Filed 2/2/18 In re A.A. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



In re A.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.


E068919

(Super.Ct.No. J259309)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Affirmed.
Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Danielle E. Wuchenich, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
A.A. (Mother) has a history of abusing drugs, as well as mental health and domestic violence issues which led to the San Bernardino County Department of Children and Family Services (CFS) removing her five-year-old daughter A.A. (the child) from her care. After over two years in the dependency system, the juvenile court terminated parental rights and freed the child for adoption. On appeal, Mother argues the juvenile court erred in summarily denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and that the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights. We find no error, and affirm the judgment.
II
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The family came to the attention of CFS after a referral was received alleging Mother smoked methamphetamine in front of her two-year-old child, struck the child with objects, did not supervise the child, and did not keep the child clean and neat. The referral also alleged that different men were coming in and out of the home and that the child was touching and putting things into her vagina. A neighbor reported that she could hear the child crying late into the night and in the early morning. A week earlier, Mother’s apartment flooded and the neighbor could hear the child screaming in the window. The neighbor knocked on the door for several minutes before Mother and a man, both of whom had been sleeping, responded. The child was soaking wet. According to the neighbor, Mother paid no attention to the child. Mother claimed that the child had turned on the water in the kitchen sink, and since the sink did not drain quickly, the water flooded the house.
Mother admitted to using methamphetamine, and reported that she was bipolar with severe depression. She was receiving services from the Department of Behavioral Health (DBH) and had been prescribed psychotropic medication. Mother was a single mother and the child’s father did not participate in her care. Mother’s live-in boyfriend was on probation and had a history of physically abusing Mother. He also had an extensive criminal history consisting of robbery, assault, and battery, as well as multiple drug charges and arrests. Due to Mother’s substance abuse history, domestic violence, and possible physical and sexual abuse of the child, the child was taken into protective custody.
On March 17, 2015, a petition was filed on behalf of the child pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (a) (serious physical harm), (b) (failure to protect), and (g) (no provisions for support). The child was formally removed from parental custody at the March 18, 2015 detention hearing. The court ordered that the child have no contact with Mother’s boyfriend or his father. The court also ordered Mother to drug test after the hearing.
CFS recommended that the allegations in the petition be found true and that Mother be provided with reunification services. Mother claimed her friend’s granddaughter had scratched the child’s face. She also stated that she was present and awake when the child was home or awake. Mother’s drug test was positive for amphetamines. Mother had a history of past referrals for general neglect. During the past month, Mother had visited the homeless shelter twice because of domestic violence incidents. Mother’s boyfriend had kicked her in the ribs, fracturing two of them. While at the shelter Mother would fall asleep, leaving the child unattended. Mother later claimed it was not her boyfriend but his son who had beat her up. Mother minimized and dismissed the domestic violence incidents. Mother had received services to address domestic violence. Mother reported that she had been participating in services at DBH.
The child was examined at the Children Assessment Center (CAC) on March 16, 2015. Sexual abuse could not be confirmed or negated, and the scratches to the child’s face were not consistent with being inflicted by another two-year-old child. The child had no known serious medical or developmental issues.
On April 8, 2015, Mother’s counsel asked for mediation for jurisdiction and disposition.
On April 22, 2015, the juvenile court found true the allegations in the petition as amended and dismissed the subdivision (g) allegation. The court declared the child a dependent of the court and provided the parents with reunification services. The court informed Mother that her failure to participate regularly and make substantive progress in the treatment program shall be prima facie evidence that return of the child to her care would be detrimental. The court ordered visitation once a week for two hours at a minimum for Mother, and authorized CFS to liberalize visitation as to frequency, duration, and unsupervised day visits by information packet. The court noted that Mother had already completed her parenting class.
By the October 23, 2015 six-month review hearing, CFS recommended that Mother receive an additional six months of services and that services be terminated for Father. Mother had been actively participating in her services and had completed some of her programs. However, Mother had not benefitted from her substance abuse treatment program. CFS believed Mother required an inpatient treatment program rather than her current outpatient treatment program due to Mother’s long history of abusing drugs, dating back to her teenage years, and her failure to remain sober.
