Filed 9/25/18 In re J.W. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

L. R. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s orders denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] motion and terminating parental rights for the minor J. W. (§ 366.26.) We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 30, 2015, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services, now called the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family and Adult Services (the Department), filed a petition alleging mother had failed to protect minor (then 10 months old).[2] (§ 300, subd. (b).) Minor was detained the same day. According to the petition, mother and father Ji. W.[3] (father) had a history of engaging in domestic violence in minor’s presence, including an incident earlier that month where father had pushed, hit, and choked mother. Mother also had untreated anger management issues, including fighting with her extended family. In March 2015, mother had a physical altercation with the maternal great-grandmother and the maternal great-aunt.

The August 2015 detention report described the minor as healthy and adjusting well to his foster placement. The report further noted Child Protective Services had first received a referral for general neglect of minor in September 2014 due to domestic violence between mother and father when mother was pregnant with minor. In addition, mother had used marijuana during her pregnancy with minor without a physician’s consent. Mother had untreated mental health issues and refused to take her prescribed medication.

Beginning in March 2015, there were additional referrals for general neglect of minor due to continued domestic violence between mother and father in the presence of minor. Minor (then six months old) was living in a car with mother and father in front of the maternal grandmother’s residence. Minor was sometimes left with the maternal grandmother, who allegedly smoked methamphetamine in the home. In April 2015, it was reported that father choked mother at a local store in minor’s presence. The maternal grandfather told the social worker that mother was on drugs and drinking, and father was “constantly beating on mother.” The maternal great-grandmother told the social worker that father has put plastic bags around mother’s head and scratched her face.

In May 2015, mother and father got into an argument and pushed each other through a fence. Father was holding minor during the incident. The reporting party also saw marijuana and a bong pipe in a location accessible to minor in father’s home. The next day, mother and father broke up, and father took mother’s car. Mother agreed to informal supervision services, including domestic violence prevention classes, a psychiatric evaluation, parenting classes, and an alcohol and drug assessment, but she had failed to participate. In June 2015, the social worker was outside the maternal grandmother’s residence when she saw a man later identified as father jumping on and trying to kick in the window of mother’s parked car. Father ran off when the maternal grandmother yelled at him. According to the maternal grandmother, there was a restraining order against father and he was not supposed to be at the apartment complex. In July 2015, mother refused to explain to the social worker why she had a black eye, other than to say she had been in a fight with a friend. That same month, mother argued with the maternal great-aunt and pulled out a knife. Mother, who was holding minor during the incident, then chased the maternal great-aunt to her car with a shovel. Mother subsequently told the social worker she had only argued with the maternal great-aunt.

During the August 2015 detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered minor detained. Visitation and reunification services were ordered for mother and father.

The August 2015 jurisdiction/disposition report noted mother had started taking medication for her mental illness and had broken up with father. Mother said she had witnessed “significant domestic violence” between her parents when she was a child. According to mother, father had started hitting her two months after their relationship began in December 2012. Father had also put a gun to her head twice while she was pregnant with minor. Mother also told the social worker her goal was to have minor returned to her. The social worker reported that mother regularly attended her twice-weekly visits but “ ‘doesn’t know what to do,’ ” and likely did not have good parental role models. Minor was “comfortable” in his foster home, with his foster mother reporting he was a “joy” to have in their home.

According to addendum reports filed in September 2015, mother had enrolled in domestic violence classes. According to the group facilitator, mother was intoxicated and “ ‘out of control’ ” during her second domestic violence group session and had missed the third session. Mother completed an alcohol and other drug assessment on August 17, 2015. She had three positive drug tests.[4]

On September 16, 2015, the juvenile court found the petition true and sustained the allegations. Minor was adjudged to be a dependent child of the court. The court found mother’s progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement was “minimal.” The court ordered custody removed from mother and found minor could not be placed with father. (§ 361.2, subd. (a).) In addition, the court ordered reunification services and visitation for mother and father.

Mother was also ordered to the dependency drug court and had periods of compliance throughout the dependency proceedings. She received a 90-day compliance certificate in June 2016 and again in March 2017.

In the March 2016 prepermanency review report, the social worker recommended continuing services for mother. Minor was meeting his developmental milestones. Although minor was “initially non-trusting of strangers,” he was “engaging, playful, happy, [and] laughs/smiles a lot.” Minor was placed in a new foster home in January 2016, with “excellent” adjustment. Minor had bonded with his caregivers and their biological children and “appear[ed] comfortable in foster mother’s care.” He also enjoyed playing with the other children in the home.

