Filed 2/16/21 In re J.M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B. Marshall, Judge. Affirmed.

William Hook, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Jodi L. Doucette, Special Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A.G. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her daughter, J.M. (the child). Mother argues the juvenile court erred by not applying the beneficial parent/child relationship exception to the termination of her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); all additional statutory references are to the Welf. & Inst. Code.) We find no error and affirm the order.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Detention.

Mother gave birth to J.M. on her 14th birthday. When the child was 13 months old, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) investigated a report that mother had assaulted her adopted mother (the child’s adopted maternal grandmother) while she (mother) was holding the child. The grandmother told the social worker that mother had assaulted her in the past and used drugs, and the grandmother believed mother might have given the child a sleeping pill because “the child is sleeping too much.” CFS detained the child and filed a petition with the juvenile court alleging the child was a dependent within the meaning of section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g). CFS alleged mother placed the child at risk of harm by engaging in a physical altercation with the grandmother while holding the child in her arms because of her “anger issues” and because of her current and previous history of substance abuse. It also alleged the father’s whereabouts were unknown.[1]

The juvenile court found a prima facie case had been made to detain the child outside the home, ordered the child be placed in the same licensed group home as mother, under the supervision of CFS, and directed CFS to provide mother with family reunification services and supervised visits with the child two hours daily.

B. Jurisdiction and Disposition.

In a report for the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the social worker recommended the juvenile court sustain the allegations in the petition, order the child to remain detained from mother, and order that mother receive reunification services. When interviewed, mother denied that she gave the child a sleeping pill and claimed it was the grandmother who started the altercation that resulted in the child’s detention. Mother admitted to having smoked marijuana one or two months earlier, and she tested positive for marijuana the day of the detention hearing.

The social worker reported mother had been placed in a group home for teen mothers and pregnant teens. The group home reported mother was impulsive and had anger issues. During one incident, mother yelled and shouted at a pregnant girl who had spoken to mother’s boyfriend, and mother threatened to kick the girl in the stomach “until she lost her baby.” Otherwise, mother had no further outbursts during the reporting period. The social worker reported mother and the child were “very bonded” and shared a “close relationship,” and mother provided appropriate care to the child. More specifically, the social worker reported the child accepted and received comfort from mother, went to mother when she was distressed and in need of comfort, and reached for mother when she wanted to be held. Mother was “well adept” at recognizing and responding to the child’s cues and needs. Mother was attending individual counseling, as well as parenting, anger management, and substance abuse classes.

An addendum report indicated the child’s leg had been scanned at the time of her detention and revealed a fracture that was consistent with her being yanked or pulled during the altercation between mother and the grandmother. In addition, the social worker reported mother had been impeding visits with the father and was putting her own needs above those of the child. The social worker continued to recommend the child be detained out of mother’s care and placed in mother’s group home. In an information update, the social worker reported that a subsequent X-ray of the child’s leg showed she had not suffered a fracture after all.

At the continued jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court sustained the allegations in the petition, found the child to be a dependent of the court, ordered the child to remain detained out of mother’s care but in the same group home as mother, and ordered CFS to provide mother with reunification services including daily supervised visits for two hours and authority to provide overnight visits in the group home.

C. Six-month Review Hearing.

In a report for the six-month review hearing, CFS recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services for mother, place the child in the nonoffending father’s care, and dismiss the proceedings. The social worker reported mother had been uncooperative in allowing the father to have equal bonding time with the child, so the plan had been for the child to live one week with mother and one week with the father, and so on. Mother had been doing well in taking care of the child and in completing her case plan, but the social worker reported mother had been backsliding to the child’s detriment. Mother requested the juvenile court set a contested review hearing, during which she planned to present testimony that she was continuing to bond with the child and make progress on her case plan.

