Filed 9/19/17 In re E.W. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Affirmed.

Michelle L. Jarvis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant D.W.

Lauren K. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant N.O.

Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Adam Ebright, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendants and appellants D.W. (Father) and N.O. (Mother; collectively, Parents) appeal after the termination of their parental rights for G.W. and E.W. (collectively, the Children) at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing.[1]

Father claims on appeal the juvenile court erred when it denied his section 388 petition without a hearing. Mother makes the following claims on appeal, in addition to joining in Father’s arguments: (1) the juvenile court erred by denying her section 388 petition because she showed changed circumstances, and it was in the Children’s best interests to be returned to her, or that she receive additional reunification services; (2) the juvenile court erred by finding the parental bond exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) did not apply; and (3) the juvenile court should have ordered a permanent plan of legal guardianship rather than adoption.[2]

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A. DETENTION OF E.W.

On August 30, 2014, E.W., who was born in September 2013, was detained by San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department). Both Mother and Father were deaf. On August 30 the paternal grandmother (PGM) took E.W. to the emergency room. PGM believed that E.W. had an injury to her leg. PGM was intoxicated. She insisted that Mother and Father had left E.W. with her so they could go to the store together. Father arrived at the hospital and stated he was E.W.’s father. He acknowledged he and Mother went to the store together to get supplies for E.W. Father acknowledged he had a restraining order to stay away from Mother. Mother was interviewed and admitted going to the store with Father. She denied that she or Father had injured E.W. She told the social worker that PGM was an alcoholic. Mother indicated she had a restraining order against Father because he had hit her in the past. The examination of E.W. showed no injuries.

Parents were arrested for violating the restraining order. Parents were being charged with misdemeanor child neglect for leaving E.W. in the care of an inappropriate caregiver.

On September 3, 2014, the Department filed a section 300 petition against Father and Mother (Petition). It was alleged under section 300, subdivision (b), that Parents failed to protect E.W. by leaving her in the care of PGM despite knowing that PGM was under the influence of alcohol, and Parents had a history of engaging in domestic violence. It was alleged under section 300, subdivision (g) that Parents could not provide for E.W. because they were both arrested on August 30, 2014.

The detention hearing was held on September 4, 2014. The juvenile court found a prima facie case to detain E.W. outside the home in a foster home.

B. JURISDICTION/DISPOSITION REPORTS AND HEARING

The jurisdiction report was filed on September 23, 2014. Mother was interviewed and claimed that E.W. had no injuries and that she and Father were merely cited by the police for leaving E.W. in PGM’s care and then released. Mother felt that she was not close to her family because she was deaf. Father was also interviewed. He had been home with PGM the day E.W. was detained and did not think that she was intoxicated. He would not have left E.W. in her care if he knew she had been drinking. However, he was aware she was an alcoholic. Father acknowledged the restraining order; he had an altercation with Mother in the past.

The Department recommended that the allegations in the Petition be found true. The Department recommended reunification services for Parents. Paternity testing showed Father was the biological father of E.W.

Parents waived their rights and submitted on the Petition. The jurisdiction/disposition hearing was continued. At a hearing conducted on November 18, 2014, the juvenile court dismissed the allegations pursuant to section 300, subdivision (g) and found the allegations true pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b). Reunification services were continued.

A status review report was filed on May 12, 2015. It was recommended that E.W. remain in out-of-home placement with the foster mother. Father had been named the presumed father. Mother had been participating in services including parenting and domestic violence classes. Mother did not know American Sign Language and had been encouraged by the Department to learn. They also encouraged her to utilize services specifically for those who were hearing impaired to try to obtain a job. Mother was living with the children’s maternal grandmother and Mother’s sister; they were supporting her. Mother’s sole source of income was disability payments. Father had not been making progress in his services, oftentimes making excuses for not completing services. However, the Department believed he wanted to reunify with E.W. The Department recommended six additional months of reunification services.

As for visitation, Mother had consistently attended both supervised and unsupervised visits with E.W. Mother and E.W. had a “healthy bond” with each other. It was recommended that Mother be given overnight visits with E.W. Father had consistently attended visitation. He had a healthy bond with E.W. It was recommended that he also receive unsupervised visits.

E.W. was being assessed for low auditory response in at least one ear. E.W. was also suffering from some developmental delays and was being referred to the Inland County Regional Center. At the status review hearing, reunification services were continued for six months to allow Father time to complete his services.

