1
Filed 4/28/17 In re L.F. CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re L.F., a Person Coming Under the
Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
D.F. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
E066981
(Super.Ct.No. J254642)
OPINION
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B.
Marshall, Judge. Affirmed.
Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant D.F.
Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant J.R.
2
Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Kristina M. Robb, Deputy County Counsel
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of defendants and appellants
J.R. (Mother) and D.F. (Father; collectively Parents) to L.F. (Minor). (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 366.26.)1
Father contends the juvenile court erred by terminating his parental
rights because the court should have applied the parent-child bond exception.
(§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Mother contends the juvenile court erred by terminating
her parental rights because the court should have applied the parent-child bond
exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. BACKGROUND
Mother and Father were married. Minor is male and was born in March 2008.
Father was Minor’s presumed father. Father worked as a carpenter and handyman on
home repairs and remodels. Mother worked as a house sitter and occasionally worked
with Father on home repairs and remodels.
B. FIRST DETENTION
On May 2, 2014, Mother and Minor went to a domestic violence shelter. Mother
had a large bruise underneath her right eye, and said Father struck her. Mother
experienced symptoms of substance abuse withdrawal and admitted she abused heroin.

1
All subsequent statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions
Code, unless otherwise indicated.
3
Parents abused methamphetamines. Father was “on the run” due to the domestic
violence allegations.
On May 3, Mother and Minor were taken to a hospital. Minor confirmed that
Father would hit Mother and throw things at Mother, which caused Mother to cry “a
lot.” Minor worried about Mother when Father hit her. Minor was dirty, could not
recall when he last bathed, and said he was “starving.” Minor’s teeth were dirty and
stained; he said he had never been to a dentist. Minor said “he really doesn’t like his
father and stated that his mother says [Father] is ‘selfish.’”
Plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services
(the Department) took Minor into protective custody. Minor was placed in a foster
home.
C. FIRST JURISDICTION AND DISPOSITION
Mother told the Department that Minor’s basic needs such as food and medical
care were met by Parents. Mother said to the Department social worker, “I cannot
believe you guys think he is thin.” Minor’s foster mother asked Minor when he last ate
dinner. Minor said he could not recall and explained that “he does not get food all the
time because his father and mother are poor and they can’t afford to buy food.” The
foster mother took Minor for a medical exam. The doctor was concerned about Minor’s
14 percent body mass index, because it should be 18 percent. A dental exam revealed
Minor needed extensive dental work: three extractions and five crowns with possible
root canals.
4
Father denied striking Mother. Father explained that he and Mother argued
because he refused to give her money to purchase drugs. Father said Mother had
previously been injured by an unknown person when “out looking for heroin or money.”
Father admitted engaging in domestic violence in the past, but denied any current
violence. Father suffered from depression, and treated it with marijuana.
Minor visited Father. They had positive interactions during the visit. Minor also
visited Mother. Their interactions were also positive. At the end of the visit with
Mother, Minor cried and said he did not want to leave. Minor did not have a similar
emotional reaction when leaving after the visit with Father.
The juvenile court found true the allegations that (1) Parents suffer from
substance abuse issues that compromise their ability to properly care for Minor;
(2) Parents failed to provide medical care for Minor and neglected Minor’s basic needs;
and (3) Parents engaged in domestic violence in Minor’s presence thereby placing
Minor at risk of serious harm. (§ 300, subd. (b).) The court ordered Minor removed
from Parents’ physical custody.
D. SUBSEQUENT DETENTION, JURISDICTION, AND DISPOSITION
Minor acted out sexually. Minor said Parents “d[id] things” while he was in their
bed. Father admitted he and Mother slept in the nude and engaged in sexual intercourse
while Minor was in their bed. Additionally, Mother masturbated while Minor was in
the bed. Father denied having sexual contact with Minor. Father did not “think there
was anything wrong” with Minor being in the bed while Parents engaged in intercourse.
Father believed Minor slept through the intercourse. Father asserted Minor acted out
5
sexually due to “an incident that occurred while in foster care.” Parents were arrested
for committing a lewd act in the presence of a child. (Pen. Code, § 273g.)
