In re M.D. CA4/1

Filed 1/23/25 In re M.D. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re M.D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D084697 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. EJ4797) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B.D.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Mark T. Cumba, Judge. Affirmed. Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Claudia G. Silva, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel and J. Jeffrey Bitticks, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

B.D. (Father) appeals a juvenile court’s order terminating his parental rights to his child, M.D. (Child), under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. He contends the court should have applied the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption, under section 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i). We disagree and affirm the order terminating parental rights. I. In August 2022, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filed a petition under section 300(b)(1), alleging then 10-month-old Child was exposed to a violent confrontation between Father and Child’s mother (Mother) in the family home. The Agency reported that Father and Mother had a history of domestic violence, failed to comply with a safety plan, and declined to separate for Child’s safety. The court detained Child in a foster home and ordered liberal supervised visits. Child was placed with a caregiver about a week later. The court subsequently sustained the petition, ordering reunification services for Mother and Father. Father had his first visit with Child in October 2022. He was appropriate with Child, who cried at first but eventually appeared to recognize him. By the end of the visit, Child was getting comfortable with Father, would smile and babble with him, but still avoided eye contact. Father continued visits in-person, by phone, and by video. The in-person visits occurred weekly, facilitated by the caregiver. Child engaged positively with Father and always appeared happy to see him. The Agency reported it was clear Child and Father were bonded. Father, however, did not engage in services and his visits remained supervised throughout the case. Father did not visit Child between July and September 2023, as he reportedly moved out of the state during that time.