California Court of Appeal Feb 27, 2025 No. E084683Unpublished
Filed 2/27/25 In re G.A. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 G.A., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E084683
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. DPSW2200050)
v. OPINION
Neftali A.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Kelly L. Hansen, Judge.
Affirmed.
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Minh C. Tran, County Counsel, Teresa K.B. Beecham and Julie Jarvi, Deputy
County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Neftali A. (Father) appeals from the termination of his parental rights to his minor
son, G.A. He contends that the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the beneficial
parental relationship exception under subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) of Welfare and Institutions
Code section 366.26 (unlabeled statutory references are to this code). We affirm.
In July 2022, Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS)
received a report from Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services,
stating that while G.A.’s paternal aunt was visiting G.A.’s paternal grandmother, Father
hit the paternal aunt during a physical altercation. The paternal aunt reported that Father,
Mother, and G.A. were living with the paternal grandmother, and the paternal aunt did
not know how long they had been there.1 The paternal aunt called the police, and the
parents left before the police arrived. G.A. was six months old at the time.
The following month, DPSS interviewed Mother at the maternal great-
grandmother’s home, where Mother was living. Mother said that she did not live with
Father and that neither she nor G.A. was involved in the incident between Father and the
paternal aunt. Mother denied current substance abuse but admitted that she had a history
of abusing substances. DPSS was unable to make contact with Father.
Later that month, DPSS received an immediate response referral alleging that the
parents had an argument about taking G.A. to the doctor. As Mother was leaving with
1 Mother is not a party in this appeal. 2
G.A., Father pushed Mother’s thighs and face into the couch. Father followed Mother,
and as Mother put G.A. into his car seat, Father got into the driver’s seat to prevent
Mother from leaving. Father then got into his car and drove into Mother’s car to block
her. Mother and G.A. were in her car when Father drove into it. The parents eventually
agreed to take G.A. to the doctor together, but they forgot G.A.’s bottle and turned
around to get it. While Father went to get the bottle, the paternal aunt took G.A. and
called the police. Father fled on foot before the police arrived. Mother’s temple was red,
and she had a cut on her lip. G.A. was uninjured. The paternal aunt told the social
worker that Father does not take care of G.A. when he visits, and relatives need to help
feed G.A.
DPSS went to Mother’s home and spoke to the maternal great-grandmother. The
maternal great-grandmother stated that the parents were always fighting. She described
Father as “very demeaning and possessive.” She said that there have been multiple
incidents of domestic violence, and Father sometimes shows up unannounced and takes
G.A. with him. The maternal great-grandmother also told DPSS that she does not believe
that Mother is currently using drugs but acknowledged that Mother has a history of
substance abuse. The maternal great-grandmother told DPSS that Father uses heroin and
“[possibly] fentanyl” and that he sells drugs.
DPSS tried to contact Father, but he did not answer. DPSS spoke to D.P., a minor
paternal aunt, who said that she saw Father hitting Mother during the altercation, and
G.A. was watching with a “blank stare.” D.P. stated that she was unable to count the
number of times that the parents engaged in domestic violence. She said that Father was
3
using drugs and that she found drug paraphernalia in Father’s car earlier that day. She
was concerned about Father’s ability to care for G.A. because he had been unable to do
so in the past.
The following day, DPSS spoke to Mother again. Mother described her
relationship with Father as “‘terrible and with lots of chaos.’” Mother said that she had a
criminal history involving drugs and that she had used heroin and methamphetamine in
the past. DPSS asked if Mother would take a saliva drug test, and Mother refused.
Mother told DPSS that Father smokes methamphetamine, and Mother tested positive for
amphetamine the next day.
DPSS placed G.A. into protective custody and filed a section 300 petition alleging
that G.A. was at serious risk of physical or emotional harm because of the parents’
domestic violence in G.A.’s presence; that the parents have a child welfare referral
history with allegations of general neglect; that the parents have a criminal history; that
Mother abuses controlled substances and has a history of substance abuse; that Father has
a history of substance abuse; and that Father’s whereabouts were unknown, and he was
unable or unwilling to care for G.A.
At the detention hearing in September 2022, the juvenile court detained G.A. from
both parents. The court ordered supervised visitation for the parents and granted a
temporary restraining order prohibiting Father from contacting Mother or coming within
100 yards of her.
4
II. Jurisdiction and disposition
Father called DPSS later that week and provided a telephone number and mailing
address where he could be reached. He told DPSS that he was homeless and that he
usually borrowed a phone from a friend. Mother reported that Father had not been a part
of G.A.’s daily life and that when she brought G.A. to see Father in June, he assaulted her
and took G.A. with him.
