Filed 1/11/18 In re L.F. CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE


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

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVICES BUREAU,
Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
D.F., ET AL.,
Defendants and Appellants.




A150832

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J15-00623)


D.F. (Father) and J.D. (Mother) appeal from an order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, which terminated their parental rights and selected adoption as the permanent plan for L.F. (minor). Mother contends the court erred in terminating her parental rights because she had a beneficial relationship with the minor. Father joins in Mother’s argument and asserts that, if the termination of Mother’s parental rights is reversed, the termination of his parental rights should be reversed too.
We will affirm the order.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The minor was detained from Father and Mother shortly after his birth in May 2015, due to Father’s sexual abuse of the minor’s five-year-old half-sibling and Mother’s failure to protect the half-sibling.
A juvenile dependency petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 on June 1, 2015, alleged that Father sexually abused the half-sibling multiple times, including grabbing the half-sibling’s penis and “violently mov[ing] it up and down,” kissing the half-sibling on the mouth, and telling the half-sibling it was a “secret.” The petition further alleged that Mother failed to protect the half-sibling from the sexual abuse.
A detention and jurisdiction report by respondent, Contra Costa County Children & Family Services Bureau (Bureau), advised that Father had been arrested two months earlier for his sexual abuse of the half-sibling, and he admitted fondling the half-sibling’s penis and kissing him on the mouth. Father and Mother (who entered the room as Father was abusing the half-sibling) nonetheless continued to engage in a pattern of denial regarding the sexual abuse and the risk of harm to Mother’s other children, including the minor. The Bureau expressed “great concern about the safety of the infant [minor] if placed with the parents.”
After a hearing, the court ordered the minor detained.
A. Jurisdictional Hearing
At a contested jurisdictional hearing on July 1, 2015, the court sustained amended allegations that Mother failed to protect the minor’s half-sibling from being sexually abused by Father and there was a substantial risk posed to the minor, and sustained allegations that Father sexually abused the half-sibling and there was a substantial risk of abuse posed to the minor.
B. Disposition Hearing
According to the Bureau’s disposition report, Mother was “still grappling with the reason her family came to the attention of [the Bureau]” and continued to believe that Father was merely “applying the custom of ensuring that the male child’s testicles had descended properly.” Mother also asserted that Father’s “curiosity had gotten the better of him,” but she acknowledged that the half-sibling would not lie about the incident. Father insisted that his actions towards the half-sibling had been misinterpreted.
At the disposition hearing on July 29, 2015, the court ordered family reunification services for Father and Mother.
C. Sixth Month Review
The Bureau’s report for the six-month review noted that Mother was in partial compliance with her case plan. She visited with the minor once a week and met his needs during the visits. She had begun addressing Father’s sexual abuse by working with “A Step Forward,” but the clinician at that program believed the children would not be safe if they were returned to Mother’s care because she still refused to acknowledge the threat of sexual harm. Mother maintained a “reflexive tendency” to deny that any abuse had occurred, she continued to believe Father’s version of events and make excuses for him, and she now declined to answer whether she believed the half-sibling’s account. Despite Mother’s compliance with her case plan, she had not shown any behavioral changes.
Father, who had moved out of the family home, was also partially compliant with his case plan. He had met with the same clinician at A Step Forward, who believed that Father was not telling the truth about his sexual contact with the half-sibling: he had no adequate explanation for touching the half-sibling’s genitals and was unable to articulate why it was important to maintain appropriate boundaries.
At the sixth month review hearing on January 15, 2016, the juvenile court continued family reunification services for Father and Mother and visitation for Mother.
D. Twelve Month Review
For the 12-month review, the Bureau recommended that the court terminate reunification services for both parents and set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. The Bureau explained that Father and Mother had made only minimal progress during the prior review period.
Mother continued to attend supervised visitation with the minor for an hour a week, and she met his needs during the visits. She had been attending individual therapy and was working through her feelings, but her therapist estimated that it would take a year or more before she might understand how seriously her failure to protect her children had harmed them. The prognosis for returning the minor to her care was poor, because although she complied with her case plan, she had not shown behavioral changes. Her denial of the nature of Father’s behavior and her “pattern of misleading and evasive behavior” posed a significant risk to the safety and well-being of her children.
Father was participating in services with A Step Forward. However, he did not pass an “incident polygraph” that was part of his sexual risk evaluation, so further polygraphs and screenings were needed to determine appropriate treatment. A clinician reported that Father was “a sexual risk to children at this time” in light of the nature of the allegations and his likely lack of truthfulness about what happened. The Bureau concluded he posed a significant risk to the minor’s physical wellbeing.
According to an additional memorandum submitted by the Bureau on October 3, 2016, Mother and Father continued to engage in case plan services but also continued to demonstrate evasiveness and a lack of insight. At a meeting with the social worker on September 27, 2016, Mother reiterated her original view that Father had not engaged in any inappropriate sexual conduct with the half-sibling, and said she was not worried about her children’s safety if they were returned to her care because Father would not be home all the time. The Bureau remained concerned about Father’s failure to admit the sexual nature of his conduct, the number of times he changed his story to police and the Bureau, both parents’ poor insight with respect to the impact of sexual abuse on the family, and the parents’ continued need for intensive group and individual therapy.
At the 12-month review hearing on December 19, 2016, the Bureau maintained its recommendation to terminate services and set a 366.26 hearing. Minor’s counsel endorsed the recommendation. Mother and Father objected to the recommendation but did not present any evidence.
