In re Cassidy M. CA3

Filed 4/3/14 In re Cassidy M. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

In re CASSIDY M., a Person Coming Under C074898 the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. No. PDP2012-0134) EL DORADO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CRAIG M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Craig M., father of the minor, appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 Father contends the court erred in failing to find he established the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights. We shall affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The four-year-old minor was removed from parental custody in November 2012 due to her mother’s increasingly serious alcohol abuse and her father’s failure to protect her from mother’s neglect. The minor was developmentally on track but very aggressive with other children, had difficulty with sleeping schedules, suffered from nightmares and showed extreme fear of medical and dental professionals, although she was showing some improvement in foster care. After placement, the minor began therapy. The minor’s teeth were in very poor condition and she was scheduled for evaluation of reconstructive surgery to correct a cleft palate. The minor had supervised visits and was excited to see father, who visited sporadically due to his employment. The minor was less happy to see mother but enjoyed the crafts and games mother brought to visits. The court sustained the petition, denied services to both parents and set a selection and implementation hearing.

The court granted the parents’ request to appoint an expert to perform a bonding study. The study, conducted in July 2013, concluded that the minor had a strong positive bond to father and was less bonded to mother. The study further concluded that it would not be detrimental to terminate the minor’s relationship with mother. However, because the minor’s bond with father was more positive, it would more likely be harmful to terminate that relationship, although it was not clear that it would be detrimental to do so. Termination of the minor’s relationship with father was likely to cause her some lasting and potentially irreparable harm. The study noted that father was unlikely to be able to be the minor’s primary custodian and the court had to weigh the benefits of permanence against the harm to the minor from severing the relationship.