According to the report, mother had participated in anger management classes, but her attendance was “sporadic.” She “struggle[d] with managing her anger when addressing issues with services providers.” Mother also participated in domestic violence classes, although she said she “does not know why” she needs to participate. She had reportedly resumed her relationship with father, although she denied it. Mother completed parenting classes in February 2016, although the social worker opined mother had not benefitted from the classes. Mother was no longer compliant with her medication for mental health issues, as evidenced by negative drug tests beginning in January 2016. Mother was consistently visiting with minor twice a week. Minor was “usually happy” to see her, and she brought snacks and played with him. Still, mother seemed to have “unrealistic expectations” of minor and “struggle[d] with her knowledge of child development.” Mother wanted minor returned to her care and described herself as a “ ‘good mother’ ” to minor. The social worker said that it was “very high” risk to return minor to mother, since mother had not adequately addressed the issues that led to the dependency and “continue[d] to struggle with being sober.”

A May 2016 addendum report noted mother had nearly completed her domestic violence and anger management counseling. Mother was not referred for general counseling services until May 2016 because she failed to complete face-to-face contact with the social worker in March and April 2016. Mother had been compliant with drug testing since April 2016.

During the May 2016 six-month review hearing (§ 366.21, subd. (e)), the juvenile court found mother’s progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement was “significant.” The court terminated reunification services for father but ordered continued reunification services and visitation for mother.

In an August 2016 status review report, the social worker recommended continued reunification services for mother. Mother was living with the maternal grandmother and two minor maternal aunts. Although mother had not yet participated in general counseling because she had misplaced her referral, she completed her domestic violence and anger management counseling in May 2016. She had not yet completed her psychiatric medication assessment, but she was compliant with her substance abuse services. Mother had weekly unsupervised visits with minor. Minor was “usually happy” to see her and “sometimes cries” when he has to separate. Minor was meeting his developmental milestones and continued to be “engaging, playful and happy.” He had been with his current foster family since January 2016, had adjusted well to his placement, and was “bonded” with his foster family. Minor’s foster family was willing to adopt him, and the social worker determined he was appropriate for adoption.

In August 2016, the juvenile court granted the foster parents de facto parent status. The court found mother’s progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement was “significant.” Mother was participating in services, had maintained her sobriety, was consistent with visitation, had a “better understanding of child development,” and had “taken accountability for her actions that led to the child’s current Dependency.” The court ordered minor be continued as a dependent and continued reunification services and visitation for mother.

Minor was moved to a different foster home in September 2016. In a report dated February 2017, the social worker recommended minor be returned to mother’s care and estimated the risk of returning minor to mother was “moderate.” Mother was unemployed but living with maternal grandmother and two minor maternal aunts. In November 2016, mother reported that father found out where she was living and forced his way into the apartment. Mother was there with minor and her minor sister. Father harassed and threatened mother and then shot mother’s current boyfriend L. J. Mother notified law enforcement, and a restraining order against father remained in effect until August 2017. Despite receiving 18 months of services, mother had not yet completed her case plan. Mother planned to begin counseling services in February 2017 and had taken steps to complete her psychiatric medication evaluation. Although mother had periods of noncompliance with her substance abuse program during the previous six months, she was currently compliant and had successfully completed outpatient services. Mother had unsupervised overnight visits with minor from Fridays to Mondays. Minor was “bonded with the mother” and appeared “comfortable in her care.” Minor sought her for comfort and “interacts with [her] positively.” Minor’s foster mother did not notice any behavioral changes after minor’s visits with mother. Minor was meeting his developmental milestones. He was “very talkative” but “need[ed] time to warm up when meeting new people.” Minor was “doing well” in his new foster home. He was “comfortable” and sought out his foster mother for comfort.

In a March 2017 addendum report, the social worker recommended terminating mother’s services and ordering a plan of adoption. Although minor’s current caregiver was not committed to permanency, his second foster family was willing to provide a permanent home for minor if reunification efforts failed. Mother had not yet engaged in counseling services and had not yet completed her psychiatric medication evaluation. Mother had told the social worker in January 2017 that she was three months pregnant.