The day of the scheduled review hearing, the social worker reported that, although mother had been making “some progress” in her therapy, she had requested that the child be placed with the father’s family because she was “overwhelmed with parenting full time.” One week later, mother retracted the request. The social worker opined “the crux of the issue” was mother’s “inability or unwillingness to parent an equal amount of time.” Because the father’s family had indicated an unwillingness to take primary care of the child at the time, the social worker recommended the juvenile court continue reunification services to both parents “to assist [them] in better co-parenting, division of responsibilities and amicable resolution to better provide a safe, loving, healthy home” for the child. The social worker recommended mother have supervised visits with the child daily for one week, and the father to have unsupervised visits for seven days every other week.

At the hearing, counsel for CFS informed the court that the arrangement for the past six months had been for mother to have the child one week with supervised visits and for the father to have the child unsupervised for one week, yet mother left the child with the father for 24 days straight. Because both parents showed a lack of commitment to full-time parenting, CFS recommend the nonoffending father receive parenting services. The juvenile court found mother had made moderate progress in her case plan and continued reunification services to mother with rotating weeklong visits for the parents, as recommended by CFS.

D. Twelve-month Review Hearing.

In the report for the 12-month review hearing, the social worker recommended the child be returned immediately to mother’s physical custody and the dependency be continued. There had been no significant changes in circumstances during the reporting period. Mother continued to participate in her court ordered reunification services and was making progress. The child was “very bonded” with mother and looked to her for comfort and attention.

The juvenile court found mother had made substantial progress in alleviating the reasons for the dependency and adopted CFS’s recommendations for continuation of the dependency and reunification services.

E. Semiannual Review Hearings.

In its next report, CFS continued to recommend the juvenile court return the child to mother’s care and that the dependency be continued. The social worker reported that mother had been attending individual therapy, but she had not addressed her anger management and control issues, and she had several ongoing fights with other girls “over petty things.” On one occasion, mother was involved in a verbal and physical fight with another girl while in the presence of the child. The child was not physically harmed and appeared to have suffered no emotional harm either. That incident, and mother’s continued refusal to abide by the group home’s rules and guidelines, resulted in her being moved to a different placement. Mother had trouble following the rules in her new placement too.

Mother was making progress in parenting classes and demonstrated her continued willingness to have custody of the child. The parents had been referred to coparenting therapy but only attended one session. Mother also missed numerous doctor and dental appointments for the child. Visitation with the father and his family were going well, but he and mother argued about who should pay for the child’s clothing, medication, and other essentials. The social worker continued to report the child was “very bonded” with mother and looked to her for comfort and attention.

At the first semiannual review hearing and at a further review hearing conducted one month later, the juvenile court kept all existing orders in place.

Six months later, CFS recommended the juvenile court return the child to the father’s home, terminate reunification services to mother, and dismiss the proceedings. At the time, the child was on an extended visit with the father, and mother’s whereabouts were unknown. During the reporting period, mother left her group home numerous times without authorization and left the child with the father. In one incident, mother became upset that the group home could not take her to school because the home’s vehicle was being repaired. Although she had been given a bus pass, mother threatened to pour sugar into the vehicle’s gas tank. Once more, the social worker reported the child was “very bonded” with mother. However, the social worker reported mother had refused to attend additional counseling for anger management and had gone “AWOL” from her group home.

The juvenile court ordered that the child remain with the father on an extended visit and continued the review hearing so CFS could file a supplemental petition.

F. Supplemental and Subsequent Petitions.

CFS filed a supplemental petition under section 387, alleging mother left the child without provisions for her support and placed the child at risk of harm, neglect, or abuse. In a detention report, the social worker recommended the juvenile court remove the child from mother’s care and that she be detained once more in the custody of CFS. Mother refused to turn herself into law enforcement so she could be returned to her group home and, at the time of the report, her whereabouts were unknown. The social worker opined the reunification services provided to mother had not been effective in alleviating the reasons for the child’s detention. The social worker also recommended that mother be given supervised visits with the child once a week for two hours.

The juvenile court found a prima facie case had been made to detain the child out of mother’s custody, ordered the child to remain in the father’s care under an extended visit, and directed CFS to provide mother with supervised visits twice a week for two hours.

