California Court of Appeal Feb 3, 2014 No. E058931Unpublished
Filed 1/31/14 In re M.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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.F., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, E058931
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. SWJ009362)
v. OPINION
K.F. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John M. Monterosso,
Judge. Affirmed.
Suzanne F. Evans, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant father.
Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant mother.
1
Pamela J. Walls, County Counsel, and Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
M.F., the subject of this appeal, was born in 2002 and adopted in 2007 by his
great-uncle and his wife, here described as father and mother. The parents have three
preference for adoption is overcome, and another permanent plan should be selected,
where the parents establish they have maintained regular visitation and contact with the
child, the child would benefit from continuing that relationship, and terminating the
relationship would cause the child to suffer detriment. (In re S.B. (2008) 164
Cal.App.4th 289, 300-301.)
14
The applicability of the exceptions to adoption is reviewed under a hybrid
substantial evidence and abuse of discretion standard. (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189
Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622.) The
questions for the reviewing court are “whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of
the appellant as a matter of law” as to the factual questions of whether the parents
maintained regular visitation with the child, whether a beneficial parent-child relationship
exists, and whether the juvenile court’s application of the law to the facts was arbitrary or
capricious. (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528; In re C.B. (2010) 190
Cal.App.4th 102, 123.) The benefit exception is “almost always a loser.” (In re Eileen A.
(2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1248, 1255, fn. 5.)
In order to establish the element of “regular visitation,” a parent must show more
than “frequent and loving” or “pleasant” contact. (In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29
Cal.App.4th 1411, 1420; In re Elizabeth M. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.) Sporadic
visitation is not enough. (Ibid.; In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 554.)
Furthermore, the benefit to the child must outweigh the value of a permanent adoptive
home. (In re Andrea R. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1108-1109.)
Between November 2010 and December 2012, the visitation between M.F. and
parents was inconsistent and frequently negative. When the family moved to Oregon
after October 2011, mother visited M.F. only once during a reporting period and father
came twice a month from his job in Bakersfield. Their phone communication often was
not successful. M.F. behaved negatively after contact with the parents. After May 2012,
15
parents visited only once a month and M.F. responded to visits by being depressed and
upset. In December 2012, M.F. became very angry and aggressive.5 The March and
April 2013 visits occurred without incident but parents behaved inappropriately by
pressuring M.F. about the upcoming hearing. In summary, the visitation for two and a
half years did not qualify as “regular visitation” for purposes of the adoption exception.
Furthermore, the benefit and corresponding detriment to M.F. cannot be said to
outweigh the value of a permanent home. In In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567,
575, the Court of Appeal described the beneficial parent-child relationship as the
significant attachment from child to parents that results from the adult’s attention to the
child’s needs for physical care, nourishment, comfort, affection, stimulation,
companionship and shared experiences. The four factors to be considered in determining
whether the parent occupies a parental role in the child’s life are “[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[.]” (Id. at
p. 576; In re S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 299; In re Casey D. (1999) 70
Cal.App.4th 38, 51.)
There is only slight evidence that parents attended to M.F.’s needs for physical
care, nourishment, comfort, affection, stimulation, companionship, and shared
5 We recognize CPS should not have suspended visits in January and February 2013.
16
experiences, and occupied a true parental role in M.F.’s life. Instead, the record shows
that M.F. was severely traumatized while in parents’ care. After a year and a half in a
group home and six months in his foster/adoptive placement, he improved dramatically.
He was very attached to his foster father and felt safe and loved.
At age 10, M.F. testified that he did not want to reunify with parents and return to
the life he had experienced with them. In spite of his continued affection for parents, he
preferred to be adopted. The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it found the
benefits of adoption outweighed any detriment caused to M.F. by termination of parental
rights. (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 229.)
IV
DISPOSITION
The parents did not establish the beneficial parental relationship exception to
adoption. We affirm the findings and orders of the juvenile court.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
KING J.
17
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the juvenile court did not err in terminating parental rights because the parents failed to establish the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption, as they did not maintain regular visitation and the benefits of adoption outweighed any detriment to the child.
Issues
Did the juvenile court err in failing to apply the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26?
Did the parents maintain regular visitation and contact with the child?
Did the benefits of the parent-child relationship outweigh the value of a permanent adoptive home for the child?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We affirm the trial court’s finding the exception does not apply because the parents cannot show they maintained regular visitation and cannot demonstrate a credible benefit or corresponding detriment to M.F.”
“The benefit exception is “almost always a loser.””
“The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it found the benefits of adoption outweighed any detriment caused to M.F. by termination of parental rights.”