In addition, the social worker said that mother had not benefited adequately from domestic violence services. Based on the police reports regarding the November 2016 incident with father,[5] mother failed to tell the social worker key facts, including that L. J. was caring for minor, even though he was not authorized to do so. Father was upset about L. J. caring for minor and called mother, said he knew where she lived, and threatened her. Two months before the incident, father also stopped by her work, obtained L. J.’s phone number from mother’s cell phone, beat mother, and later confronted L. J. on the phone. Mother was “scared” and a “nervous wreck.” Despite the protection order, mother only called father’s probation officer and did not alert police or her social worker.

The day of the incident, father called mother and warned her that he was in her apartment’s parking lot. He then knocked on mother’s door and she let him in. Mother later testified that she thought it was L. J. at the door. Father yelled at mother, assaulted her, and threatened to have someone bring him a gun. Father finally left the apartment and sat out on the front steps. L. J. called and mother warned him not to come over while father was there. Although minor was in the apartment at the time, mother went outside and told father to leave. L. J., who was drunk, showed up and began arguing with father. Someone handed father a gun, which he pointed at mother and L. J. As father was pointing the gun, mother walked in front of him, and father walked around mother and shot L. J. Minor and a minor maternal aunt also came outside and approached as mother and father were arguing, went briefly back inside, and came out again after the shooting. When confronted with the discrepancies between what mother told police and what she told the social worker, mother blamed police for “twist[ing] some of her words.”

In April 2017, the juvenile court held a contested permanency hearing. (§ 366.22.) Mother testified she should have acted differently during the November 2016 incident, including calling law enforcement officers. She had graduated from a six-month substance abuse treatment and three-month aftercare, and would be done with drug court in approximately 40 days. It took her a year to start her required group counseling because it conflicted with other services, including her substance abuse treatment but, as of the hearing, she had completed three group counseling sessions. Mother had graduated from a domestic violence class and was currently enrolled in another class. She also had completed her psychiatric medication evaluation. Mother visited with minor (then age two) once a week for two hours. During the visits, minor “screams mommy and runs up and jumps to me and hugs and asks me if he could come with me when we leave.” Mother brought food to the visits, and the two would eat, play, and read. She would discipline him when necessary. At the end of the visits, minor would start crying and ask to go home with mother.

The juvenile court terminated mother’s services and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing. The court noted mother had failed to complete her case plan, despite being given 18 months of services. In addition, mother’s actions during the November 2016 incident showed she had failed to benefit from her domestic violence services, especially since she blamed father entirely for the incident. She had also showed her inability to protect herself by placing herself between father and L. J. while father was pointing a gun at them. Moreover, mother’s failure to be forthright with the social worker prevented her from receiving supplemental domestic violence services that would have “shored up” mother prior to the 18-month review hearing. In addition, the court expressed concern regarding mother’s relationship with L. J., since they fought on the day of the November 2016 incident. L. J. also disregarded mother’s instructions to stay away while father was there that day. The court reasoned mother was not able to recognize red flags regarding relationships. Although mother had made progress in addressing her substance abuse and anger management issues, her progress in addressing domestic violence was “very, very minimal.” The domestic violence issue continued to be “volatile and so extreme.” The court found minor was adoptable.

In April 2017, the juvenile court dismissed mother from dependency drug court due to the termination of her reunification services.

In July 2017, mother filed a section 388 petition, asking for minor to be returned to her care. Mother argued she had participated in a “substantial amount of services” and “made all the personal changes necessary to provide a safe and stable home for [minor].” Minor was also “closely and positively bonded with her,” and it was in his best interest to be in mother’s care. Mother stated she had attended additional domestic violence classes and completed group and individual counseling in June 2017 (having started in February 2017), with the goal that minor would “never be exposed to that situation again.” She also became involved in a community group for African-American mothers, parent counseling, and mental health treatment, and was currently residing in a maternity shelter that offered counseling and substance abuse treatment. Mother was also cooperating with the district attorney. She continued visiting with minor twice a month. Minor “smiles and comes up to [mother]” at the start of their visits. They shared food, played, read books, talked about family, and addressed minor’s behavior, if necessary. Minor was “often very sad” at the end of visits, and would cry and ask where mother was going. The Department and minor’s counsel opposed mother’s section 388 petition.