A status review report was filed on October 27, 2015. During the reporting period concerns arose about Parents. In June, Mother reported that she was pregnant with Father’s child. Mother seemed to pursue Father even though she claimed he was abusive. She also accused him of being a molester, which was unsubstantiated. Mother lived with maternal grandmother, who was in danger of being evicted from her apartment. Mother had been attending individual therapy and domestic violence classes. Father had made significant progress participating in individual therapy, parenting education and a domestic violence program. Father had violated the restraining order by having sexual relations with Mother but the Department believed their interactions were triggered by Mother. Both Father and Mother had been allowed unsupervised visits with E.W. and the visits had gone well. E.W.’s hearing assessments were now normal. E.W. was in therapy for some developmental delays but was doing well. The juvenile court continued reunification services for six months on October 30, 2015.

A status review report was filed on February 24, 2016. It was recommended that E.W. be returned to Parents and that the dependency be continued under a family maintenance plan. Both Mother and Father had stable homes with family members. Mother was pregnant with Parents’ second child; Mother was due the end of February. Mother struggled with the idea of shared custody with Father. Parents had done well in their services. Father and Mother each had unsupervised visits with E.W. that had been positive; Father had successful overnight visits.

At the hearing on February 29, 2016, E.W. was placed with Mother during the week and Father on the weekends under a family maintenance plan.

C. SECTION 387 PETITION FOR E.W. AND SECTION 300 PETITION FOR G.W.

On March 22, 2016, the Department filed a section 387 petition for E.W. as Parents continued to violate the restraining order. Further, Mother had been involved in a domestic dispute putting E.W. at risk. E.W. had been detained and placed with her maternal aunt, M.O. (Aunt).

Mother gave birth to G.W. in February 2016. Mother got into a dispute with Aunt on March 10, 2016. Aunt had gotten angry with Mother because she found out that Mother was at Father’s house. Mother broke Aunt’s finger during an argument. Mother had been living with Aunt and had been kicked out. Parents admitted on March 18, 2016, that they were seeing each other in violation of the restraining order. Mother had been with Father while E.W. was on an overnight visit with Father. The Department recommended that E.W. be placed with Aunt and that reunification services be terminated.

A section 300 petition for G.W. was filed on March 22, 2016. G.W. was less than one month old. It was alleged pursuant to section 300, subdivision (b) that Mother had engaged in domestic violence. Additionally, Parents had violated a court ordered restraining order. There was an additional sibling abuse allegation under section 300, subdivision (j). G.W. was detained and placed with Aunt. The reasons for the detention were the same as the facts supporting the section 387 petition pertaining to E.W.

Both petitions were heard on March 23, 2016. The juvenile court found a prima facie case established that E.W. came within the section 387 petition, and for G.W. within section 300. The matters were set for a jurisdiction/disposition hearing.

The jurisdiction/disposition report for the Children was filed on April 11, 2016. The Children were residing with Aunt as of March 18, 2016. The Department was concerned about the continued violation of the restraining order by Parents. Mother continued to get into disputes with her family and service providers. Father showed an inability to protect the Children. The Department recommended termination of parental rights at a section 366.26 hearing and adoption by Aunt. Parents had not benefitted from 18 months of services.

Mother would not accept responsibility for hurting Aunt; she was more concerned about her current living situation than the fact the Children had been removed. Although the Department reported that Father was a loving father, he had no ability to set boundaries with Mother. Parents had as their sole income disability payments. Both Mother and Father had completed a significant amount of therapy and domestic violence courses. Neither G.W. nor E.W. had health issues. Visits with Mother and Father, separately, had been appropriate. Paternity testing showed that Father was G.W.’s biological father.

The parties agreed to mediation. Mother submitted on jurisdiction for both G.W. and E.W. but objected to the disposition. Father objected to both jurisdiction and disposition. The matter was set for a contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing.

The Department submitted information that Mother had been living with Father during the month of May 2016, until he kicked her out on June 7, 2016, because of a dispute between them. Aunt reported that the Children were thriving in her care and there were no developmental issues.

The jurisdiction/disposition hearing was conducted on June 22, 2016. Father testified. He admitted that Mother had been living with him in May and June. Father insisted he was trying to get the restraining order dissolved. He also admitted they stayed together in March. Father admitted the restraining order was still active. He was concerned because Mother was homeless and she needed a place to stay. When asked why he violated the order, he stated, “For my children. She is their mother, and I believe in family values.” He was willing to accept full responsibility for the Children without Mother. He promised he would have no contact with Mother if he was given custody of the Children.