Before the juvenile court could conduct a jurisdiction hearing on the supplemental petition, CFS filed a subsequent petition pursuant to section 342. The petition alleged the child had been placed at substantial risk of harm or neglect due to mother’s continued substance abuse, and the child was exposed to domestic violence between her parents on at least three occasions, which resulted in law enforcement being called. The social worker reported mother had gone to the father’s home to visit the child, who was still there on an extended visit. When members of mother’s family came to pick her and the child up, the father and members of his family confronted them, and a physical altercation ensued. The child, who was present and witnessed the event, was visibly frightened and said she “saw mommy and daddy fighting,” but she was not physically harmed. Police took the father into custody.

When interviewed by the social worker the day of the fight, mother was visibly upset and said, “father regularly gets physical with her and the child has witnessed domestic violence on at least three (3) occasions.” She admitted to “participating” in the domestic violence witnessed by the child. Mother said she had left her group home because she did not like it. She admitted to smoking marijuana daily but said she had not done so for three days. The social worker recommended the child once more be detained and mother be given supervised visits once a week for two hours at CFS’s office.

The juvenile court (1) found a prima facie case had been made that the disposition on the original petition had not been effective, and leaving the child in mother’s care would place the child in substantial danger of suffering severe emotional harm, (2) detained the child from mother, and (3) trailed the jurisdiction hearing to the next day. Mother was to be provided with supervised visits as recommended in the report.

In a report filed the day of the detention hearing, the social worker recommended the juvenile court sustain the supplemental and subsequent petitions, place the child in a foster home under the supervision of CFS, deny additional reunification services to mother, and set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 for selection of adoption as the permanent plan for the child. The social worker reported that, when interviewed, mother denied the allegation in the subsequent petition that she had left the child without provisions for support, and she said she had been given a weekend pass to leave her group home when she left the child with the father. Mother had not been given a weekend pass. Mother also denied the allegation of substance abuse in the supplemental petition but, when pressed, admitted to having smoked marijuana a month earlier. This was contradicted by her statement to another social worker two weeks earlier that she had smoked marijuana only three days before. With respect to the allegation in the subsequent petition that she had placed the child at risk of harm by engaging in domestic violence with the father, mother said it was unfair to place the blame on her because the fight “‘was his entire fault, not mine.’”

The social worker told mother that she would have to complete counseling as well as domestic violence and anger management courses for the child to be returned to her. Mother replied she did not understand why she had to “‘redo’” those services. When the social worker explained that, although it was clear mother had made progress in other areas, the recent incidents of domestic violence showed she still needed to make progress in her domestic violence and anger management classes, mother continued to place the entire blame on the father. The social worker opined mother “seems to want things to occur her way and when it does not, her anger takes over.” When mother is unable to manipulate situations in her favor, she “resorts to violence, threats, and false accusations.” The social worker also reported that charges might be brought against mother for pouring sugar into the gas tank of her group home’s vehicle. Mother was still “very bonded” to the child, and the social worker reported mother had no issues with visitation other than her inability “to remain civil” around the father.

On December 12, 2018, the juvenile court set the matter for a contested jurisdiction hearing on February 11, 2019, and ordered that mother continue to have supervised visits once a week for two hours.

G. Jurisdiction and Disposition on Supplemental and Subsequent Petitions.

On the day scheduled for the jurisdiction hearing, the social worker informed the juvenile court that mother had started visiting the child the day of the previous hearing. Mother did not visit on January 1 and February 2, 2019, and she did not reach out to the child’s caregivers to reschedule those missed visits; it was the caregivers who reached out to mother. In addition, the social worker reported mother had tried to convince the caregivers to allow unsupervised visits and had asked for supervised visits to take place at her group home instead of in the home of the caregivers. Mother had been referred to anger management, counseling, and domestic violence services.

At mother’s request, the juvenile court continued the hearing to April 24, 2019.

