In re A.J. CA4/1

Opinion

Filed 9/11/26 In re A.J. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re A.J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

D087995 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. J521227)

v. J.J. et al., Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniela A. Reali-Ferrari, Judge. Affirmed. Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant J.J. Jenie S. Chang, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant O.A. Damon M. Brown, County Counsel, Lisa M. Maldonado, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Katie Abajian, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. J.J. (Mother) and O.A. (Father) appeal the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights to A.J. (Child) and ordering adoption as the permanent plan pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother contends the juvenile court erred by finding the beneficial parent- child relationship exception did not apply to her relationship with Child, and Father joins her argument. Finding no error, we affirm. I. In May 2023, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency detained five-year-old Child and filed a petition under section 300, subdivision (b) due to Mother’s use of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and other substances while caring for Child. Mother had a history of mental health issues, reported not taking her prescribed medications, and admitted to using fentanyl for over ten years and chronically abusing methamphetamine. She had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder. On some occasions, she drove Child while under the influence, including immediately prior to Child’s detention. At that time, Mother was placed on a psychiatric hold due to delusional thinking and paranoia. Maternal grandmother (Grandmother) reported dealing with Mother’s mental health issues and drug use for about five years, taking care of Child’s needs throughout Child’s life, and being Child’s primary caregiver for the past four or five months. Father was a sex offender who lived in Arizona. He was not involved in raising Child and had not seen her in a few months.

2 On May 17, 2023, the juvenile court found the Agency’s petition stated a prima facie case for initial removal and continued detention and ordered supervised visitation for Mother. Child was placed with Grandmother. The next month, Mother tested positive for fentanyl. She told the Agency, “‘I want to give up my parental rights,’” and, “‘I can’t see [Child] now; I need to get myself together.’” Mother visited Child but cried during visits, making Child sad. Child reported she wanted to live with Grandmother. After a visit on June 20, 2023, Mother did not visit Child or contact the Agency until September 2023. During that time, Mother was in psychiatric hospitals and in jail for burglary and theft. Child asked about Mother and wanted to visit with her. In October 2023, Mother entered a residential treatment program as required by a criminal court order. Mother again began visiting Child, who was happy and excited to see Mother at visits. Visits later became unsupervised, and they continued to go well. At the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing on January 4, 2024, the court made a true finding on the petition and continued the disposition hearing. After completing the three-month residential treatment program, Mother moved to a sober living home and continued substance abuse and mental health treatment. At the contested disposition hearing on April 10, 2024, the court maintained Child’s placement with Grandmother and ordered overnight visits for Mother based on the Agency’s recommendation. In June 2024, however, Mother tested positive for fentanyl. Then, in August, while dropping off Child after a visit, Mother physically attacked Grandmother, also hitting Child during the altercation, leaving both in fear.

