In re P.A. CA2/8

Filed 8/19/24 In re P.A. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re P.A., a Person Coming B333923 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 19LJJP00900D DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kristen Byrdsong, Commissioner. Affirmed. Sarah Vaona, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Tarkian & Associates and Arezoo Pichvai for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________ A mother appeals the order of the juvenile court that terminated her parental rights to her daughter P.A, who is now about two and a half years old and has never lived with the mother. The mother claims the court erred in finding the parental-benefit exception did not apply to her relationship with P.A. (See In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 631–632 (Caden C.).) To prove the Caden C. exception applies, the mother must establish that: (1) she visited her child regularly; (2) a substantial, positive, and emotional attachment existed between her and the child; and (3) terminating this attachment would be detrimental to the child. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 631, 636.) We review decisions on the first two elements for substantial evidence. We review the third element for abuse of discretion. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 639–640.) Both standards are deferential. We resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the dependency court’s ruling, draw all reasonable inferences from that evidence in favor of the ruling, and do not reweigh evidence or credibility findings. (Estate of Berger (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1293, 1307.) We review the court’s ruling, not its reasoning. If the ruling was correct on any ground, we affirm. (In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875.) The juvenile court found the mother had not satisfied parts two or three of the Caden C. test, and the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) exception therefore did not apply. Code citations are to the Welf. & Inst. Code.