Mother had attended eight therapy sessions, and was able to use behavior modification techniques to learn more appropriate behavior patterns. She had been taking her psychotropic medications for depression, and had completed her 12-week anger management course. Mother was not benefitting from her outpatient substance abuse treatment program and was referred to an inpatient treatment program. Mother, however, declined to attend the inpatient substance abuse program because she did not want to leave the Barstow area. Mother was terminated from DBH for testing positive for methamphetamine. Mother began another outpatient program on September 10, 2015. She was attending her classes but was still testing positive for drugs. Mother was unemployed and without stable housing. Initially she had been staying with her mother, but decided to move since her mother was a trigger for Mother’s negative behaviors. Mother then moved in with friends.
Mother visited the child, but the visits continued to be supervised since Mother was not able to stay sober. Mother had been appropriate during the visits, but at times Mother appeared to be agitated. She was fidgeting and unable to remain still. The child did not exhibit any emotional distress during the visits. She also did not have any negative reactions during or after the visits.
The child was in good physical health and developmentally on target. The child was moved to a second placement on July 31, 2015, to facilitate her visits with Mother. The child had some behavioral issues but overall was stable in her current placement. The child had some difficulty following directions and staying on task. She was caught trying to hit another baby in the home on the head, and had to be monitored at all times. The child required a structured environment and behavior modification. There were no suitable relatives at that time with whom to place the child.
At the six-month review hearing on October 23, 2015, Mother disagreed with the report describing her drug abuse participation and requested mediation. The court ordered mediation followed by a pretrial settlement conference. The court also ordered mother to drug test that day.
CFS recommended that visitation continue to be supervised. Mother was in her second out-patient substance abuse program. On October 6, 2015, CFS received a report that Mother had not been to treatment since September 28, 2015. On October 27, 2015, Mother’s substance abuse counselor reported that Mother was in a six-month program that she began on September 10, 2015. She had to provide clean drug tests for the next three months to graduate from the program. Mother had tested positive for drugs on September 10, 23, and 28, and October 7, 12, and 15, 2015. She failed to drug test on October 3 and 24, and had a negative drug test on October 23, 2015.
On October 28, 2015, the court continued Mother’s services and terminated services for Father. The court ordered unsupervised visits for Mother provided Mother tested negative for drugs, and continued to demonstrate sobriety for 30 days. Sobriety was defined as no dirty tests, no missed tests, and continued enrollment and participation in the substance abuse treatment program. If Mother satisfied the requirements, then Mother would have unsupervised visits two times a week for two hours. If Mother violated any terms, the visitation would revert to supervised. Mother confirmed that she understood the terms of visitation.
By the time of the 12-month review hearing in April 2016, CFS recommended continued services be provided to Mother. Mother was doing very well and appeared to be living a drug-free lifestyle. Although she had some setbacks with positive drug tests for methamphetamine twice in January 2016 and admitted drug use in February 2016, she had made efforts to change her old patterns of behavior. She had entered a sober living home, which supported her sobriety and reunification with the child, at the end of February 2016. Before entering the sober living home, Mother was living with her boyfriend in a tent and was homeless. Since entering the sober living home, she had ended her relationship with her boyfriend. It was likely Mother would reunify with the child if she stayed in her sober living home and was able to remain clean and sober. Mother received mental health services through DBH, and saw her doctor once a month and took her medications as directed.
Mother tested negative in November 2015. As such, Mother was provided with unsupervised visits in December 2015 and January 2016. The child, however, had a difficult time adjusting after visits. She would not follow directions or listen to her caregivers. Because Mother had two positive drug tests in January 2016, her visits reverted to supervised. Mother’s supervised visits went well, and she consistently visited twice a week for two hours. She brought age appropriate toys to the visits and used active listening skills with the child.
The child was three years old at the time and was in good physical health. She had no known developmental issues and was meeting her developmental milestones. The child, however, had behavioral issues such as poor boundaries, interrupting conversations, and trouble following directions. She had setbacks when there was a change in her routine or environment. Three months earlier, the child was moved to a third placement where she was adjusting fairly well. The previous foster parent requested that she be moved due to behavioral issues. Her current foster parent was better able to manage the child’s negative behaviors.
Mother advised CFS of two maternal aunts to be assessed for placement if Mother did not reunify with the child. Both aunts lived in Washington, which would require initiation of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) in the state of Washington. One aunt expressed interest in placement, and the other aunt did not return CFS’s call.