Father admitted that three years prior, he and Mother had gotten into physical fights but he had learned how “to handle things” by taking the classes. He kicked Mother out in June because she was not following his rules of the home; they never got into a fight. He had completed all of his classes and was willing to take more classes.

The Department introduced Father’s criminal history, which included a spousal abuse conviction in 2014 and the probation terms with an expiration date of May 16, 2018. The probation terms included an order to stay away from Mother.

Father’s counsel objected to the section 387 petition based on the allegation that there was ongoing domestic violence; there was no evidence of further domestic violence. The juvenile court understood the allegation was only against Mother for the incident with Aunt. The allegation against Father was violating the restraining order.

The juvenile court found the allegations in the section 300 petition for G.W. and the 387 petition for E.W. true. The matter was continued for a contested disposition hearing.

On June 28, 2016, Mother attempted to amend the restraining order that she had obtained on June 25, 2014, from a general stay away order to a no negative contact order. According to the minute order, the juvenile court found as follows: “Court finds there is currently a no negative order in place. [¶] Court denies defendant’s request to modify order.” However, the court did modify the probation conditions to state “Have no negative contact with victim.” The terms of the 2014 restraining order were that Father “must not harass, strike, threaten, assault (sexually or otherwise), follow, stalk, molest, destroy or damage personal or real property, disturb the peace, keep under surveillance, or block movements of the protected persons named above.” The section that generally provided Father stay away from Mother was not checked.

The disposition hearing was conducted on August 9, 2016. The Department submitted photographs of Aunt’s broken finger. Mother submitted completion certificates for a domestic violence course and individual therapy.

Father called the social worker in charge of the case to testify. E.W. had never suffered any harm in Father’s care. Mother had spent several hours with Father while he had custody of E.W. Father reported that Mother had visited several times while they were on family maintenance. Father had completed his services. He had a healthy bond with E.W. Mother had completed a domestic violence course since breaking Aunt’s finger. Mother had tried to amend the restraining order so she and Father could be together. Mother had not taken responsibility for breaking Aunt’s finger.

Visitation between Mother the Children went well. Father allowed Mother to live with him after the altercation with Aunt. It appeared to the social worker that Father was incapable of saying no to Mother. Mother had completed a domestic violence course prior to the altercation with Aunt; she clearly had not benefitted from services. Even though E.W. was removed because of a brief visit between Parents, Father allowed Mother to move in with him.

Father testified he was enrolling in parenting and anger management classes. He also was going to therapy.

Father’s counsel argued that Father admitted he made a mistake by having Mother live with him. He was worried about Mother. There was a change in the evidence because the restraining order was a negative contact order, not a stay away order. Father’s counsel noted that Father violated his probation. However, there had been no additional incidents of domestic violence. There were no issues as to the care of E.W. E.W. should be returned to Father’s care with further family maintenance and reunification services for G.W. As for G.W., since his detention, Father had fully complied with his case plan. Mother’s counsel asked for reunification services for the Children.

Counsel for the Children was concerned about Mother’s continued physical violence. Father was still allowing Mother into his home and around the Children. The Department argued that after 23 months of services, Parents were incapable of putting the Children’s needs first.

The juvenile court noted that it had been two years since the inception of the dependency proceedings and Parents were still involved in some type of relationship. Mother had anger issues and engaged in family violence. The juvenile court could not determine if the restraining order had been modified or not modified. The desire to change the restraining order showed to the juvenile court that Parents put their relationship above protecting the Children. Further, Parents had contact even though the family maintenance plan required them not to be together. They violated the plan within the first few weeks. Mother had accused Father of molesting E.W., and did not want to coparent with Father, but then just a few weeks later was with Father in violation of the family maintenance plan. Mother refused to accept responsibility for hurting Aunt.

The juvenile court found a significant risk to the Children due to the relationship. The juvenile court set a section 366.26 hearing to terminate parental rights. Reunification services for E.W. were terminated and none were granted for G.W. Parents were advised of their rights to file an extraordinary writ but failed to do so.

D. SECTION 388 PETITIONS

On January 3, 2017, Father filed his section 388 petitions for the Children. Mother also filed a section 388 petition. The petitions were denied, as will be discussed in more detail, post.