Before the continued hearing, the social worker informed the juvenile court that, although the father’s visits with the child were “inconsistent,” mother’s visits were “fairly more constant.” Between December 12, 2018 and April 19, 2019, mother had 10 two-hour visits, three shorter visits, and cancelled three visits with the child. And she simply failed to show for two scheduled visits. Other than the missed visit on New Year’s Day when she was out of town with family, mother provided no reasons for cancelling and failing to show for visits. The social worker reported mother was still pressuring the caregivers to permit unauthorized, unsupervised visits, saying, “‘they aren’t going to know.’” The social worker recommended the juvenile court reduce mother’s visits to twice a month, “as it appears this is what the mother is currently maintaining.” Mother had also started attending counseling and anger management classes.

The juvenile court granted a request from counsel for CFS and once again continued the hearing to June 14, 2019.

In an addendum report filed for the June 14 continued jurisdiction hearing, the social worker reported that, although mother had completed her counseling and all but one of her anger management sessions, on June 10 mother started a fight with an 18-year-old girl at her group home. The group home decided not to call the police because they were able to end the fight quickly, but mother told a social worker that she (mother) called the police and wanted to press charges against the other girl “‘because she didn’t want to lose custody of her daughter.’” The social worker opined mother had not benefited from her anger management courses because “she is still getting into fights.” Mother had been informed of options for treatment with psychotropic medications, but she refused them. She had also consistently failed to cooperate with the assessment of her mental health needs.

Since the last report, mother visited with the child seven times for the full two hours, failed to show or asked to reschedule five visits, and cancelled two visits, saying she had transportation issues. She e-mailed the social worker to explain she had missed the visits because her group home would not transport her, but the social worker reported mother had been given bus passes for San Bernardino and Riverside counties, and “it is believed that the mother has created a lot of her transportation difficulties with her current placement.” The social worker continued to recommend mother’s visits be reduced to twice a month.

At the hearing, mother objected to the allegations in the supplemental and subsequent petitions but presented no evidence. The juvenile court found true the allegations and declared the child to be a dependent within the meaning of sections 300, subdivision (b), and 387. The court denied CFS’s requests to terminate reunification services for mother and reduce her visitation. Instead, it directed CFS to provide mother with an additional six months of services, including new referrals for anger management classes and supervised visits for a minimum of once a month for two hours, with authorization for CFS to liberalize frequency and duration, and allow unsupervised or overnight and weekend visits as appropriate. The court set a review hearing on December 16, 2019.

H. Status Review Hearing.

In a report for the status review hearing, the social worker once more recommended the juvenile court set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 to select adoption as the permanent plan for the child. During the reporting period, mother had been “a little more engaging” in her services and visits but had not fully engaged “in all of her services.” Mother turned 18 years old and moved into her sister’s home. From July to September 2019, mother did not communicate to the social worker any desire for counseling but, in October, she asked for a referral but did not follow up on the referral with the service coordinator. The coordinator tried calling mother twice in November, but mother’s phone was not in service. Claiming she had no transportation, mother did not start any anger management services. Even after having been given a gas card, mother did not complete those services. Mother did not complete domestic violence counseling either, cancelled several sessions, and did not follow through with referrals for a psychiatric assessment. The social worker opined that returning the child to mother would place the child at substantial risk of detriment because mother failed to regularly participate in and complete her reunification services.

The child was doing well in the home of her foster family (her maternal aunt and uncle), and her needs were adequately met. The child’s therapist reported concerns about inappropriate conversations between mother and the child during visits. Mother promised the child “that she will be returning home.” When asked about this, mother told the social worker, “‘I’m doing everything I can to get her home.’” Mother was admonished not to discuss the proceedings with the child. During the reporting period, mother cancelled or failed to show up for visits three times.

On the day of the review hearing, the social worker reported mother had still not completed individual counseling because she refused numerous referrals, did not qualify for others, and in general made “the referral process difficult.” However, mother had completed her anger management services.

Mother asked the juvenile court to set a contested hearing, and the juvenile court continued the hearing to February 3, 2020.

On the day of the continued hearing, CFS reported mother had failed to maintain regular appointments with her social worker and had not been forthcoming during the reporting period. In addition, mother had become pregnant again and told the social worker she planned to move in with the father of that child.