On April 14, 2016, the juvenile court continued Mother’s services, and ordered unsupervised visitation twice a week for three hours with authority to increase as to frequency and duration. The court also ordered initiation of the ICPC.
On June 16, 2016, CFS requested overnight and weekend visits for the child. Mother’s unsupervised day visits had gone well, and Mother had completed her substance abuse treatment program on May 19, 2016. Mother had voluntarily enrolled in another treatment program through Positive Alternatives and her sober living home. The sober living house manager advised CFS that Mother was compliant with the house rules and there were no concerns regarding Mother’s sobriety. Additionally, Mother would be allowed to have her child visit overnight and weekends if approved by the court. The court approved the request on June 28, 2016.
However, by the time of the 18-month review hearing in September 2016, CFS recommended terminating Mother’s services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. Mother had relapsed and tested positive for amphetamines on July 22, 2016, and had been asked to leave her sober living home because she had failed to comply with the house rules. Specifically, Mother left her sober living home and did not return to the home until the next day. When she did return, she was under the influence. Initially, Mother had denied she was asked to leave her sober living home due to being under the influence. She later admitted that she and her then boyfriend had engaged in an argument and she had used drugs after the incident. According to Mother, her ex-boyfriend “beat her up” and bruised her on the side of the face because she was trying to leave him. She also admitted on August 9, 2016, to drug use over the weekend after arguing with the maternal grandmother. The social worker asked Mother to drug test but Mother admitted the test would be dirty for methamphetamine. Although Mother had been able to remain sober for three to four months at a time, Mother had struggled to stay consistent in her sobriety. She acknowledged that her mother and her boyfriend were triggers for her relapse, but failed to enter inpatient treatment because she wanted to remain in the area with her boyfriend. After Mother was kicked out of her sober living home, Mother began living with a friend. Furthermore, the foster mother reported she was concerned that Mother was under the influence during one visit. Mother spoke very rapidly and was agitated. The social worker thereafter changed Mother’s visits to supervised, twice a week for two hours.
The child was four years old at the time and was meeting her developmental milestones. However, when the child returned to her foster home after unsupervised visits with Mother, the child had trouble adjusting. She would refuse to follow directions and would wet the bed. She was receiving counseling services and working on improving her behaviors and processing her feelings about being separated from Mother. The child was doing well in her current placement. She liked school and was making behavioral improvements. She was doing better with following directions and was less hyperactive.
Although CFS had authority to initiate the ICPC, it did not since Mother was doing well. Due to the change in circumstances, however, CFS began to initiate the ICPC. The maternal aunt continued to express interest in providing long term care for the child.
The 18-month review hearing was held on September 13, 2016. At that time, Mother objected to CFS’s recommendation to terminate services but did not present any affirmative evidence. Mother informed the court that she was going to start another drug program on September 20, 2016. After the parties submitted on CFS’s recommendation, the court terminated Mother’s services and set a section 366.26 hearing with a goal of adoption. The court ordered visitation twice a week while Mother and the child were in the same state, and supervised telephone calls if the child was placed with the maternal aunt in Washington. The court authorized an expedited ICPC for the maternal aunt.
In January 2017, CFS requested a 120-day continuance to complete the ICPC assessment of the maternal aunt. The permanent plan for the child was adoption. The maternal aunt continued to request adoption of the child. CFS requested a placement home study of the maternal aunt through ICPC, and the results were pending.
The child was in her fourth placement and was currently stable. She had made good progress in overcoming her negative behaviors. The child had developed a positive relationship with her current foster parent, and she was benefitting from her weekly therapy. Her negative behaviors had decreased, she stopped wetting her bed, and her tantrums decreased significantly. The child was enrolled in preschool and doing very well. Her social skills had improved since attending school. She had responded positively to the structured environment of the classroom and had no reported behavior issues. She was learning to write her name, learn the alphabet, and count.
Mother continued to have weekly supervised visits with the child and there were no negative incidents during the supervised visits. The child had no negative reactions before or after the visits, and returned to her foster home with no adjustment issues. The child no longer acted out or was defiant after visiting with Mother.
On January 11, 2017, the court continued the matter until May 11, 2017, and authorized CFS to place the child with the maternal aunt in Washington upon ICPC approval. CFS received ICPC approval from the state of Washington on February 28, 2017. The child was placed in the home of her maternal aunt on March 15, 2017.