The paternal aunt reported that Father was responsible with G.A. when Father was
not using drugs. Mother would sometimes leave G.A. with Father for “days at a time,”
and Father would not take adequate care of G.A. when he was using drugs. The paternal
aunt also reported that on one occasion, she told Father that he should be caring for his
child, and Father pushed her while she was holding G.A. She told DPSS that she
believed that Father was using methamphetamine “for a while” and that Mother was
using drugs. She said that Mother has used methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl, and
she believed that Mother got the drugs from Father.
Mother agreed to take a saliva drug test at her home, and she tested positive for
methamphetamine. Mother admitted drug use and told DPSS that heroin was her drug of
choice.
G.A.’s caregiver, the paternal aunt, reported that G.A. was sleeping better than
when he first arrived. The paternal aunt also reported that G.A. was rolling over and
“sliding backwards on his knees.” She said that G.A. was using a walker to walk around
the home, pinching and grabbing for things, and improving his coordination. She denied
having any concerns about G.A.’s mental and emotional status. DPSS reported that
5
G.A.’s placement was suitable to meet his needs and that the paternal aunt showed
interest in adopting G.A. if he was unable to return to his parents’ care.
In an addendum report, DPSS reported that Mother had tested negative for drugs
in September 2022. DPSS also reported that Father stated that he was willing to visit
with G.A. DPSS observed the paternal aunt’s home, which was neat, organized, and free
of hazards. The paternal aunt had provisions to care for G.A., and G.A. was dressed
appropriately. He had no marks or bruises and appeared healthy. The paternal aunt told
DPSS that Father often calls G.A. and that he had called G.A. on the previous day. G.A.
recognized Father’s voice.
DPSS reported that during Father’s first visit with G.A., Father took G.A. out of
his car seat and played with him. Father read to him and kissed and hugged him. Father
changed his diaper, and when the visit ended, Father buckled him into his car seat, kissed
him, and said goodbye. Father left with tears in his eyes. DPSS reported that Father was
appropriate and did not need any redirection.
DPSS spoke with Father a few days later and informed him that he had tested
positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine the day before his visit with G.A.
Father said that he had last used drugs six days before the test, and he stated that he has
been sober for two weeks.
At Father’s next visit, Father tested negative for substances. Father was excited to
see G.A., and they played together. Father showed G.A. books and toys, watched him
crawl, and picked him up to dance. Father spoke to him in English and Spanish, and
6
there was a lot of interaction between them. Father brought a box of diapers, wipes, and
toys for G.A., and DPSS noted that the visit went well.
Father had not begun his substance abuse treatment, and Mother had missed three
visits with G.A. DPSS noted that it was concerned about the parents’ continued
substance abuse, Mother’s missed visits, and Mother’s unavailability.
At the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing in November 2022, the
juvenile court sustained the petition as amended, removed G.A. from both parents’
custody, and ordered reunification services and monitored visits for both parents.
III. Reunification period
In the six-month status review report, DPSS reported that G.A. was “very bonded”
with the paternal aunt and called her “‘Mama.’” He was thriving in the paternal aunt’s
home, and all of his needs were being met. The paternal aunt provided a stable
environment without the presence of drug use or violence.
Father visited G.A. weekly, and the visits went well. In March 2023, Father began
visiting G.A. at the paternal grandmother’s home, and the paternal aunt reported that the
visits appeared to have gone well. The paternal aunt noted that she did not believe that
the paternal grandmother would report a visit that did not go well, because the paternal
grandmother enables Father. DPSS reported that Father had not yet addressed the
reasons for G.A.’s removal and had not completed his substance abuse program.
At the six-month review hearing in April 2023, the juvenile court found that
Mother’s progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating G.A.’s
placement was adequate and that Father’s progress was minimal. The court found that
7
there was a substantial probability that G.A. may be returned to the parents within six
months and ordered that the parents’ reunification services be continued. The court
authorized DPSS to liberalize the parents’ visitation with G.A. to include unsupervised
and overnight visits.
In its 12-month review report, DPSS reported that Father had not been responding
to calls but would reply by text message. Father was unemployed, and DPSS did not
know how he was financially supporting himself. DPSS also became aware that there
was an active bench warrant for Father for possession of controlled substances and
possession of drug paraphernalia.