The juvenile court continued the hearing to March 13, 2020.

The day before the continued hearing, the social worker reported mother had attended six therapy sessions during the reporting period and, according to the therapist, mother had accepted responsibility for her anger and lack of control during conflicts with the father and in the child’s presence. The therapist said mother was “highly motivated” to reunify with the child but recognized that the physical, emotional, and financial demands of caring for the child and a newborn baby “could be overwhelming.”

At the hearing, mother asked that the juvenile court not set a hearing under section 366.26 because (1) she had completed her anger management and domestic violence services, (2) she had attempted to complete a psychotropic medication evaluation but faced barriers, which prevented her from completing it, (3) she believed she had addressed the issues that led to the dependency, and (4) the child could be safely returned to her. Counsel for CFS asked the juvenile court to follow the social worker’s recommendation and set a hearing for selection of adoption as the permanent plan. She argued mother had “ongoing issues” with visits, such as making promises to the child that had a “negative reaction.” Even if mother had completed some services, she had not benefited from them or incorporated changes into her lifestyle. Permitting her to continue engaging in services “at this late date” would not be enough to mitigate the risk to the child. Counsel for the child agreed and emphasized that mother had inappropriate conversations with the child during visits.

The juvenile court found that, despite mother having been provided an additional six months of reunification services, returning the child to her care would place the child at substantial risk of physical or emotional harm, and it would not be in the child’s best interest to return her to mother. The court adopted the social worker’s recommendations and set a hearing for the selection of adoption as the permanent plan on July 13, 2020. Mother was provided supervised visits with the child once a week for two hours.

I. Termination of Parental Rights.

In a report for the section 366.26 hearing, the social worker recommended the juvenile court terminate mother’s parental rights and free the child for adoption by her relative caregivers, who had been assessed and approved. The caregivers had provided the child with support, the child was thriving in their care, and she appeared to have formed a “strong mutual bond” with her caregivers. The child was appropriate for adoption, and her caregivers wished to adopt her. Since the previous hearing, mother cancelled or failed to show for three supervised visits. However, mother would call during nonvisit dates and times, so the caregivers allowed a few “extra” telephone calls with the child.

The court continued the hearing until September 18, 2020.

On the day before the continued hearing, the social worker informed the juvenile court that mother was still inconsistent with her visitation. At the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, visitation was changed from in-person to video. Mother and the caregivers arranged for mother to have video visits weekly. Mother had seven video visits with the child but also failed to call for seven other video visits. On the child’s birthday, mother had a last-minute request for an in-person visit, but the caregiver said she could not authorize it. Mother reacted angrily. On August 20, mother requested and obtained permission from the caregiver to call later than the scheduled time, but she failed to follow through. A week later, the social worker arranged for an in-person visit at CFS’s office, but the visit was cancelled when mother failed to appear. However, she did appear for two in-person visits.

At the hearing, mother testified she had raised the child until she was three years old, when she was removed from mother’s care. The child called mother “mommy.” Mother testified she visits the child once a week for two hours. When asked what the visits were like, mother testified, “we play with toys, we talk about how her week has been. She tells me that she misses me.” Mother also talked to the child about school, asked if she had been good to her caregiver (mother’s sister), talked to the child about her behavior and emotions, and told the child she loved her and was always there for her. At the start of visits, the child would become very excited, jump up and down, yell “Mommy, Mommy,” and repeatedly hug mother. The child would get upset whenever mother left the room and would be distraught and upset when the visits were over. However, after three minutes or so, the child would calm down, mother would tell the child she loved her and give her a hug, and they would part. Mother testified she loved the child from the bottom of her heart, would do anything to take care of her, and asked for another chance.