On April 7, 2017, Mother filed a section 388 petition to change the court’s order terminating her reunification services. Mother requested that the court return the child to her care on family maintenance or, in the alternative, Mother be granted additional reunification services. Mother claimed that she was bonded with the child and had taken the necessary steps to ensure the child’s safety and protection. Mother also asserted that she had continued to visit the child via telephone on a regular basis since the child had moved out of state. Attached to the petition were letters, certificates of completion, reports of attendance at substance abuse support groups, and negative drug test results supporting Mother’s contention that her circumstances had changed.
The court ordered a prima facie hearing on May 11, 2017, to decide whether it should grant or deny an evidentiary hearing. The court also ordered CFS to prepare a response.
CFS recommended Mother’s section 388 petition be denied. The child, who was four years old at the time, was doing “extremely well” in her maternal aunt’s home, even though she initially had difficulty adjusting to sharing with her cousins. The child would throw tantrums over sharing, and experienced nightmares, waking her up in the middle of the night. The child’s nightmares had decreased and the maternal aunt was investigating play therapy for the child. The child had made significant progress and was adjusting very well. She had developed positive relationships with her relatives, and referred to her aunt as “ ‘mom’ ” and her uncle as “ ‘papa.’ ” She was fitting in very well with the family and bonding to all of her cousins. She referred to her younger cousin as her “ ‘baby sister.’ ” The child was involved in all of the family projects, Sunday school, and Awana’s club, where she earned badges for completing community service projects.
The child maintained contact with her mother through telephone calls and video chats. The child was not always responsive to the calls and her mother blamed the maternal aunt for the child’s resistance. The maternal aunt, however, had encouraged the child to talk with her mother. The maternal aunt reported that the child refused to talk via video chat with her mother on April 27, 2017. She told her mother “ ‘I don’t want to talk, bye,’ ” and walked away. The child told her aunt that she was afraid because her mother wanted her to “ ‘leave’ ” the aunt’s home and the child did not want to “ ‘leave.’ ” Although the child’s visits through video chat with her mother had improved somewhat, for the majority of the visits, the child was resistant to communicating with Mother.
Mother had been living at New Hope Village, a transitional sober living facility, since February 8, 2017. The social worker visited Mother on April 28, 2017, at Mother’s New Hope Village residence where she lived in a one-bedroom apartment with another client. Mother reported that she had been employed at Subway since April 12, 2017, and was applying for a job as a cake decorator at Walmart. She was waiting for her background check to be completed. Mother wanted the child returned to her care, and reported the child would be able to live with her at New Hope Village, where Mother would be provided an apartment of her own. She claimed to have been sober for the previous nine months. Mother admitted to the social worker that she lost custody of her two older daughters in Washington and that they were adopted by non-relatives. She also lost custody of a son who was adopted by non-relatives in Nebraska. She did not remember her son’s birthdate, his last name, or who the father was.
The maternal aunt was concerned about the child returning to Mother. She believed Mother needed to demonstrate a couple of years of sobriety, since Mother had a history of being “on and off drugs her entire life.” Mother went through a similar life change a few years ago when she lived in Washington, but the change did not last. The maternal aunt wanted to keep the child within the birth family, since Mother’s other children were adopted by non-relatives. The maternal aunt also stated that she, mother, and their siblings had grown up in foster care, and wanted to provide a safe, loving, and stable home for the child.
Although the child was in the maternal aunt’s home for two months, she had adjusted very well and established herself within the family. The child stated that she did not want to leave her maternal aunt’s home. The social worker opined that it was in the child’s best interest to remain in her current placement since the child was finally in a permanent home where she felt a sense of safety and security. Mother’s prognosis was unknown, or at least guarded at the time of the report. Mother had a significant history of drug use, sobriety, and relapsing over the years. Mother was previously clean for about a year and then relapsed. The child was still too young to protect herself should Mother relapse again, and the maternal aunt was willing to keep Mother involved in the child’s life, depending on Mother’s behavior. CFS recommended the child remain in her maternal aunt’s home.
On May 11, 2017, Mother’s counsel requested a continuance for 90 days to supplement Mother’s section 388 petition with additional information. The court granted the continuance, but noted it was inclined to deny an evidentiary hearing given Mother’s drug history and the child’s need for permanency as a generally adoptable child.