3 Mother appeared to be under the influence. During and after the incident, Child was crying, scared, and sad. She stated she did not want to see Mother until she is 20 years old, and she did not feel safe with Mother anymore. Based on this and prior attacks, Grandmother obtained a temporary restraining order and later a no contact order protecting her from Mother. After Mother’s relapse and this incident, the court ordered Mother’s visits be, once again, supervised. Mother continued to participate in substance abuse and mental health services. After the June 2024 positive test, however, Mother failed to complete her Agency required drug testing or release test results from her treatment program. Mother continued to visit consistently, visits went well and Child was happy to see Mother. In October 2024, Child told the Agency she missed Mother and wanted to see her more. At visits, Mother and Child hugged and kissed and said they loved and missed each other. But, after Mother cancelled one visit, Child cancelled another because she “‘didn’t want to go’” and that way they were “‘even.’” In February 2025, the court granted Grandmother’s de facto parent request. In June 2025, Mother’s probation officer informed the Agency that Mother “continues to test positive for methamphetamines and [f]entanyl.” The next month, Mother was arrested for burglary, arson, identity theft, vandalism, and violating probation. In the meantime, the court held a combined contested 6, 12, 18, and 24-month review hearing, ultimately terminating reunification services for Mother and Father on July 17, 2025. In September 2025, Child told the Agency that she loved Mother but did not want to see or speak with her while she was in jail, which made Child feel sad. Child stated, if she never saw Mother again, “‘It would be terrible 4 and I would cry for my mom.’” Grandmother told the Agency that Child had created a drawing with a broken heart and a sad face, stating “‘no more talking about mom.’” In October, Child said she wanted to be adopted by and live with Grandmother. Grandmother wanted to adopt Child. If Child could not see Mother again, Child stated she “‘would be kinda sad, but happy.’” On one occasion, after Child initially agreed to a phone visit with Mother, Child became upset and said she did not want to speak with Mother. As of February 2026, Child continued to refuse contact with Mother due to sadness about her incarceration and expressed her desire to “‘definitely’” be adopted by Grandmother. Child said she missed Mother but was “‘not ready’” for visits and only wanted to see her if she was completely better from being “sick.” In Child’s “dream” life, she would choose to live with Grandmother, maternal uncles, and Mother if she was better. Child’s therapist reported Child was traumatized by seeing Mother in handcuffs and with tattoos during a juvenile court hearing, did not want to talk about or have contact with Mother, and had worries about Mother’s release date and health. The therapist also told the Agency Child felt a strong sense of safety with Grandmother and wanted to be adopted. Child’s teacher also reported Child said she wanted to live with Grandmother and feared Mother or Father taking her away. Child did not want to visit with Father and stated she would be happy if she no longer saw him. During the case, Father had visited with Child but Child resisted going to visits, had difficulty during visits, did not want to visit with him alone, and did not want to live with him. The Agency recommended the court terminate parental rights and order adoption by Grandmother as the permanent plan, noting that she had been present throughout Child’s life, met her needs, provided safety and 5 stability for her, and had a loving relationship with her. The Agency further argued, although Child loved and missed Mother, Mother’s choices and incarceration negatively impacted their relationship such that contact became sad and distressing. In February and March 2026, the court held a contested section 366.26 hearing. The social workers who supervised visits testified Child was always happy to see Mother and affectionate toward her. During visits, Child said she loved and would miss Mother. But, after Mother was incarcerated, Child declined visits despite the Agency encouraging visits. Child joined the Agency’s argument that she was adoptable and no exception to adoption applied. She argued the positive visitation did not amount to “a substantial, positive parental bond whose loss would outweigh the benefits of adoption.” Mother sought legal guardianship as the permanent plan, arguing the beneficial relationship exception applied. On March 18, 2026, the court found Child was adoptable and no exception to termination of parental rights applied. The court found visitation with Father was not positive, but rather caused Child anxiety. As to Mother, the court stated visitation was arguably not consistent and regular given Child’s refusal to visit since Mother’s July 2025 incarceration. Even if visitation was consistent, the court found the relationship was not beneficial to Child due to the effect of Mother’s struggles on Child, and any detriment to Child from terminating their relationship would not outweigh the benefits of adoption. Thus, the court terminated parental rights and ordered adoption as the permanent plan. II. Mother appeals the order terminating her parental rights and ordering adoption as the permanent plan, arguing the court erred by declining to 6 apply the beneficial relationship exception because Child had positive visits with and an emotional attachment to Mother. Father joins Mother’s arguments and seeks reversal of the termination of his parental rights along with Mother’s. The Agency argues substantial evidence supports the court’s finding Mother did not have a beneficial relationship with Child, and the court did not abuse its discretion by determining any detriment from termination of that relationship did not outweigh the benefit of adoption. We agree with the Agency. At section 366.26 hearings, the court selects and implements a permanent plan for the child. (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 630.) If reunification services have been terminated and the court finds the child is likely to be adopted by clear and convincing evidence, the court must terminate parental rights unless a statutory exception (§ 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)– (vi)) applies. (In re Caden C., at pp. 630–631.) The section 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i) beneficial relationship exception applies when “‘severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that,’ even considering the benefits of a new adoptive home, termination would ‘harm[]’ the child.” (In re Caden C., at p. 633.) The exception requires a parent to prove three elements: (1) regular visitation and contact, (2) a beneficial relationship to the child, and (3) as a result of the beneficial relationship, “the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child.” (Id. at p. 631, italics omitted.) Throughout this analysis, courts focus on the best interests of the child. (Id. at p. 632.) We do not address the first element—consistent visitation—because we conclude, even if it is satisfied, the juvenile court did not err in finding Mother failed to establish the remaining two elements.