Minor said he slept in Parents’ bed, between Mother and Father, because Minor
would fall out of bed. Father slept in the nude, which Minor did not like, thought was
weird, and thought Father “should not do that.”
As of December 8, Mother had not engaged in any services; Father completed a
90-day inpatient substance abuse treatment program. Father was living with a friend
and had approximately three weeks of contractor jobs scheduled. Mother was
unemployed and her whereabouts were unknown. Parents’ home was in foreclosure.
The Department filed a subsequent petition. (§ 342.) The juvenile court found
true the allegations that Parents admitted to engaging in sexual activities while Minor
was in the same bed. (§ 300, subd. (d).)
E. TWELVE-MONTH REVIEW
In May 2015, Mother was participating in a 90-day inpatient substance abuse
treatment program, where she was working on all components of her case plan. Mother
planned to move into a sober living facility that allowed children following her
discharge from the inpatient facility; however, she had not identified a particular sober
living facility. Mother regularly visited with Minor and “they seem[ed] to be very
bonded.”
Father completed his case plan. Father continued to test negative for drugs, but
did have abnormal creatine levels. Father was working steadily via his landscaping
business. Father was working on obtaining stable housing. Father regularly visited
6
Minor and “they have a strong bond.” The Department concluded Parents needed to
obtain stable housing before Minor could be returned to them on a plan of family
maintenance. The visiting schedule allowed for weekly visits: two-hour visits for each
parent individually, or four hours with both. At times, the visits lasted as long as eight
hours.
The juvenile court ordered Minor continue to be removed from Parents’ physical
custody.
F. EIGHTEEN-MONTH REVIEW
Father was permitted to have overnight visits with Minor. On May 19, the
juvenile court approved once per week overnight visits for Mother and Minor. On June
23, Mother’s drug test showed an abnormal pH level and substituted creatine levels—
reflecting substituted urine. The Department required Mother to take another drug test.
On June 29, Mother tested positive for amphetamines and opiates. Mother’s overnight
visits were canceled.
Father agreed Mother would not be at his overnight visits with Minor. On July 6,
Minor accidentally told his foster mother that Mother was at his visit with Father.
Minor cried because he was not supposed to reveal Mother had been present at the visit.
Father admitted Mother was at the visit, but he “didn’t think it was an issue.” Father’s
visits with Minor reverted to supervised visits.
Father re-enrolled in therapy to work on enabling behaviors, such as permitting
Mother to visit Minor when she was not allowed to be at the visit. Father obtained
7
housing and was working full time. Father and Minor’s unsupervised visits resumed in
October 2015.
Mother was unemployed and did not have stable housing. Mother regularly
visited Minor and appeared “bonded with him.” Mother had been scheduled for 16 drug
tests during the reporting period: she failed to appear for nine of the tests, and tested
positive for amphetamines and opiates at three of the tests. Mother and Father ended
their relationship due to Mother’s drug abuse.
On November 24, 2015, the juvenile court returned Minor to Father’s custody on
a plan of family maintenance. The court terminated Mother’s reunification services.
The court permitted Mother to have weekly, two-hour supervised visits with Minor.
The court ordered Father to not supervise Mother’s visits with Minor, and that “Mother
is not to reside in [Father’s] home. The court gives [the] social worker authority to
remove the child from Father if Mother is found to be in the home or is visiting or
coming to the home.”
G. SUPPLEMENTAL DETENTION, JURISDICTION, AND
DISPOSITION
For two years, a San Bernardino County Sheriff’s detective had been
investigating a grand larceny case. Father was identified in a lineup. Father had been
hired to do handy work at a home; while working he stole items, leaving the residence
“almost empty.” On February 2, 2016, a detective and a deputy went to Father’s home
to arrest him. Father was not present, but Mother was at the residence. It appeared
Mother had been staying at the residence in violation of the court’s order. When Father
8
was located, he was arrested for grand larceny. Minor was detained by the Department
on February 3 and placed in foster care.