Mother submitted additional evidence supporting her contention of changed circumstances. Documents included letters, treatment verification logs, negative drug test reports, documentation of Mother’s employment, and a progress report from New Hope Village that mother had her own apartment which could accommodate the child.
In a report dated August 15, 2017, CFS recommended that parental rights be terminated and the permanent plan of adoption be implemented. The child was five years old at the time, and had adjusted very well to her maternal aunt’s home since being placed in the home on March 15, 2017. The maternal aunt and her husband wanted to adopt the child and provide the child with a stable and loving home environment. The child stated that she wanted her aunt and uncle to be her mom and dad, and wanted to live with them “forever.” The maternal aunt and her husband had been married for 11 years and had four biological children, ages 10, eight, five, and three years old. The maternal aunt and uncle were not fully informed of the child’s background when she was placed with them. The child was exhibiting some troubling behaviors, one of which was her obsession with nudity. The aunt and uncle later learned that the child was exposed to pornography. Although they still wanted to adopt the child, they wanted to know more about her in order to provide her with the services and protections she needed. The maternal aunt and uncle had discussed adoption with the child, but were not sure how much she understood. They were not open to having contact with the child’s biological parents after the adoption was finalized. Since the maternal aunt had spent time in foster care, she believed she could relate to what the child was going through.
Mother continued to have video chat visits with the child. At the end of the visits, despite being instructed not to do so, Mother would make promises to the child, such as sending her a birthday gift, having a pool party for her, or filling a piñata full of candy waiting for the child’s return home. Mother promised to send the birthday gift in June 2017, but never did. During the August 2, 2017 visit, Mother told the child that Mother had already sent the gift and that if the child had not received the gift, it was because somebody was keeping it from the child. According to the maternal aunt, the child believed it was the maternal aunt and uncle who were hiding her presents. The child searched her aunt and uncle’s bedroom looking for the presents.
The ICPC worker noted that the child’s negative behaviors began in July 2017, and appeared to coincide with Mother’s promises. The child told the worker that she wanted to stay with her maternal aunt and uncle. Mother met with the social worker on August 3, 2017, and denied making promises, and had not sent the birthday gift until a week earlier. The child had been living with her maternal aunt and uncle for the past six months and was very bonded to them. The ICPC worker indicated that the child initially did not have the negative behaviors that she was exhibiting at the time of the report. The child began counseling services recently.
At the combined section 388 and continued section 366.26 hearing on August 15, 2017, Mother’s counsel argued that there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case and hold an evidentiary hearing on Mother’s section 388 petition. Minor’s counsel commended Mother for making progress, but argued that her behavior did not reach the level of changed circumstances, only changing. Given Mother’s history and her relapses, counsel asserted that the child was too young to protect herself should Mother relapse and place the child in danger again. Minor’s counsel also argued that it was not in the child’s best interest to grant Mother’s section 388 petition. CFS’s counsel argued the court should deny the petition, noting the case had been open for two and a half years, and the child deserved permanency. CFS’s counsel also noted that Mother had a history of participating in rehabilitation and then relapsing and that Mother lacked stability and provided no evidence that the change of order would be in the best interest of the child. Given the ongoing visitation issue and the child’s need for permanency, counsel asked the court not to order an evidentiary hearing and deny the petition.
Following argument, the court indicated that although it was a close call as to whether there was a change of circumstances and that Mother was sincerely working on her addiction issues, the court could not find that there were changed circumstances based on her lengthy history and her previous graduation from outpatient treatment only to relapse a few months later. The court noted that Mother had lost three other children due to her inability to remain stable, and concluded there was insufficient evidence to warrant an evidentiary hearing. The court also found that Mother had not made a prima facie case showing that granting her section 388 petition was in the best interest of the child. The court noted that Mother’s petition did not warrant an evidentiary hearing on the best interest requirement, since the child had been out of Mother’s care for two and a half years and the child had been in a stable placement with a relative who wanted to provide the child with permanency. The court further noted that Mother’s visits with the child had been complicated in that the child did not always want to talk with Mother, and the recent visits were causing behavioral issues for the child. The court concluded that Mother had not yet achieved the type of stability that would guarantee success for Mother and permanency for the child, and denied Mother’s section 388 petition.
