In re C.B. CA3

Filed 4/14/23 In re C.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Calaveras) ----

In re C.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C096515 Court Law.

CALAVERAS COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN (Super. Ct. Nos. 19JD6153, SERVICES AGENCY, 19JD6154)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M.B. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

In this third appeal by appellants C.B. (mother) and M.B. (father), parents again appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights over the minors Ca.B. and F.B. In parents’ first appeal, In re C.B. (Sept. 29, 2021, C092938) [nonpub. opn.] (In re C.B. I), we reversed the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and remanded the case for the juvenile court to reconsider the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption in light of In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614.

1

Upon remand, the juvenile court granted mother’s request for a bonding study but denied parents’ petitions for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3881 requesting reinstatement of visitation, family maintenance or reunification services, and/or return of the minors. Parents appealed the denial of their petitions for modification in their second appeal, In re C.B. (Jan. 30, 2023, C095535) [nonpub. opn.] (In re C.B. II), and this court affirmed the juvenile court’s order.2 While parents’ second appeal was pending, the juvenile court held a new section 366.26 hearing and, again, terminated parental rights. Parents appealed and, in this third appeal, which was briefed by appellants prior to the issuance of our opinion in the second appeal, parents revisit their contention that the juvenile court erred in denying their petitions for modification seeking reinstatement of visitation. They also contend the bonding study was insufficient because the experts who performed the study did not observe an in-person visit between parents and the minors as part of the study. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We provide a limited overview of the facts and proceedings, which were largely set forth in our prior opinions. As pertinent here, it is sufficient to recount that, in February 2019, Calaveras County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a section 300 petition on behalf of minors Ca.B. (then age 22 months) and F.B. (then age seven months). The juvenile court took jurisdiction, declared the minors dependent