The August 2017 selection and implementation report noted minor had been returned to his second foster family’s care in April 2017. They wanted to adopt him and described him as “delightful.” Minor was meeting his developmental milestones. Still, according to the foster parents, minor “appeared anxious and seemed to need routine and reassurance.” After visits with mother, minor had an “emotionless/flat affect,” and was “clumsy” and “obstinate.” After a visit in July 2017, minor hit his foster brother after returning home, which was not minor’s typical behavior. Minor required “repeated reassurance he w[ould] return to the foster parents’ home” when he visited with mother.

Although mother had actively reached out to the Department, consistently visited with minor, and engaged in additional services since the last hearing, the social worker continued to recommend terminating parental rights and freeing minor for adoption. The social worker noted mother continued to describe the November 2016 incident as a “mistake,” indicating she did not understand how dangerous the situation was for herself and minor. In addition, mother failed to provide all the details to the social worker. Although mother participated in some of the services during the reunification period, mother failed to complete her counseling or substance abuse treatment during the allotted period. Minor had been in foster care for almost two years, and the social worker said it was not in his best interest to have permanency delayed.

1. September/October 2017 Hearing

In September and October 2017, the juvenile court held a combined hearing under sections 388 and 366.26. During the hearing, mother asked she be provided reunification services if minor was not returned to her. Mother and three other witnesses testified on her behalf, including a licensed clinical social worker who provided mother with individual and group counseling and testified mother was an “active” participant in her 12 sessions of individual counseling and 12 sessions of group counseling between February and June 2017. Although mother had been “slow getting involved,” the counselor felt the issues from the referral were successfully addressed. Still, mother had not yet had enough time to address the severity of the issues raised in the referral, and mother “need[ed] ongoing counseling.” An instructor for a nurturing parent program testified mother started taking the class in June 2017 and “fully” participated. The instructor for a local domestic violence program testified mother had begun counseling and parenting classes there in April 2017 and “actively participate[d].” Mother stopped attending due to the birth of her new baby, but she could return to complete the courses once she had recovered from the pregnancy. The program also offered more advanced classes, but mother was not yet eligible.

A family service worker who supervised visits between mother and minor for the Department testified mother was consistent with her visits, which used to be weekly but now were once a month. When the family service worker picked minor up for visits, sometimes he seemed “hesitant” to go, and would “stall” before getting in the car. When minor first saw mother, he would “sometimes” walk up and hug her, and would “[o]ccasionally” call her “mom.” Minor would not typically initiate affection with mother. Mother would kiss and hug him and acted appropriately. When mother told minor she loved him, minor would respond, “I love you.” Mother brought her new baby to one of the visits, and minor referred to him as his “brother,” although he was not very interested in playing with him. Minor only “[s]ometimes” cried at the end of a visit. During the first four or five visits, minor asked if he could go with mother at the end of the visit, but mother would say no. Minor no longer asked to go with mother. Minor was “always very happy” when he got home to his second foster family. He would go “right up to the door” and hug his foster mother if she was there. The family service worker did not think minor seemed more anxious after a visit than before, although he was usually “pretty quiet” when he got in the car. Minor called his foster mother “mom” and initiated affection with her.

The foster mother testified minor was placed with her family from January to September 2016, and then returned in April 2017. According to the foster mother, minor “desperately needs permanency.” Minor showed signs of insecurity and was “constantly questioning” where he fit in. He always needed to know where he was going, who he would be with, and when he was coming back. Minor would ask “anyone” who came to the house whether he was going to live with them. He needed “constant reassurance” that his foster family would not leave him by himself. The foster mother explained that she asked the Department to place minor in a different home because he was visiting with mother three days a week and the “fallout” from the visits was “very traumatic” for minor and the foster family. Minor would be extremely hyperactive after such visits and suffered “intense[ly].” Minor would show “no emotion” and “take hours to smile again.” He would also scratch his eczema, get into fights with the other children in the home, sleep poorly, throw toys, cry excessively, and refuse food and drink. He also “reek[ed]” of smoke, wore dirty socks, and had “horrible” eczema when he returned from visits. He would finally get “back on track” by Friday, just before he left for his next weekend visit. The family asked for him back when the social worker informed them he needed an adoptive placement and the visits were decreasing to two hours in length. Minor still needed “a lot of reassurance” before visits with mother, and his anxiety, aggressiveness, and hyperactivity increased. Minor’s foster siblings called him “brother” and had “typical” sibling interactions, including reading, playing, and eating together. To help minor with his fear of the bathtub drain, minor would sit in the foster mother’s lap and say, “Mommy and daddy keep me safe.” Minor had a relationship with the foster parents’ parents and called the foster grandmother “Grammy.” Minor’s foster parents called him “son,” and he called them “mommy” and “daddy.” The foster mother testified she “loved [minor] very much.”