The court thereafter proceeded with the section 366.26 hearing. Mother’s counsel had no other affirmative evidence to submit on behalf of Mother in support of the parental benefit exception to adoption but argued that Mother had maintained consistent contact with the child and that even though it was by video chat, mother and the child had a healthy bond that, if severed, would be “highly detrimental.” Minor’s counsel expressed concern with Mother’s violations of the visitation rules, which had resulted in the child’s aggressive behaviors and undermined the child’s trust of her caregivers. Minor’s counsel noted Mother’s violation of the rules was hurting the child psychologically and emotionally. CFS’s counsel asserted that there was no bond as evidenced by the visitation issues and that the child was in a stable home with foster parents willing to adopt her and provide her with permanency.
The court found that the child was both generally and specifically adoptable and that, although Mother had consistently visited the child, the bond did not outweigh the permanency the child would have in an adoptive home. The court noted that although the child had multiple placements, she was thriving in her relatives’ care and liked the home, referring to her caregivers as mom and papa. The court concluded the parental benefit exception to adoption did not apply and terminated parental rights. This appeal followed.
III
DISCUSSION
A. Denial of Section 388 Petition
Mother argues the juvenile court erred in denying her section 388 petition without an evidentiary hearing because her petition with supporting attachments showed a prima facie case of changed circumstances and best interest of the child.
Under section 388, a juvenile court order may be changed or set aside “if the petitioner establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) new evidence or changed circumstances exist and (2) the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child.” (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 806 (Zachary G.).) “[I]f the liberally construed allegations of the petition do not make a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child, the court need not order a hearing on the petition.” (Ibid.; § 388, subd. (d) [“If it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted by the proposed change of order, . . . the court shall order that a hearing be held . . . .”].) The prima facie requirement is not met “unless the facts alleged, if supported by evidence given credit at the hearing, would sustain a favorable decision on the petition.” (Zachary G., at p. 806.) We review the juvenile court’s order denying a hearing for abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 808.) “It is rare that the denial of a section 388 motion merits reversal as an abuse of discretion . . . .” (In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 522.)
Mother contends the juvenile court should have held a hearing on her section 388 petition because she established a prima facie showing of changed circumstances and that the proposed change would promote the best interest of the child. Mother alleged her changed circumstances consisted of successful completion of services, testing clean, participating in programs, attending Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous meetings, obtaining housing in a transitional living home, and obtaining full-time employment.
Although we commend Mother for the changes she made, we need not decide whether the juvenile court erred in finding there was no prima facie showing of changed circumstances because Mother failed to make a prima facie showing that granting the section 388 petition and returning the child to Mother’s care or providing additional reunification services was in the best interest of the child.
A parent and child share a fundamental interest in reuniting up to the point at which reunification efforts cease. (In re R.H. (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 678, 697.) By the time of a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement a child’s permanent plan, however, the interests of the parent and the child have diverged. (Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 254.) Therefore, after reunification efforts have terminated or been bypassed, the court’s focus shifts from family reunification toward promoting the child’s needs for permanency and stability. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) This is a difficult burden to meet when reunification services have been terminated. This is because, “[a]fter the termination of reunification services, a parent’s interest in the care, custody and companionship of the child is no longer paramount. [Citation.]” (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 464 (Angel B.).) In fact, there is a rebuttable presumption continued foster care is in the child’s best interest. (Ibid.) Such presumption applies with even greater strength when adoption is the permanent plan. (Ibid.) “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.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.)
At the time Mother filed her section 388 petition, shortly before the section 366.26 hearing, the child’s interest in stability was the juvenile court’s foremost concern, outweighing any interest in reunification. The prospect of returning the child to Mother’s care on family maintenance or allowing Mother additional reunification services to see if Mother would and could do what she was required to do to regain custody would not have promoted stability for the child, and thus would not have promoted the child’s best interest. (Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 464.) Mother failed to attach any evidence to her petition demonstrating the requested change would be in the child’s best interest. The child was removed from Mother’s custody when she was two years old in March 2015. By the time of the hearing on the petition in August 2017, the child had not been in Mother’s care for two and a half years. Moreover, the child was placed in a relative adoptive home and was bonded to her caregivers. The child referred to her relative caregivers as mom and papa and was bonded to her cousins. Furthermore, the child informed the social worker that she wanted her maternal aunt and uncle to be her mom and dad and that she wanted to live with them “forever.” The ICPC worker noted the child was very bonded to her caregivers and had expressed her desire to remain with them. In addition, the caregivers had demonstrated a strong commitment to the child and had continued to express their desire to adopt the child, even after the child had displayed behavioral issues following Mother’s video chat visits. Returning the child to Mother’s care on family maintenance or granting additional reunification services to Mother would only prolong the child’s adoption in a stable and loving home. The caregivers and the child appeared bonded to each other, and the caregivers were meeting the child’s needs.