E. SECTION 366.26 REPORTS AND HEARING

The Department recommended that the parental rights of Mother and Father be terminated and that the Children be freed for adoption by Aunt. The Children were in good health and developing normally. Parents had maintained visitation during the reporting period and had been appropriate in their interactions.

The Children had been with Aunt since March 18, 2016. The children were attached to Aunt. E.W. called her “mom” and “aunt.” Aunt was willing to keep contact with Mother and Father after adoption. Aunt was still receiving physical therapy for her finger. Aunt owned her own insurance company and had her own apartment. Aunt was interested in adoption, not legal guardianship. Aunt was granted de facto parent status on February 24, 2017. E.W. had no special needs and was to begin preschool.

The section 366.26 hearing was held on February 24, 2017. Father testified that he disagreed with the termination of his parental rights. During the first eight months of E.W.’s life, he took care of her by changing her diaper, taking her for walks and providing her a good home. He consistently visited the Children every week since they were removed from his care. E.W. always ran to him and was happy to see him. She called him “daddy.” E.W. never wanted to leave their visits. Father believed E.W. would be harmed by terminating his rights. He also thought a legal guardianship would be more appropriate. Father had spent very little time with G.W., but G.W. would let him hold him. G.W. needed his father and termination was not appropriate. Guardianship was more appropriate.

Mother also testified. She had taken care of E.W. prior to her removal. She was consistent with visitation. E.W. had called her “mommy” and hugged her during visits up until the prior year. Mother stated starting in February, E.W. started calling her by her first name. This upset Mother and she blamed Aunt. E.W. would cry at the end of visits and Mother would assure her that they would have another visit. Mother thought it was in E.W.’s best interest to be with her, to learn sign language, and because her and Father were her parents. G.W. recognized her as his mother.

Father’s counsel argued that the permanent plan should be legal guardianship. Granting adoption would be confusing for the Children. Mother argued against termination of parental rights because there was a bond between her and the Children. It would be in the Children’s best interest to maintain the relationship. Mother’s counsel argued that legal guardianship was more appropriate than adoption.

The juvenile court found that the Children were adoptable. The juvenile court then addressed whether the parental bond outweighed adoption. The juvenile court found that Parents had consistently visited The Children. There was no doubt that they both loved the Children. The juvenile court noted that E.W. had been out of Parents’ custody for most of her life and G.W. had been out of their custody his entire life. This relationship did not outweigh the stability the children would receive in the adoptive home. The juvenile court found that there was not sufficient evidence of the parental bond exception.

The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of Mother and Father. The Children were freed for adoption.

DISCUSSION

A. SECTION 388 PETITIONS

Both Mother and Father contend that the juvenile court erred by refusing to grant an evidentiary hearing on their section 388 petitions.

1. ADDITIONAL FACTS

In his section 388 petition, Father alleged he continued to participate in reunification services even though services were terminated by the juvenile court. Father wanted reunification services or to have the children placed with him on a family maintenance plan. He had continued to visit the Children regularly and they had a healthy bond. As of December 6, 2016, Father had completed an anger management course and he had attended 12 weeks of a parenting class after the disposition hearing.

The Department filed a response. The Department met with Father on January 26, 2017, to discuss the section 388 petitions. Father insisted that he had never been advised why the Children were removed from his care. He claimed that throughout the dependency proceedings, people had made up things or “exaggerated” things that were not a “big deal.” Father insisted it was not fair and that everyone was against him. He denied any physical violence between himself and Mother. He was better able to communicate with Mother due to the services. Father believed that Aunt was only caring for the Children for the money.

Father had moved out from living with his mother and grandmother. He was living with other family members but wanted to get his own place. He advised the social worker he would never keep the children from Mother or her extended family.

Aunt reported that Father had been late to visits with the Children. He also missed a visit. Further, during a visit G.W. had grabbed a hot cup of coffee and Father had done nothing to stop him. Father did not intervene because it was not his cup of coffee. Aunt was concerned about the care of the Children if they were returned to Father.

The Department was concerned that Father continued to show no insight into why the Children were removed from his care. His services did not appear to benefit him. He would continue to allow Mother access to the children if he was given custody.

The juvenile court asked the parties to discuss why a hearing was necessary. Father’s counsel felt that a hearing was necessary so that Father could discuss what led to the removal of his children, his responsibility for it and his underlying issues. Further, he could testify as to how he had benefitted from services. If the juvenile court was not going to grant the section 388 petition on its face, a hearing was necessary. The Department felt its response was sufficient to deny the section 388 petition and no hearing was necessary.