The court determined that reasonable services had been provided, terminated reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing.
E. Section 366.26 Hearing
At the section 366.26 hearing on March 3, 2017, the Bureau's section 366.26 report was admitted into evidence. The report advised that the minor was a healthy, happy, and social child, with no major medical or developmental concerns. He was described as strong-willed but loving, and he was “highly adoptable.” Although he had three prior placements, he had been happily residing with his current foster mother for nearly nine months, and he looked to her for “emotional support, guidance and love.” The foster mother had an approved home study and wanted to adopt the minor.
The report recognized that Mother and Father had visited the minor separately in supervised visits at the Bureau’s office. Mother was attentive to the minor’s needs and Father was warm and appropriate. However, the Bureau concluded, the relationships of Father and Mother to the minor did not outweigh the benefits of adoption.
Mother and Father did not present any evidence. Mother’s lawyer argued that Mother remained in therapy, had complied with all court orders, and visited consistently with the minor. She asked that parental rights not be terminated, and that the minor be returned to Mother’s care. Father’s lawyer argued that Father had consistently visited with the minor, he performed his case plan, and the sexual abuse allegations pertained to a different child.
The Bureau urged that, although the parents had visited the minor, there was no parental bond. The minor’s attorney agreed, confirming that the minor was “absolutely adoptable” and deserved to have a permanent plan.
The juvenile court found that the minor was likely to be adopted and terminated Father’s and Mother’s parental rights, noting that the bond between the parents and the minor did not outweigh the need for permanency of the child.
This appeal followed.
II. DISCUSSION
Under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), the juvenile court must terminate parental rights if it finds the child is likely to be adopted, unless the parent establishes that the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child under a specific statutory exception. (In re Rachel M. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295.)
In this case, there is no dispute that the minor is likely to be adopted. Mother’s sole contention is that she established the statutory exception for having a beneficial relationship with the minor. (See § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Father joins Mother’s argument.
To establish the beneficial relationship exception, a parent must demonstrate that he or she “maintained regular visitation and contact” with the child and that the child “would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449.) The relationship must be a genuine “parental relationship,” and not just a “friendly or familiar one.” (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350, italics added.) Further, the parent must prove that maintaining this parental relationship would outweigh the well-being the minor would obtain in a permanent home with an adoptive parent. (In re Noah G. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1300.) Thus, the juvenile court “balances the strength and quality of the natural parent/child relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer. 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.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575. Italics added.)
Here, Mother contends she regularly visited the minor and the visits were appropriate. She also argues that the minor was detained at birth and during the “time she was given with [the minor] she showed herself to be an attuned, loving mother to a child who would benefit from having his biological parent in his life,” and therefore the “preference for adoption was overcome and Mother’s parental rights should not have been terminated.”
Mother’s argument is unpersuasive. There was no evidence that she had established a parental relationship with the minor. Her contact consisted of a one-hour supervised visit per week. While she enjoyed the visits and met the minor’s needs during the visits – feeding him, changing his diapers, talking to him, and displaying affection – there is no evidence that she played a parental role or developed such a bond that the minor would be greatly harmed if her parental rights were terminated. (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1527 [parent must show not just frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits, but that he or she occupies a parental role in the child’s life]; In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 827 [although relationship between parent and child was pleasant and emotionally significant to the child, it bore “no resemblance to the sort of consistent, daily nurturing that marks a parental relationship”].) Moreover, there was no evidence that maintaining the relationship between Mother and the minor would outweigh the well-being the minor would gain in a permanent home with the prospective adoptive parent.
Mother argues that “for equitable reasons, the court should consider the circumstances of this case, as it appears the parties simply moved through the motions in a rote fashion to terminate parental rights.” The record refutes the assertion that the proceedings were “rote.” Furthermore, Mother provides no authority for the proposition that the beneficial relationship exception can be established based on a parent’s equitable interests, let alone that this court is compelled to reverse the juvenile court’s decision on that ground.
Lastly, Mother casts blame on the Bureau and the juvenile court. She argues that she “is Filipina and of Tagalog descent and although social work and its workers are supposed to be culturally competent, it appears Mother’s cultural issues were given little value.” She complains that “through December 2016, the social worker was reporting L.F. cried uncontrollably, could not self sooth, wanted to be held most of the day, and was fearful of being left alone in the room,” “[y]et less than three months later every single one of these issues miraculously disappeared.” And she contends the court gave “little consideration to the unique facts of this case or even to the parents as individuals” and “lumped the parents together stating the bond ‘they shared with the child’ did not outweigh the need for permanency of the child.”
Mother’s aspersions are unfounded. The record shows that the Bureau considered the relevant social and cultural issues. There is no indication that the characterization of the minor’s health by the Bureau—and by the minor’s own attorney – was incorrect, that the minor had any serious medical condition or developmental delay, or that the minor was not adoptable. The juvenile court plainly considered the evidence, and obviously meant by its statement that neither any bond Father shared with the minor nor any bond Mother shared with the minor outweighed the need for the minor’s permanency. Substantial if not overwhelming evidence supported the court’s conclusion.
III. DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
 

NEEDHAM, J.



We concur.




SIMONS, ACTING P.J.




BRUINIERS, J.









(A150832)