Moreover, Mother had a long history of abusing drugs and failing to maintain sobriety, despite receiving services. Mother had used methamphetamine since she was a teenager, and had lost custody of her three older children. By the time of the hearing on the petition, Mother had completed her substance abuse treatment program four months earlier within the confines of a structured sober living home. Prior to that, Mother had relapsed twice after treatment services were completed. Although Mother claimed she had maintained sobriety for nine months by the time of the August 2017 hearing, Mother had only recently begun to make efforts to combat her long-standing drug problem. The juvenile court reasonably concluded that, under such circumstances and in light of Mother’s history of abusing drugs, Mother had not made a prima facie showing that additional reunification services would have promoted stability for the child and be in her best interest. (Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 464.)
In Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th 454, the court rejected the mother’s contention the juvenile court erred in denying her section 388 petition without holding a hearing. The mother in Angel B. had a long history of drug abuse, unsuccessful rehabilitation attempts, and failure to reunify with another child. After the mother was denied reunification services, she began to improve, enrolling in a treatment program, testing clean for four months, completing various classes, and obtaining employment. Regular visits with her child also went well. (Id. at p. 459.) Nevertheless, when she filed her section 388 petition for reunification services, the court summarily denied her petition without a hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court refusing to hold a hearing. (Id. at pp. 459, 462.)
The appellate court in Angel B. acknowledged the petition showed the mother was doing well, “in the sense that she has remained sober, completed various classes, obtained employment, and visited regularly with [the child].” (Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at pp. 464-465.) The court also assumed for purposes of the appeal “that this time her resolve is different, and that she will, in fact, be able to remain sober, remain employed, become self-supporting and obtain housing.” (Id. at p. 465, italics omitted.) Nevertheless, the court concluded “such facts are not legally sufficient to require a hearing on her section 388 petition.” (Ibid.) The court explained: “[T]here is a rebuttable presumption that, in the absence of continuing reunification services, stability in an existing placement is in the best interest of the child, particularly when such placement is leading to adoption by the long-term caretakers. [Citation.] To rebut that presumption, a parent must make some factual showing that the best interests of the child would be served by modification.” (Ibid.) The mother in Angel B. did not make such a showing. Likewise, neither does Mother here.
Mother’s petition offered no evidence of the nature of her bond or that the child wanted to live with Mother. (See Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 465 [the mother’s petition, denied without a hearing, stated that she had bonded with the child, who was happy to see her and reached for her on their visits].) We conclude Mother has not made a prima facie showing that the child’s best interest would be served by placing her with Mother on family maintenance or providing Mother additional reunification services. The juvenile court therefore did not abuse its discretion in summarily denying Mother’s section 388 petition without a hearing.
B. Beneficial Parental Relationship Exception
Mother also contends the juvenile court erred in finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), did not apply to preclude the termination of parental rights. Specifically, she asserts she maintained regular contact with the child and it would be detrimental to the child to terminate her parental rights because the child would benefit from continuing her relationship with her. We disagree.
After reunification services are denied or terminated, “ ‘the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability.’ ” (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 52 (Celine R.).) “ ‘Adoption is the Legislature’s first choice because it gives the child the best chance at [a full] emotional commitment from a responsible caretaker.’ ” (Celine R., at p. 53; see § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) “ ‘Guardianship, while a more stable placement than foster care, is not irrevocable and thus falls short of the secure and permanent future the Legislature had in mind for the dependent child.’ ” (Celine R., at p. 53.) A statutory exception to the general rule requiring the court to choose adoption exists where “[t]he court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)) because “[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (Id., subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
“ ‘To trigger the application of the parental relationship exception, the parent must show the parent-child relationship is sufficiently strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination.’ [Citation.] A beneficial relationship ‘is 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.” ’ ” (In re Marcelo B. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 635, 643.) The nature of the relationship between the parent and child is key in determining the existence of a beneficial relationship; it is not sufficient to show that the child derives some benefit from the relationship or shares some “ ‘emotional bond’ ” with the parent. (In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621 (K.P.).) “To overcome the preference for adoption and avoid termination of the natural parent’s rights, the parent must show that severing the natural parent-child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed.” (In re Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 466.) In other words, the parent must show he or she occupies a “ ‘ “parental role” in the child’s life.’ ” (K.P., at p. 621.)