Counsel for CFS argued the juvenile court should terminate mother’s parental rights. The child had been out of mother’s care for most of the dependency. Although mother clearly loved the child, she was essentially a friendly visitor to the child and did not occupy a parental role. Counsel also asked that the court not find any exception to termination of parental rights. The child’s counsel joined in the request. Mother’s attorney argued the juvenile court should not terminate parental rights and should select the lesser permanent plan of guardianship so mother could remain involved in the child’s life. Counsel argued the child had a bond with mother, she perked up when mother called her, and she was emotional at the end of visits. Therefore, counsel argued it would not be in the child’s best interest to terminate mother’s parental rights.

The juvenile court found mother had not occupied a parental role in the child’s life for almost two years. It also found by clear and convincing evidence that the child was generally and specifically adoptable, there were no legal impediments to adoption, and the beneficial parent/child relationship exception to termination of parental rights did not apply. Mother had not progressed beyond the supervised visits that had been going on “for a prolonged period,” and the child deserved permanency and stability. Although mother loved the child, she had not occupied a parental role. Finally, the court found no evidence that the child would suffer great harm if mother’s parental rights were terminated. Therefore, the court terminated mother’s parental rights and freed the child for adoption. Mother timely appealed.

II.

DISCUSSION

“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.’ (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)” (In re Marcelo B. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th

635, 642.)

In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567 is the seminal case regarding

exceptions to the preference for adoption. There, the court held that parent/child

relationships that can prevent termination of parental rights are ones that promote

“the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the

child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents. In other words,

the court balances the strength and quality of the natural parent/child relationship in

a tenuous placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new family would

confer. If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a

substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed,

the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent’s rights are not

terminated.” (Id. at p. 575.) “The 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.” (Id. at pp. 575-

576.)

Adoption cannot be thwarted simply because a child would derive some benefit

from continuing the parent/child relationship, and adoption should be ordered when the

court finds that the relationship maintained through visitation does not benefit the child

significantly enough to outweigh the strong preference for adoption. (In re Jasmine D.

(2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350.) The juvenile court may reject a parent’s claim

simply by finding that the relationship maintained during the visitation does not benefit

the child significantly enough to outweigh the strong preference for adoption. To apply

the exception, the court must find compelling reasons to apply the exception. Only in an

extraordinary case will the preservation of parental rights prevail over the Legislature’s

preference for adoption. (Ibid.)

Thus, the nature of the relationship between the parent and child is crucial in determining the existence of a beneficial parent/child relationship exception; 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.) “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. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 466.) In other words, the parent must show he or she occupies a “‘parental role’” in the child’s life. (In re K.P., at p. 621.)

The parent bears the burden of showing the statutory exception applies. (In re Megan S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 247, 252.) The appellate courts are divided on the appropriate standard of review of a juvenile court’s conclusion that the beneficial parent/child relationship exception does not apply. Some courts have applied the abuse of discretion standard while others have applied the substantial evidence test. (See In re Scott B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 452, 469.) Still, other courts have taken a mixed or hybrid approach, applying (1) the substantial evidence test to the juvenile court’s factual finding of whether a beneficial parent/child relationship exists and (2) the abuse of discretion standard to the juvenile court’s “‘“quintessentially” discretionary decision’” that termination of parental rights will not be detrimental to the child.[2] (In re K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 622, quoting In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) In In re J.S. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1071, this court adopted the mixed or hybrid approach in an appeal challenging a juvenile court’s finding that the sibling relationship exception to termination of parental rights did not apply. (Id. at p. 1080.) Therefore, we will apply that approach here.

Mother argues she satisfied the first requirement for the beneficial parent/child relationship exception because she has had “regular” and “frequent” visits since the child was removed from her care. CFS responds that, although mother had “some contact” during the two years the child was out of her care, mother did not consistently visit, she did not take advantage of increased frequency of visits, and visits never graduated from supervised to unsupervised or overnight and weekend visits. The juvenile court made no express finding whether mother had regular visits with the child, but the record supports its implied finding that she did not. (See In re Aurora P. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1166 [“Where the statute does not mandate explicit findings, and where substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s order, findings may be implied.”].)