The juvenile court found there was no showing of changed circumstances either in the documents or in argument. Father’s responses to the Department showed he continued to have no idea why the Children were removed from his care. It was obvious Father loved the Children and that he was willing to complete classes. The juvenile court concluded that after two years of services “there is still no demonstrated benefit that he has derived from those services, no recognition of the issues that presented themselves, and therefore no demonstrable ability to protect the children from the same cycles that have occurred throughout this case.” The juvenile court denied Father’s section 388 petition.

Mother stated in her section 388 petition that she had completed anger management classes and found a stable home. She regularly visited the Children. She requested reunification services or the return of the Children to her. The Department filed a response. A social worker met with Mother on February 9, 2017. Mother had moved into a one-bedroom apartment. She was able to provide for the Children on her own. She had completed parenting and anger management programs. During the interview, Mother insisted she did nothing wrong to cause her children to be taken from her. She denied there was ever a restraining order. Aunt was keeping the Children away from Mother for financial benefit. Mother insisted several times that her family was trying to keep her children from her. She denied she broke Aunt’s finger; Aunt broke it trying to hit her. She and Father were not in a relationship but would coparent the children.

The parties addressed Mother’s section 388 petition at the time of the section 366.26 hearing. Mother’s counsel argued that she had completed services, had a stable home and was regularly visiting the Children. She would testify as to the loving relationship with her children. Counsel for the Children objected to the section 388 petition as Mother lacked insight into why her children were removed from her care.

The juvenile court denied a hearing. It found that after two years, Mother still had not taken responsibility for her actions and had not taken responsibility for hurting Aunt. She had not shown changed circumstances. Moreover, although Mother had a loving relationship with the Children, it was not in the Children’s best interests to be removed from their stable home.

2. ANALYSIS

“Under section 388, a parent may petition to change or set aside a prior order ‘upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence.’ [Citations.] The juvenile court shall order a hearing where ‘it appears that the best interests of the child . . . may be promoted’ by the new order. [Citation.] Thus, the parent must sufficiently allege both a change in circumstances or new evidence and the promotion of the child’s best interests.” (In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, fn. omitted.) “A prima facie case is made if the allegations demonstrate that these two elements are supported by probable cause. [Citations.] It is not made, however, if the allegations would fail to sustain a favorable decision even if they were found to be true at a hearing. [Citations.] While the petition must be liberally construed in favor of its sufficiency [citations], the allegations must nonetheless describe specifically how the petition will advance the child’s best interests.” (Ibid.)

The summary denial of a petition under section 388 is only appropriate if the petition “fails to state a change of circumstance or new evidence that even might require a change of order.” (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 461.) In determining whether the petition makes the necessary showing, the trial court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case. (In re Jackson W. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 247, 258.) “[A]fter reunification services have terminated, a parent’s petition for either an order returning custody or reopening reunification efforts must establish how such a change will advance the child’s need for permanency and stability.” (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527 (J.C.).)

“We review such rulings for abuse of discretion and may not disturb the decision of the trial court unless that court has exceeded the limits of judicial discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination.” (In re E.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1335; see also In re B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1228.)

The juvenile court properly denied Mother’s petition without a hearing. Mother failed to show changed circumstances or that it was in the Children’s best interest to have the petition granted. Mother’s petition alleged that she had completed additional services. However, this did not result in any change in Mother’s behavior. She refused to accept any responsibility for her actions either in her relationship with Father or her severely injuring Aunt. Mother continued to state she had done nothing wrong; she placed the blame for the loss of her children on Aunt. Moreover, based on her behavior, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude that it was not in the best interests of the Children to be returned to her care. Despite numerous classes and services, Mother continued to exhibit volatile behavior.

Although Father clearly was successful in completing his services and maintained a good relationship with the Children, he failed to show that he could follow court orders or be away from Mother. Father continued to have contact with Mother despite knowing this violated his probation. Father had advised the Department that everyone was against him and the process was not fair. Further, Father continued to have contact with Mother despite her engaging in a serious domestic dispute with Aunt. Father advised the Department after filing his section 388 petition that he would always let Mother be in the Children’s lives and would not keep her from them. This was despite the knowledge that Mother had severely injured Aunt. The juvenile court did not make an arbitrary or capricious decision in finding it was not in the best interests of the Children to grant a hearing on Father’s section 388 petitions.

