainly through weekly phone calls.
The friend testified that the last time he had observed the father with the child he "saw a very loving relationship," as the father was "very attentive to [the child]" and the child "was very attached to him." The father "doted on" the child, and the child was "focused on [the father] and comfortable with him." The child did not cry or protest during the visit. The child appeared happy, and the father displayed the behavior of a "very loving parent." The friend believed that the child loved the father back "in her own childish way." The friend had also attended the child's third birthday party, where the father brought the child to a family barbecue to celebrate. The friend believed the child was "thrilled with her birthday picnic," and that she enjoyed being with the father. The friend believed the father's family "supported making [the child] happy and paying attention to her," and the child identified that the father was her "daddy."
The second witness the father called was the maternal aunt, who had known the child since she was born and who was approved to supervise visits between the child and the father. The maternal aunt had supervised between five and ten visits. The last visit she had supervised involved a trip to the park. The father and the child had acted "like two little kids at the park." She believed that the child was "always happy to be with her dad," and that the child always wanted to play and talk with the father. The maternal aunt observed that the child only became unhappy once a visit with the father ended and she had to leave. The child would say that she did not want to leave the father and that she wanted to go with him. The maternal aunt said the child's behavior toward the father was always the same on visits, regardless of where a visit took place or what activity the father and the child were engaged in, because the child just wanted to be with the father.
The father also called the paternal aunt, who had also supervised visits between the father and the child. The paternal aunt believed the father and the child were "great together," and that the father appeared to be a "really good dad." She observed that the child "never want[ed] to leave his side," as the child would cling to the father. The paternal aunt described the child as a "happy baby when she's around [the father]." The paternal aunt observed that the child listened to the father when he told her "no" or what activities they would be doing. The child was always happy "except when she's got to go home," and then the child would get sad and ask to stay with the father. The paternal aunt explained that the child was typically reluctant to leave the caregivers when she went to pick the child up, but that the child would eventually calm down and return to her happy self.
The father testified himself at the hearing, and he asserted that he and the mother had lived together when the child was born. The father had cared for the child after her birth: he had performed typical parental duties like bathing and feeding the child. After the mother and the father separated, the father would have custody of the child every Tuesday, Thursday, and on the weekends. After the child was placed in foster care, the father maintained a "continuous relationship" with the child, and he believed he did everything he possibly could to care for the child. He had consistently visited with the child twice a week, and he had only missed one visit due to work, which "killed" him. The father's goal was to "continue to have visitation and contact with [the] child," with the hope of reunifying with the child in the future. The father was confident he could provide for the child's welfare and care for her. Regarding the amount of physical affection he showed the child during visits, the father believed he was as affectionate as any other father would be.
3. The Mother's Testimony
The mother testified that she was the child's primary caregiver prior to the child's removal. The father had moved in with her when the child was nine months old, and he stayed for approximately nine months. The child would visit the father after they separated.
4. Arguments
The Department argued that the juvenile court should terminate parental rights, as the child was likely to be adopted and the caregivers had already been identified as a prospective permanent home. The Department acknowledged that the father had "maintained regular visitation and contact with [the child]" yet pointed out that such contact was not sufficient to establish that "the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." Further, even if the juvenile court found that a beneficial relationship did exist, the father did not show "a compelling reason to determine that termination would be detrimental to the child due to their relationship."
The father argued that the juvenile court should apply the beneficial parent/child relationship exception because he had maintained regular contact and visitation with the child and terminating the father's parental rights would be detrimental to the child. The father asserted he had remained a part of the child's life since she was born, even while the child was not in his custody. The father argued that it would be detrimental to the child if she was denied "the opportunity to see [the] father."
5. Juvenile Court Decision
The juvenile court terminated parental rights and selected adoption as the child's permanent plan. The court found that the child was likely to be adopted based on the social worker's testimony and the Department's report.
The juvenile court first determined that the father satisfied his burden to prove he maintained regular visitation and contact with the child. The court noted the father had "one of the best visitation records" it had seen recently.