The juvenile court found true the allegations that (1) Father was arrested for
grand larceny and was therefore unable to care for Minor; and (2) Mother was found in
Father’s home in violation of a court order. (§ 387.) The court ordered Minor continue
to be removed from Parents’ physical custody. The court terminated Father’s
reunification services.
H. TERMINATION
Minor was in third grade; his grades dropped after the latest removal. Minor was
placed in the foster home of people who cared for him during his prior removal. Minor
was well-adjusted to the foster parents’ home, and said he enjoyed living in their home.
The foster parents wanted to adopt Minor. When Minor was asked how he felt about
adoption, Minor responded, “It’s ok, at least I get a good mom and dad.”
Father called Minor almost daily. During one phone call, which was supervised,
Father discussed kidnapping Minor, which confused Minor. After the kidnapping
discussion, in May, no further incidents occurred during the phone calls. Father visited
Minor regularly, once per week for two hours. Minor enjoyed his visits with Father.
They played games, drew pictures, or watched television.
Mother missed two visits, which upset Minor because Mother provided no notice
of cancellation. Otherwise, Mother visited regularly. Mother and Minor played games,
drew pictures, or watched television.
9
The juvenile court held a termination hearing on September 26, 2016. The
Department social worker testified. The social worker opined that Father and Minor
had a strong bond, but that it was a bond of friendship, rather than a parent-child bond.
The social worker explained that Minor called Father “Father.” However, if Minor
needed anything he sought out his foster parents. For example, Minor was struggling to
make friends at school. Minor sought out the foster parents to discuss that issue. Father
called Minor on a daily basis; the phone calls lasted a maximum of 10 minutes.
During the latest removal from Father’s custody, the social worker noticed Minor
was confused and upset on the day of removal, but when informed that he was going to
his former foster parents’ home, he said, “Okay. That was my favorite foster parent,”
and seemed his usual self since that time. Minor told the social worker he wanted to be
adopted because it would be a permanent home. Minor also said he would like to
continue visiting Parents, but if the visits prevented the adoption from occurring, then
he would forego the visits in favor of being adopted.
Father testified at the hearing. Father and Mother cared for Minor for the first six
years of his life. During Father’s phone calls with Minor, which he tried to make every
day, he discussed school issues with Minor such as Minor being bullied. At the
beginning of the in-person visits, Minor would typically run to Father and give him a
hug. At the end of the visits, Minor and Father hugged, and Minor told Father he loved
him. Minor did not cry during the visits.
The parties stipulated that if Minor were called testify, he would state that he
wanted to stay with the foster parents, but continue a relationship with Parents. Minor’s
10
counsel asserted there was a bond of friendship between Father and Minor but that bond
does not “come[] anywhere near warranting the lesser preferred plan of legal
guardianship.” Father’s attorney argued that Minor could “have the best of both
worlds” by having the security of a guardianship with the foster parents, and continuing
visitation with Father. Mother was not present at the termination hearing, but her
counsel joined in Father’s argument. Mother’s attorney noted Minor was upset when
Mother failed to attend visits, which showed Minor wanted to visit Mother.
The juvenile court found Minor was adoptable. The court noted Mother
regularly visited Minor, but the visits were supervised. The court found no evidence
reflecting Mother was occupying a parental role in Minor’s life. In regard to Father, the
court concluded Father continued to allow Mother to have unsupervised contact with
Minor. The court found Minor had a strong need for permanence. The court found
contact between Minor and Father was insufficient to establish a beneficial parent-child
relationship. Additionally, the court found Minor would not be harmed by terminating
parental rights. The juvenile court terminated Parents’ parental rights.
DISCUSSION
A. FATHER’S APPEAL
Father contends the juvenile court erred by not applying the parent-child bond
exception to terminating parental rights. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
If a juvenile court finds a dependent child is adoptable, then it will terminate
parental rights unless one of the statutorily enumerated exceptions is applicable.
(§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) One of the enumerated exceptions provides that parental rights
11
shall not be terminated if “[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).)
There is a split of authority as to which standard of review is applicable to a
decision to not apply the parent-child bond exception: (1) substantial evidence;
(2) abuse of discretion; or (3) a hybrid of substantial evidence and abuse of discretion.