G.A., who was nearly one and one-half years old at the time, was healthy, could
walk, run and climb, and was saying two- and three-word sentences. He knew Mother
and Father, and he was “very attached” to the paternal aunt. DPSS reported that his
attachment to the paternal aunt was expected because she had been caring for him for
over one year. He was thriving with her, and his needs were being met.
Father reported that he had completed 26 weeks of substance abuse treatment. He
was unable to provide DPSS with a certificate of completion. Father also completed a
parenting program. Father failed to complete his anger management program, and he
failed to show up for on-demand drug testing. Father blamed DPSS for his situation, and
he stated that he did not need substance abuse treatment, because he was not an addict.
Father continued to visit G.A. at the paternal grandmother’s home. The visits
were positive, and Father interacted with G.A.
8
Meanwhile, Mother had been doing well, and DPSS reported that it would not be
detrimental to return G.A. to Mother’s custody with family maintenance services. DPSS
also reported that Father had made minimal progress on his case plan and that it would
not be in G.A.’s best interest to place him with Father.
At the 12-month review hearing in October 2023, the court found that Mother’s
progress toward alleviating or mitigating the causes of G.A.’s removal was adequate and
that Father’s progress was minimal. The court returned G.A. to Mother’s custody and
ordered family maintenance services for her. The court further found that Father failed to
make substantive progress in his case plan and that there was no substantial possibility
that G.A. would be returned to his care if given another six months of reunification
services. The court terminated Father’s reunification services and ordered that Father
take a drug test. The court also ordered that Father could continue to visit once per week
if he tested negative. Otherwise, Father’s visits would be reduced to one time per month.
IV. Section 387 petition
In February 2024, DPSS detained G.A. and placed him with the paternal aunt on
an extended visit pending approval for his placement there. DPSS had received a call
from the paternal aunt, who reported that Mother had left G.A. at the paternal
grandmother’s home without saying when she would return or providing any instructions
for G.A.’s care. The paternal aunt called hospitals, and DPSS checked local county jails’
websites to try to locate Mother. Father had not heard from Mother either. Mother’s
therapist reported that Mother had not shown up for counseling.
9
DPSS filed a supplemental petition alleging that Mother failed to provide adequate
care for G.A. by leaving home and failing to return. DPSS was concerned that Mother
was abusing substances again because she had failed to comply with court-ordered drug
testing, and she failed to participate in court-ordered substance abuse services. Mother
had been missing for approximately two weeks.
The juvenile court detained G.A. and ordered supervised visits for Mother.
Father’s prior visitation order remained unchanged.
G.A. was thriving in the paternal aunt’s home. He was healthy and active, and his
language skills were “very developed.” The paternal aunt had toys for him and activities
to stimulate learning. He was learning his colors and learning to count.
Father continued to visit G.A. at least once per month. Father also called G.A.
through FaceTime twice per week.
In March 2024, DPSS spoke to Mother. Mother told the social worker that she
had relapsed and was not in a substance abuse program.
At the contested jurisdiction hearing, the court sustained the petition and removed
G.A. from Mother’s custody. The court terminated Mother’s services, reduced the
parents’ visitation to once per month, and set the matter for a selection and
implementation hearing.
V. Section 366.26 hearing
In July 2024, the paternal aunt reported that G.A. was very healthy. He was an
active toddler with no physical disabilities. He was walking, running, and climbing, and
his motor skills were well developed. G.A. was very attached to the paternal aunt and to
10
her 13-year-old son. The paternal aunt wanted to “create a stable, consistent, safe, and
family oriented environment for [G.A.]” The 13-year-old-son said that he plays with
G.A., and they watch cartoons together. He said that the paternal aunt was a “‘good
mom’” and “makes you feel safe.” G.A. had been in the paternal aunt’s care for more
than half of his life, and the paternal aunt was committed to adopting him. DPSS
reported that G.A. looked to the paternal aunt “for comfort, smile[d] at her, and play[ed]
with her.”
At the contested selection and implementation hearing in August 2024, Father
was present, and Mother did not appear. Father’s counsel objected to the termination of
parental rights. Counsel argued that Father had consistently visited G.A. and that those
visits were frequent, interactive, and “very positive.”
The juvenile court found that Father had consistently visited G.A. The court
further found that the “benefit from frequent and loving contact between [Father] and
[G.A.] was insufficient to overcome the benefits that will occur to [G.A.] from a grant of
permanency and knowing [he] is with a forever family. [¶] [E]ven if a reviewing court
finds that there is a substantial positive emotional attachment to this child and [Father],
notwithstanding the Court’s findings, I believe that [F]ather fails to show that termination
of that relationship would be detrimental to [G.A.].” Finding that no exceptions applied,
the court terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Father argues that the juvenile court erred by determining that the beneficial
parental relationship exception did not apply. We are not persuaded.