The parent has the burden of proving the statutory exception applies. (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315 (Bailey J.).) The parent must show both that a beneficial parental relationship exists and that severing that relationship would result in great harm to the child. (Ibid.) A juvenile court’s finding that the beneficial parental relationship exception does not apply is reviewed in part under the substantial evidence standard and in part for abuse of discretion. The factual finding, i.e., whether a beneficial parental relationship exists, is reviewed for substantial evidence, while the court’s determination that the relationship does or does not constitute a “compelling reason” (Celine R., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 53) for finding that termination of parental rights would be detrimental is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Bailey J., at pp. 1314-1315; K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 621.) A juvenile court’s ruling on whether there is a “compelling reason” is reviewed for abuse of discretion because the court must “determine the importance of the relationship in terms of the detrimental impact that its severance can be expected to have on the child and . . . weigh that against the benefit to the child of adoption.” (Bailey J., at p. 1315, italics omitted.) More specifically, a challenge to a court’s failure to find a beneficial relationship amounts to a contention that the “undisputed facts lead to only one conclusion.” (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1529.) Thus, unless the undisputed facts establish the existence of a beneficial parental relationship, a substantial evidence challenge to this component of the juvenile court’s determination cannot succeed. (Bailey J., at p. 1314.)
In this case, although Mother maintained regular visitation with the child, the juvenile court could reasonably find, based on the evidence, that the well-being the child gained from her relationship with Mother did not outweigh the well-being she would gain from being adopted. The child stated that she wanted to live with her relative caregivers “forever” and referred to them as mom and papa. The child was thriving in her caregivers’ home and was bonded to the family. She adjusted very well to the family home and her caregivers were providing the child with her needs, security, permanency, and love. By contrast, there is no evidence to suggest Mother played a parental role in the child’s life. The child was removed out of Mother’s custody in March 2015 when she was two years old, almost two and half years prior to the section 366.26 hearing, and Mother never regained custody of the child. While presumably there was some bonding between the child and Mother, it was insufficient to outweigh the benefits of providing the child with permanency and stability.
Furthermore, there was no evidence that the child would be harmed, much less “greatly harmed,” by termination of parental rights. (In re B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1234-1235 [“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.’ [Citation.]”] Italics added.) There was no evidence in the record that the child cried at the end of visits or that she desired to stay with Mother and was otherwise emotionally upset in not being able to visit Mother. Rather, the evidence shows that the child had behavioral issues following visits with Mother or that the child did not always want to visit with Mother. Thus, there was minimal positive impact on the child regarding continued contact with Mother.
Moreover, there is also substantial evidence supporting a reasonable conclusion that the child would gain a greater benefit from being placed in a permanent adoptive home. As the record reveals, Mother simply did not meet her burden to show that the bond between her and the child was so strong and beneficial to the child that it outweighed the benefit the child would receive from living in a stable, permanent adoptive home. The child had been shuffled between four placements since 2015. The child was merely two years old when she was removed from Mother’s custody. The child urgently required permanence and stability. The child’s caregivers were her maternal aunt and uncle and they desired to adopt the child and provide her with the stability and security the child required. In addition, the child and the caregivers were strongly bonded. The child was doing very well in her caregivers’ home and wanted to be stay with them “forever.” The record does not support a finding that Mother’s relationship with the child outweighs the benefit and stability the child would derive from adoption.
In sum, at most, all Mother can demonstrate is “frequent and loving contact or pleasant visits,” which has repeatedly been found insufficient to support application of the exception. (In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 557.) We conclude the record supports the juvenile court’s determination that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply in this case.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:



RAMIREZ
P. J.



SLOUGH
J.