(In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425 [Fourth Dist., Div. Three applied
the substantial evidence standard]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576
[Fourth Dist., Div. One applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Jasmine D.
(2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [First Dist., Div. Three applying the abuse of
discretion standard]; In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 [Second Dist.,
Div. Eight applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th
614, 621-622 [Second Dist., Div. Seven applying the hybrid standard]; In re Bailey J.
(2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315 [Sixth Dist. applying the hybrid standard in a
sibling relationship exception case].)
We choose to apply the hybrid standard in this opinion. The juvenile court found
Father consistently visited Minor and maintained contact with him. Therefore, we will
focus on the beneficial relationship prong of the analysis.
“‘The factors to be considered when looking for whether a relationship is
important and beneficial are: (1) the age of the child, (2) the portion of the child’s life
spent in the parent’s custody, (3) the positive or negative effect of interaction between
12
the parent and the child, and (4) the child’s particular needs.’” (In re Jason J. (2009)
175 Cal.App.4th 922, 937-938.)
As to the first factor, Minor was eight years old at the time of the termination
hearing. In regard to the second factor, Minor was removed from Parents’ custody
when he was six years old. Minor was returned to Father’s custody for approximately
two and one-half months during the course of this dependency case, from November 24,
2015, to February 3, 2016. Thus, Minor was in Father’s custody for approximately six
of his eight years.
The third factor concerns the positive or negative effect of the parent-child
interactions. When Minor was initially removed, Minor said “he really doesn’t like his
father.’” At the time of the termination hearing, Minor said he would like to continue
having a relationship with Father, but not if it interfered with being adopted. At the end
of visits with Father, Minor hugged Father and told Father he loved him, but did not cry.
It appears from this evidence that Father’s interactions with Minor were positive
because Minor was interested in continuing a relationship with Father; however, they
were not so positive that Minor was concerned about missing Father, as shown by the
willingness to forego visits and the lack of crying when visits ended.
The fourth factor is the child’s needs. At the time of the termination hearing,
Minor told the social worker he wanted to be adopted because it would bring a
permanent home. Minor also said he would like to continue visiting Parents, but if the
visits prevented the adoption from occurring, then he would forego the visits in favor of
13
being adopted. The evidence reflects Minor needed permanency because he prioritized
permanence.
In sum, Minor spent six years in Father’s physical custody and two years
removed from Father’s physical custody. Minor had positive interactions with Father,
but the positive effects were not so strong that they caused Minor to be upset about
being separated from Father or caused him to be concerned about missing Father. Also,
Minor needed permanency.
Under the hybrid standard, the issue of whether a beneficial relationship exists is
reviewed for substantial evidence. The decision of whether that relationship constitutes
a compelling reason for termination being detrimental to the child is reviewed for an
abuse of discretion. (In re K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 622.)
The juvenile court found there was not evidence to establish a beneficial
relationship. Under the substantial evidence standard, our review “‘begins and ends
with a determination as to whether or not there is any substantial evidence, whether or
not contradicted, which will support the conclusion of the trier of fact. All conflicts
must be resolved in favor of the respondent and all legitimate inferences indulged in to
uphold the [ruling], if possible.’” (In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1633.)
The evidence reflects Minor needed permanence. Father’s relationship with
Minor did not provide for that need. The evidence reflects Minor wanted to be adopted
because adoption would bring permanence. If visitation with Father interfered with the
adoption, then Minor was willing to forego visits with Father. Thus, Minor did not see
Father as a person that would fulfill his need for permanence—he saw adoption as
14
fulfilling that need. Additionally, Father permitted Mother to be in his home, in
violation of a court order, which led to Minor’s latest removal. This action shows
Father put his needs and/or Mother’s needs ahead of Minor’s need for permanence
because Father risked Minor being removed from the home by having Mother there.
Because the evidence reflects Father put his and/or Mother’s needs ahead of Minor’s
need for permanence, and Minor did not see Father as a person who fulfilled Minor’s
need for permanence, there is substantial evidence that it was not a beneficial
relationship.