The juvenile court next reviewed the factors relevant to the determination of whether the child would benefit from continuing a relationship with the father. The court found that the benefit the child would gain from a continued relationship with the father did not outweigh the child's need for the "continuity and stability that only adoption [could] offer." The court acknowledged that the father loves the child and did his "best to make the best of his visits with [the child]," but noted he had not progressed beyond supervised visits. The court believed that the father had not "occupied a parental role for [the child]" in the prior 20 months, and that the father's visits caused the child "ongoing problems in terms of [the child's] behavior before and after visits." The court noted that the child looked to her caregivers "for her nurture and comfort and attention." The court found that the father's "loving contact" with the child was "not sufficient to overcome the presumption of adoption."
Lastly, the court found that the relationship between the father and the child did not constitute "a compelling reason for not terminating parental rights." The court believed this case was not "an exceptional case" and that the beneficial parent/child relationship exception to adoption did not apply.
III. DISCUSSION
The father contends the juvenile court erred by terminating his parental rights after denying his request to apply the beneficial parent/child relationship exception, and he asserts that the juvenile court should have selected a lesser permanent plan than adoption for the child. (See § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
A. Legal Background
The California Supreme Court has stated that "[t]he objective of the dependency scheme is to protect abused or neglected children and those at substantial risk thereof and to provide permanent, stable homes if those children cannot be returned home within a prescribed period of time. [Citations.]" (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307.) "When the child is removed from the home, the court first attempts, for a specified period of time, to reunify the family. [Citation.]" (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 52 (Celine R.).) Where reunification efforts have failed, " 'the court must terminate reunification efforts and set the matter for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 for the selection and implementation of a permanent plan. [Citation.]' " (Ibid.)
"The court has four choices at the permanency planning hearing. In order of preference the choices are: (1) terminate parental rights and order that the child be placed for adoption . . . ; (2) identify adoption as the permanent placement goal and require efforts to locate an appropriate adoptive family; (3) appoint a legal guardian; or (4) order long-term foster care. (§ 366.26, subd. (b).)" (Celine R., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 53.) "When the juvenile court finds that the child is adoptable, it must terminate parental rights unless it finds one of four specified circumstances in which termination would be detrimental (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)-(D))." (In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 852.) "The specified statutory circumstances—actually, exceptions to the general rule that the court must choose adoption where possible—'must be considered in view of the legislative preference for adoption when reunification efforts have failed.' [Citation.]" (Celine R., supra, at p. 53.) "[I]t is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent's rights will prevail over the Legislature's preference for adoptive placement." (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350.)
The beneficial parent/child relationship exception is set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). Under that statutory provision, parental rights cannot be terminated where the juvenile court "finds a compelling reason for determining that 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).)
A parent who claims that the beneficial parent/child relationship exception applies, and that therefore parental rights should not be terminated, has the burden of proof. (In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102, 122 (C.B.).) To meet this burden, " 'the parent must show more than frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits—the parent must show that he or she occupies a parental role in the life of the child. [Citation.]' " (Id. at p. 126.) As this court has explained, " '[i]nteraction between natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child. The significant attachment from child to parent results from the adult's attention to the child's needs for physical care, nourishment, comfort, affection and stimulation. [Citation.]' " (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315 (Bailey J.).) " 'The exception applies only where the court finds regular visits and contact have continued or developed a significant, positive, emotional attachment from child to parent.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)
The beneficial parent/child relationship exception " 'must be examined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the many variables which affect a parent/child bond. The 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 are some of the variables which logically affect a parent/child bond.' [Citation.]" (C.B., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 124.) The statutory requirement that " 'the child would benefit from continuing the [parent/child] relationship' means that 'the relationship 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.' [Citation.] The juvenile 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.' [Citation.] '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.' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)
B. Standard of Review
This court has determined that there is a two-part standard of review for a juvenile court's ruling regarding the application of the beneficial parent/child relationship exception. (Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1314-1315.)
First, "[s]ince the proponent of the exception bears the burden of producing evidence of the existence of a beneficial parental . . . relationship, which is a factual issue, the substantial evidence standard of review is the appropriate one to apply to this component of the juvenile court's determination. Thus, . . . a challenge to a juvenile court's finding that there is no beneficial relationship amounts to a contention that the 'undisputed facts lead to only one conclusion.' [Citation.] Unless the undisputed facts established the existence of a beneficial parental . . . relationship, a substantial evidence challenge to this component of the juvenile court's determination cannot succeed." (Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1314.)