Mother testified she visited with the child once a week for two hours, which suggests her visits were consistent throughout the dependency. But the record demonstrates she cancelled or failed to show for many in-person and video visits during the two years in question. Her inconsistency led the social worker to recommend the frequency of visits be reduced to more accurately reflect mother’s actual visits. During the first few months after the child was removed from her care, a few of mother’s visits were for less than the time allotted for each visit, which certainly calls into question the quality of those visits. Finally, as CFS points out, mother’s visits never “graduated” from supervised to unsupervised or overnight and weekend visits.

But even if we were to conclude mother had enough visits with the child to satisfy the first prong, we would still affirm. “No matter how loving and frequent the contact,” the parent must still prove they occupy a parental role for the child. (In re Breanna S. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 636, 646; accord, In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 555 [“A parent must show more than frequent and loving contact or pleasant visits.”].) As noted, the juvenile court expressly found mother had not maintained a “parental role” in the child’s life “for almost two years.” Mother had not shown she was “more than a friendly visitor” during her supervised visits over a “prolonged period of time,” and the child “deserv[ed] permanency and stability.” Although the court acknowledged the evidence showed mother loved the child, it reiterated that mother had not established she occupied a “parental role” for the child. Finally, the court concluded mother had not presented evidence the child “would suffer harm, much less great harm,” if mother’s parental rights were terminated, the child were adopted by her caregivers, and she was provided a “permanent and stable home.” The record supports these findings.

Mother argues the record shows she and the child “shared a positive, loving, familial relationship,” and “severing their attachment would be detrimental to the child.” For instance, she points to the fact that the social worker’s reports consistently said she and the child were bonded. True, early on in the dependency, when the child was still in mother’s care, the social worker reported mother and the child were “very bonded.” The social worker had personally observed mother taking good care of the child, indicated she was “well adept” at recognizing the child’s cues and needs, and said the two shared a “close relationship.” Reports filed after the child had been removed from mother’s care merely stated the two were “very bonded,” and the child looked to mother for comfort. But, besides the rote repetition, those reports provided no additional details of the bond and do not substantiate mother’s assertion that she maintained a parental role during the two years after the child had been removed from her care and custody.

The only other evidence that bore on the nature of the relationship was mother’s testimony at the section 366.26 hearing. She testified the child still called her “mommy,” and the child would become excited, jump up and down, and hug mother repeatedly at the start of a visit. During visits, the two would play with toys, and discuss the child’s schooling, behaviors, and emotions. Mother would tell the child that she loved her and would always be there for her, and the child said she missed mother. She testified that, if she would leave the room, the child would become upset. And when the visits would come to an end, the child would become distraught, but she would calm down after three minutes, and they would hug and part ways. There is no evidence in the record that the child would be upset when she returned to her caregivers after those visits, that her behavior got worse after visits with mother, or that the child suffered distress from being separated from mother.

Although there is no dispute mother loves the child and there is some bond between them, the evidence simply does not demonstrate how deeply attached the child was to mother. There was no evidence the child had such a sufficiently strong bond with mother that termination of the parent/child relationship would be detrimental. The child enjoyed playing with mother during visits, but “for the exception to apply, the emotional attachment between the child and parent must be that of parent and child rather than one of being a friendly visitor or friendly nonparent relative, such as an aunt.” (In re Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 468.)

Considering the child’s age, the fact she had lived with her caregivers for almost two years and the demonstrated strength of the bond between the child and her caregivers, the juvenile court did not err by concluding the bond between mother and the child was not so substantial that severing it would be detrimental. The benefits the child might derive from a continued relationship with mother, whose long-term ability to provide a safe and stable home for her had not yet been proven (despite receiving more than two years of family reunification services), did not outweigh the benefits the child would derive from a stable and secure adoptive family. The record supports the juvenile court’s express and implied findings, and we find no abuse of discretion.

III.

DISPOSITION

The order terminating mother’s parental rights is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER

Acting P. J.

We concur:

FIELDS

J.

RAPHAEL

J.

[1] The father is not a party in this appeal.

[2] Our Supreme Court granted review to decide which standard of review applies. (In re Caden C. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 87, review granted July 24, 2019, S255839.)