Father complains on appeal that there never was a stay away restraining order. Initially, this issue first arose at the disposition hearing. Neither Father nor Mother filed an appeal from the disposition order. As such, they cannot now raise the issue in this appeal. (In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1150.) Moreover, at the disposition hearing, the juvenile court it found it could not conclusively determine whether the restraining order had been modified or not. However, Father had violated his probation terms, which clearly required Father to stay away from Mother. Father admits on appeal that he violated his probation. Further, the juvenile court understood that while under the family maintenance plan, Parents would not be together. The juvenile court was concerned that Parents were incapable of following court orders. The section 388 petition did not show a change of circumstances as to Parents’ ability to follow court orders.

Father insists that In re Hashem H. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1791 supports that the juvenile court erred by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his section 388 petition. That case presented different facts than the case before this court and is not dispositive here.

The juvenile court acted within its discretion in denying the section 388 petitions without holding an evidentiary hearing. It reasonably found that a prima facie showing had not been made as to either changed circumstances or that it would promote the best interests of the Children to grant the petitions. We have no authority to substitute our decision for that of the trial court. (J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 526.)

B. SECTION 366.26, SUBDIVISION (c)(1)(B)(i)—BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIP

Mother contends that the juvenile court erred by refusing to apply the exception in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). She insists that her bond with the Children outweighed the stability of adoption.

“Section 366.26 provides that if parents have failed to reunify with an adoptable child, the juvenile court must terminate their parental rights and select adoption as the permanent plan for the child. The juvenile court may choose a different permanent plan only if it ‘finds a compelling reason for determining that termination [of parental rights] would be detrimental to the child [because]: [¶] (i) The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.’” (In re Marcelo B. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 635, 642) “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.”’” (Id. at p. 643.)

Once the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that a child is likely to be adopted, it becomes the parent’s burden to show that termination of her rights would be detrimental to the child under one of the exceptions listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1). (In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 553; In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 809.)

The parental bond exception requires a parent to show termination of the relationship would be detrimental to a child in that “[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i).) “[M]ore than just ‘frequent and loving contact’” is required “to establish the requisite benefit for [the] exception.” (In re Brandon C. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1534.)

The juvenile court’s ruling that this exception does not apply is reviewed under the sufficiency of evidence standard. (In re C.F., supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at p. 553.) “On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, we presume in favor of the order, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in support of the order.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576; see also C.F., at p. 553.)

It is undisputed that Mother regularly attended visitation with the Children. However, there was little evidence of a bond between G.W. and Mother. G.W. had been in Mother’s custody for three weeks when he was removed. She only visited with G.W. for two hours each week. While the contact between G.W. and Mother was positive, there was no evidence supporting a significant bond between Mother and G.W. Mother failed to present any evidence that G.W.’s relationship with her was so significant that termination would cause G.W. detriment.

There was evidence to support that Mother and E.W. shared a bond but the evidence did not support that continuing the relationship outweighed the benefits of adoption. Initially, if the juvenile court did not terminate Mother’s parental rights to E.W. it would deprive E.W. of the stable home she had with Aunt, and E.W. would be separated from G.W., her only sibling. Moreover, the juvenile court was concerned about Mother’s behavior. Significantly, Mother refused to accept any responsibility for the Children being removed from her care. Additionally, after Mother had taken domestic violence and anger classes, she broke Aunt’s finger during an argument. Mother refused to take responsibility for her actions. The juvenile court reasonably concluded that the benefit of continuing a relationship with Mother did not outweigh the benefit to the Children in having a permanent home with Aunt.

C. LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP

Mother further contends the juvenile court should have ordered a legal guardianship rather than adoption.

At a section 366.26 hearing, the court may order adoption, guardianship or long-term foster care. (J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at p. 528.) If the child is adoptable, there is a strong preference for adoption over the alternatives. (In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 297.) “Adoption gives a child the best chance at a full emotional commitment from a responsible caretaker.” (J.C., at p. 527, citing In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.)

Mother has failed to establish that the parental bond exception was applicable in this case. The juvenile court, finding that no exception to the termination of parental rights existed, properly determined that adoption by Aunt was the appropriate permanent plan. Aunt had been continuing to allow visitation between the Children and Mother after the disposition hearing, and agreed to maintain such visitation after adopting the Children. The juvenile court did not err by freeing the Children for adoption.

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court orders are affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER

Acting P. J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON

J.

SLOUGH

J.