"The other component of . . . the parental relationship exception . . . is the requirement that the juvenile court find that the existence of that relationship constitutes a 'compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental.' (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B), italics added.) A juvenile court finding that the relationship is a 'compelling reason' for finding detriment to the child is based on the facts but is not primarily a factual issue. It is, instead, a 'quintessentially' discretionary decision, which calls for the juvenile court to determine the importance of the relationship in terms of the detrimental impact that its severance can be expected to have on the child and to weigh that against the benefit to the child of adoption. [Citation.] Because this component of the juvenile court's decision is discretionary, the abuse of discretion standard of review applies." (Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1315.)
C. Analysis
As noted above, in order to find that the beneficial parent/child relationship exception applies, the juvenile court must find (1) that the parent maintained regular visitation with the child, (2) that the child would benefit from continuing the relationship with the parent, and (3) the parent/child relationship comprises "a compelling reason for determining that termination [of parental rights] would be detrimental to the child." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
Here, the juvenile court found that the father did maintain regular visitation and contact with the child, and the Department does not challenge that finding on appeal. However, the juvenile court found that the child would not benefit from a continued relationship with the father and that the relationship between the father and the child did not constitute "a compelling reason for not terminating parental rights."
The father contends the record shows that if his parental rights are terminated, the child will lose "her loving, bonded, joyful interactions with the father she knows and loves," causing her "substantial harm."
Although the record establishes that the father very much loves the child, we do not agree that the record shows that the relationship between the father and the child was 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.' " (C.B., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 124.) At the time of the section 366.26 hearing on October 28, 2016, the child was nearly three and half years old and had been living with her caregivers for approximately a year and a half. She had lived with the father for only nine months of her life, and the father had "essentially never had custody of the child nor advanced beyond supervised visitation." (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 51 (Casey D.).) Though the father had maintained a relationship with the child, the father's visits with the child were more akin to those of a "friendly visitor" or a "play mate" than a parent. (See Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573; see also Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1316 [visits were akin to "playdates . . . with a loving adult"]; Casey D., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 51 [a "caretaker or friendly visitor relationship" does not constitute a parental relationship].) And although there was evidence that the child referred to the father as "daddy," the record also establishes that the child looked to her caregivers for comfort—i.e., she considered them as fulfilling the parental roles.
To the extent the record shows that the child " 'derived some measure of benefit' " from the visits and her relationship with the father, that is insufficient to establish a beneficial relationship. (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 530.) The record contains evidence indicating that the visits were at least somewhat detrimental to the child: the child had been reluctant to attend the visits, was having trouble transitioning to visits, and was having behavioral problems as she expressed reluctance to continue with the visits. Finally, the social worker—who was designated an expert in risk assessment and permanency planning—opined that maintaining a relationship with the child would not be a "significant benefit" to the child.
Even assuming the juvenile court erred by finding that the father did not have a beneficial parental relationship with the child, the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the existence of that relationship was not "a compelling reason for determining that termination [of his parental rights] would be detrimental to the child." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) As noted above, here the social worker opined that maintaining a relationship with the child would not be a "significant benefit" to the child, whereas adoption by the caregivers would provide the child with permanency and stability. While the father presented evidence that the child was happy during visits with him, there was little to no evidence that stopping the visits would cause the child any specific detriment. (Compare In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 296 [bonding study indicated that losing the parent-child relationship would cause "a potential for harm" to the child].) Under the circumstances, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude that there was no compelling reason for rejecting adoption.
In conclusion, we commend the father's efforts to engage in services, his consistency in visiting the child, and the care he showed for the child. It is very clear that the father loves the child very much. Nevertheless, after carefully reviewing the record, we find substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's determination that the parent/child relationship was not 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' " (C.B., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 124), and we find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court's determination that the parent/child relationship did not comprise "a compelling reason for determining that termination [of parental rights] would be detrimental to the child" (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)).
IV. DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's orders are affirmed.
/s/_________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
ELIA, ACTING P.J. /s/_________
MIHARA, J.