In re I.P. CA2/8

Filed 5/20/24 In re I.P. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

In re I.P. et al., Persons Coming B331345 Under the Juvenile Court Law. ______________________________ Los Angeles County LOS ANGELES COUNTY Super. Ct. No. 19LJJP00900A-C DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

A.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kristen Byrdsong, Commissioner. Affirmed Sarah Vaona, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Tarkian & Associates and Arezoo Pichvai for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________ A mother appeals the orders of the juvenile court that terminated her parental rights to her daughter I.P., son L.M., and daughter A.M., currently seven, five, and four years old, respectively. The mother claims the court erred in finding the parental-benefit exception did not apply to her relationships with these three children. (See In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 631–632 (Caden C.).) To prove this exception applies, the mother’s burden was to establish all of the following: (1) she visited her children regularly; (2) a substantial, positive, and emotional attachment exists between her and her children; and (3) terminating this attachment would be detrimental to the children. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 631, 636.) We review resolution of the first two elements for substantial evidence. We review the third element for abuse of discretion. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 639–640.) By definition, substantial evidence review is deferential, as we must resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the dependency court’s ruling, must draw all reasonable inferences from that evidence in favor of the ruling, and may not reweigh the evidence or any credibility findings. (Estate of Berger (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1293, 1307.) We review the court’s ruling, not its reasoning. If the ruling was correct on any ground, we affirm. (In re Jonathan B. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 873, 875 [“The reviewing court may affirm a juvenile court judgment if the evidence supports the decision on any one of several grounds . . .”] .)