Mother testified that she did not take the case seriously in the beginning, but that changed in 2016 when she realized the Department was trying to help her. Mother testified she made “horrible decision[s]” during the November 2016 incident. When the juvenile court terminated her services in April 2017, her goal became to do “anything” to get minor back. She enrolled in various programs to learn about domestic violence and how to “become a survivor.” She also started counseling, parenting classes, and therapy. The programs had “changed [her] life completely.” Mother learned how to “stick up for [her]self without being abused,” and “gained self-control.” She also understood how “serious” and “traumatic” domestic violence can be for adults and children. Mother continued to attend counseling through the witness protection services. She also planned to resume additional classes and programs now that her new baby was eight weeks old. Mother’s current housing program would allow minor to live with her. Mother testified minor called her “mom” and “mommy” during their visits. Minor would also ask about his extended family. Mother testified she could provide a “safe, loving, nurturing home for both of [her] children.”

With respect to the termination of parental rights hearing, mother argued the beneficial parental relationship exception applied to the minor. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Mother argued she had maintained regular and consistent visitation with minor, and that the benefits of minor’s relationship with her outweighed the benefits of permanency.

The juvenile court issued its decision in October 2017. The court found mother and the foster mother were each “truthful” in their testimony. It was “obvious” that mother loved minor “fully and unconditionally” and had re-engaged in services since they were terminated in April 2017. Nevertheless, the juvenile court denied mother’s section 388 petition. The court noted that, since reunification services had been terminated, the focus was on the minor’s needs for permanence and stability. Mother had a “long and serious history of domestic violence,” with father, beginning in February 2013. Minor was a victim as well. Mother had completed her domestic violence counseling before the court continued services in May 2016. The program was supposed to take 12 weeks, but it took mother from August 2015 to May 2016.

Moreover, mother “did not act on” the lessons of her program during the November 2016 incident. The incident “changed the direction of this case.” The court noted mother had placed herself between father and L. J. while father was pointing a gun at them, and that mother had left out “many significant details” when she told the social worker about the incident, including that minor was in the apartment during the shooting. The incident showed the court that mother “had still not learned from her reunification services how to prevent, cut short or ameliorate such incidents in order to protect, to any extent, herself and her son.”

The court acknowledged that it was “very difficult” for a domestic violence victim to change coping strategies, and found that mother had failed to do so in her 18 months of reunification services. Mother had exhibited that she was now “extraordinarily motivated” to change her life, including completing classes and counseling. However, she had not yet reached the upper levels of the domestic violence classes and had “yet to tackle the negative decision-making and negative behaviors she sustained for more than three years with the father.”

With respect to minor’s best interest, the court noted minor had “been through a lot when it comes to placements” and was “textbook in why the focus in dependency shifts to permanency and stability once reunification services are terminated.” Minor often asked strangers and visitors whether he was going with them, consistent with his experience with multiple placements. Still, minor was “bonded” with the foster parents. He had lived with them for nine months and then another five months, or 14 months total, a significant amount of time given he was only three years old at the time of the hearing. The foster parents and minor loved each other, and he was “doing very well in their care.” Although mother and minor also loved each other, the evidence showed minor was “anguished” when he returned from the three-day overnight visits with mother in the summer and fall of 2016. While mother did not do anything wrong, the time away from his foster parents caused minor’s “fear of being moved” to be “kicked into high gear.” Moreover, the November 2016 incident was traumatic for minor and “had to undermine” his relationship with mother.

The juvenile court also terminated parental rights. It was uncontested that minor was likely to be adopted, and mother had failed to establish the beneficial parental relationship exception applied. Terminating parental rights would not be detrimental and was in minor’s best interests because minor had been removed from mother’s care at a very young age (10 months) and had spent significant time with the foster parents, who wanted to adopt him. In addition, minor was “adverse” to being removed and had a “demonstrated need for permanence.” The juvenile court ordered a permanent plan of adoption.