The juvenile court found Minor would not be harmed by terminating Father’s
parental rights. “An abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court has exceeded
the bounds of reason by making an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd
determination.” (In re Marcelo B. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 635, 642.) Minor said he
would be willing to continue visiting Father, but not if the visits interfered with being
adopted. This evidence supports the determination that Minor would not harmed by the
termination of Father’s parental rights because Minor wanted adoption more than he
wanted to continue a relationship with Father. Minor expressed that a relationship with
Father was secondary to adoption. Accordingly, the juvenile court acted within the
bounds of reason by concluding Minor would not be harmed by the termination of
parental rights because Minor stated he wanted to be adopted.
In sum, the juvenile court’s finding that there was not a beneficial parent-child
relationship is supported by substantial evidence, and the juvenile court’s conclusion
that Minor would not be harmed by the termination of parental rights is within the
15
bounds of reason. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err by not applying the
parent-child bond exception.
B. MOTHER’S APPEAL
Mother contends the juvenile court erred by not applying the parent-child bond
exception to terminating parental rights. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
We choose to apply the hybrid standard in this opinion. The juvenile court found
Mother consistently visited Minor and maintained contact with him. Therefore, we will
focus on the beneficial relationship prong of the analysis.
“‘The factors to be considered when looking for whether a relationship is
important and beneficial are: (1) the age of the child, (2) the portion of the child’s life
spent in the parent’s custody, (3) the positive or negative effect of interaction between
the parent and the child, and (4) the child’s particular needs.’” (In re Jason J., supra,
175 Cal.App.4th at p. 937-938.)
As to the first factor, Minor was eight years old at the time of the termination
hearing. In regard to the second factor, Minor was removed from Parents’ custody
when he was six years old. Thus, Minor was in Mother’s custody for approximately six
of his eight years.
The third factor concerns the positive or negative effect of the parent-child
interactions. At the time of the termination hearing, Minor said he would like to
continue having a relationship with Mother, but not if it interfered with being adopted.
It appears from this evidence that Mother’s interactions with Minor were positive
because Minor was interested in continuing a relationship with Mother; however, they
16
were not so positive that Minor was concerned about missing Mother, as shown by the
willingness to forego visits.
The fourth factor is the child’s needs. At the time of the termination hearing,
Minor told the social worker he wanted to be adopted because it would bring a
permanent home. Minor also said he would like to continue visiting Parents, but if the
visits prevented the adoption from occurring, then he would forego the visits in favor of
being adopted. The evidence reflects Minor needed permanency because he prioritized
having a permanent home.
The juvenile court found there was not evidence to establish a beneficial
relationship. We apply the substantial evidence standard of review, which is set forth
ante. Minor needed permanence. Mother violated a court order by being in Father’s
house. Mother missed two visits with Minor, and did not provide notice of her
cancellation, which caused Minor to be upset. Mother’s actions do not reflect a
beneficial relationship with Minor because Mother was not behaving in a manner that
would help to provide Minor with the permanence he needed. Mother’s act of being at
Father’s house led to Minor’s latest removal from Father’s custody. Mother’s decision
to put her needs and/or Father’s needs ahead of Minor’s need for permanence, reflect
the relationship was not beneficial. Thus, the juvenile court’s finding is supported by
substantial evidence.
The juvenile court found Minor would not be harmed by terminating Mother’s
parental rights. We apply the abuse of discretion standard of review, which is set forth
ante. Minor said he would be willing to continue visiting Mother, but not if the visits
17
interfered with being adopted. This evidence supports the determination that Minor
would not harmed by the termination of Mother’s parental rights because Minor wanted
adoption more than he wanted to continue a relationship with Mother. Minor expressed
that a relationship with Mother was secondary to adoption. Accordingly, the juvenile
court acted within the bounds of reason by concluding Minor would not be harmed by
the termination of parental rights because Minor stated he wanted to be adopted.
In sum, the juvenile court’s finding that there was not a beneficial parent-child
relationship is supported by substantial evidence, and the juvenile court’s conclusion
that Minor would not be harmed by the termination of parental rights is within the
bounds of reason. Accordingly, the juvenile court did not err by not applying the
parent-child bond exception.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
FIELDS
J.