11
When the juvenile court finds that a dependent child is likely to be adopted, it
must terminate parental rights and select adoption as the permanent plan unless it finds
that adoption would be detrimental to the child under one of several exceptions.
(§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 630-631 (Caden C.).) The
exceptions allow “‘the court, in exceptional circumstances [citation], to choose an option
other than the norm, which remains adoption.’” (Caden C., at p. 631.)
Under the beneficial parental relationship exception, the parent bears the burden of
proving three elements by a preponderance of the evidence: “(1) regular visitation and
contact, and (2) a relationship, the continuation of which would benefit the child such
that (3) the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child.” (Caden C.,
supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 631, 636.)
We review the juvenile court’s findings on the first two elements for substantial
evidence. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 639-640.) Whether termination of parental
rights would be detrimental to the child because of the beneficial parental relationship is a
discretionary determination and hence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 640.)
But we review any factual findings underlying that decision for substantial evidence.
(Ibid.)
When a trial court assesses whether the child would benefit from continuing the
relationship, “the focus is the child. And the relationship may be shaped by a slew of
factors, such as ‘[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s
custody, the “positive” or “negative” effect of interaction between parent and child, and
the child’s particular needs.’ [Citation.]” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.)
12
When “assessing whether termination would be detrimental, the trial court must
decide whether the harm from severing the child’s relationship with the parent outweighs
the benefit to the child of placement in a new adoptive home.” (Caden C., supra, 11
Cal.5th at p. 632; citing In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 (Autumn H.).)
The parent must show that his or her relationship with the child “promotes the well-being
of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a
permanent home with new, adoptive parents.” (Autumn H., at p. 575.) “A showing the
child derives some benefit from the relationship is not a sufficient ground to depart from
the statutory preference for adoption.” (In re Breanna S. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 636, 646,
disapproved on other grounds in Caden C., at pp. 637-638, fns. 6, 7.)
In determining whether the exception applies, “the 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.” (Autumn H., supra, 27
Cal.App.4th at p. 575; see Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 633.)
No party challenges the court’s finding that Father maintained regular visitation
and contact with G.A. We agree that the finding is supported by substantial evidence.
And we assume for the sake of argument that there was a substantial, positive emotional
attachment between G.A. and Father.
13
The third element is whether G.A. shared such a “substantial, positive attachment”
to Father (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 636) that the harm in severing the parental
relationship would “outweigh[ ] ‘the security and the sense of belonging a new family
would confer’” (id. at p. 633).
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the benefits of
G.A.’s relationship with Father were not so great that termination of parental rights
would be detrimental to G.A. It does not appear that G.A. has ever resided with Father,
and the evidence does not indicate that G.A. had any more attachment to Father than to
any other friendly visitor. (In re Helen W. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 71, 81.) And the
evidence does not show that G.A. derived any benefits from the relationship other than
Father’s “‘frequent and loving contact.’” (Ibid.) As the trial court noted, a “permanent
home with . . . the paternal aunt, would be such a stable environment that it would
alleviate any emotional instability or preoccupation that would occur from termination of
the parental rights.” Moreover, there is no evidence that G.A. suffered any adverse
emotional effects when Father’s visits concluded or when they were reduced to once per
month.
In contrast, the evidence showed that G.A. would gain significant benefits from
adoption by the paternal aunt. He had been living with her for over one and one-half
years, and he was thriving and developing in her care. He was in good health and did not
have any emotional or behavioral issues. He was eating and sleeping well in her care,
and he was “very attached” to her. He looked to her for comfort. And the social worker
observed that the paternal aunt was “attentive to [G.A.] and his needs.”
14
In sum, there was no evidence that termination of parental rights would greatly
harm G.A., and there was ample evidence of the significant benefits that G.A. would gain
from adoption. The court therefore did not abuse its discretion by determining that
Father’s relationship with G.A. did not promote his well-being to such a degree as to
outweigh the benefits he would derive from a permanent, adoptive home with the
paternal aunt.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MENETREZ J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
15
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the beneficial parental relationship exception did not apply because the father failed to demonstrate that the harm of severing his relationship with the child outweighed the benefits of adoption.
Issues
Did the juvenile court err in finding that the beneficial parental relationship exception under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) did not apply?
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the benefits of G.A.’s relationship with Father were not so great that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to G.A.”
“A showing the child derives some benefit from the relationship is not a sufficient ground to depart from the statutory preference for adoption.”