Mother timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

I

Denial of Section 388 Petition

Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her section 388 petition requesting the juvenile court place minor in her care or, in the alternative, provide reunification services. According to mother, the juvenile court failed to consider that she had changed due to engaging in a significant amount of counseling and other services to address parenting and domestic violence. Additionally, reunification was in minor’s best interest because mother had a lifelong relationship with minor, whereas the foster parents had “g[iven] up on him for six months when they felt it was too challenging to care for him.”

“To prevail on a section 388 petition, the moving party must establish that (1) new evidence or changed circumstances exist, and (2) the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child. [Citation.]” (In re J.T. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 953, 965.) The change of circumstances or new evidence “must be of such significant nature that it requires a setting aside or modification of the challenged prior order.” (Ansley v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 477, 485; see also In re Jamika W. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1451.) When reunification services have been terminated and a section 366.26 hearing has already been set, a court assessing the child’s best interests must recognize that the focus of the case has shifted from the parents’ interest in the care, custody, and companionship of the child to the needs of the child for permanency and stability. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) The child’s best interests “are not to further delay permanency and stability in favor of rewarding” the parent for his or her “hard work and efforts to reunify.” (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527.) “A petition which alleges merely changing circumstances and would mean delaying the selection of a permanent home for a child to see if a parent, who has repeatedly failed to reunify with the child, might be able to reunify at some future point, does not promote stability for the child or the child’s best interests. [Citation.]” (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47.) We review for abuse of discretion a juvenile court’s denial of a section 388 petition. (In re J.T., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 965.)

Although we recognize and laud mother’s participation in domestic violence and parenting programs after April 2017, her efforts were after the juvenile court had already terminated her reunification services and set the section 366.26 hearing. Mother had only recently begun to address the three years of domestic violence she experienced. Mother’s counselor testified she continued to need counseling and had not yet had enough time to address the severity of the issues raised in the referral. In addition, she had not yet completed the domestic violence classes she had joined. The juvenile court did not err in concluding that mother had failed to establish changed circumstances.

Moreover, the record shows it would not be in the minor’s best interests to further delay permanency and stability. The minor had been out of his mother’s care since he was 10 months old, and he had bonded with his foster family. Mother’s interests were no longer paramount at this stage of the proceedings. (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317.) The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion.

II

The Beneficial Parental Relationship Exception

Mother next argues the juvenile court erred in failing to find the beneficial parental relationship exception applied to the minor. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)

Termination of parental rights may be detrimental to the minor when “[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) “Because a section 366.26 hearing occurs only after the court has repeatedly found the parent unable to meet the child’s needs, it is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent’s rights will prevail over the Legislature’s preference for adoptive placement.” (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 (Jasmine D.).) We review with deference a juvenile court’s rejection of an exception to adoption. (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315 [whether the standard of review is deemed substantial evidence or abuse of discretion, broad deference to the lower court is required]; Jasmine D., supra, at p. 1351 [abuse of discretion]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576 [substantial evidence].)

To prove the beneficial parental relationship exception applies, “the parent must show more than frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits—the parent must show that he or she occupies a parental role in the life of the child.” (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1527.) Moreover, it is not enough simply to show “some benefit to the child from a continued relationship with the parent, or some detriment from termination of parental rights.” (Jasmine D., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1349.) “[T]he 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.)

Although mother consistently visited with minor, she failed to show the minor had a significant, positive, emotional attachment to her that would outweigh the well-being the minor would gain in a permanent home with adoptive parents. (See In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 297; accord, Jasmine D., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1345.) The minor had been out of his mother’s care for over two years. While he shared a bond with and loved mother, he had lived the longest (14 months) with his foster family and also loved them. Minor looked to them for care and support, as evidenced by his routine of saying, “Mommy and daddy keep me safe” to allay his fear of emptying the bathtub. He referred to his foster parents as “mommy” and “daddy,” shared a sibling relationship with his foster siblings, and had a relationship with their extended family. Minor needed permanence, as shown by the changes in his behavior before visits with mother, including his need for “a lot of reassurance,” and the increase in his anxiety, aggressiveness, and hyperactivity. The juvenile court did not err in finding that the beneficial parental relationship was inapplicable and terminating parental rights.

DISPOSITION

The orders of the juvenile court are affirmed.

/s/

Robie, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/

Mauro, J.

/s/

Murray, J.