7 First, the court did not err by finding Mother failed to establish a beneficial relationship. This element requires the parent to “show that the child has a substantial, positive, emotional attachment to the parent—the kind of attachment implying that the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th at p. 636.) Factors involved in determining the benefit of the relationship include the child’s age, the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, whether their interaction has a positive or negative effect, and “how children feel about, interact with, look to, or talk about their parents.” (Id. at p. 632.) “A positive attachment between parent and child . . . is nurturing and provides the child with a sense of security and stability,” and “an emotional attachment is one where the child views the parent as more than a mere friend or playmate.” (In re B.D. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1218, 1230.) While “[a] parent’s continued struggles with the issues leading to dependency are not a categorical bar to applying the exception” and “may not be used as a basis for determining the fate of the parental relationship by assigning blame, making moral judgments about the fitness of the parent, or rewarding or punishing a parent,” those issues “often prove relevant to the application of the exception.” (In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th at pp. 637–638.) “A parent’s struggles may mean that interaction between parent and child at least sometimes has a negative effect on the child.” (Id. at p. 637 [cleaned up].) For example, persistent substance abuse and mental health issues may contribute to a limited bond. (Id. at p. 638.) We review the court’s determination on this element for substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 639.) Here, substantial evidence supports the court’s determination Child did not have a substantial, positive, emotional attachment with Mother. Child undoubtedly had some positive relationship with Mother as evidenced by 8 Child enjoying the visits that took place and loving and missing Mother. But Child’s feelings about and actions toward Mother support the finding that they did not have the beneficial relationship required. Their interactions were not always positive. Early in the case, Mother cried during visits, making Child sad. In August 2024, Mother’s attack on Grandmother in Child’s presence left her in fear. After Mother cancelled a visit, Child cancelled a visit so they would be “even,” suggesting their attachment was not substantial, positive, and emotional. By October 2025, Child wanted to be adopted by and live with Grandmother, and she remained adamant about that desire into 2026. Child reported she would be “kinda sad” if she could not see Mother again, but also happy. Child became upset at the suggestion of even a phone call with Mother while incarcerated. Child reported wanting to interact with Mother only if she was “better,” suggesting that her interactions were negatively impacted by Mother’s substance abuse and that Child lost the ability to depend on Mother as a source of security. According to Child’s teacher, Child feared Mother finding and taking her when Mother was released from prison. Additionally, at the time of the court’s ruling, Child had been placed with Grandmother for nearly three years. Although Child spent her first five years in Mother’s custody, Grandmother reported being the primary caregiver for part of that time and taking care of Child throughout her life. Despite positive visits and expressions of affection, the evidence shows Child did not derive a sense of security and stability from Mother. Second, the court did not err by finding the termination of rights would not be detrimental to Child. To determine 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 9 placement in a new adoptive home.” (In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.) In other words, termination is detrimental because of a beneficial relationship “[w]hen the relationship with a parent is so important to the child that the security and stability of a new home wouldn’t outweigh its loss.” (Id. at pp. 633–634.) This determination is based on “how the child would be affected by losing the parental relationship—in effect, what life would be like for the child in an adoptive home without the parent in the child’s life.” (Id. at p. 633.) Courts must unravel “tangled benefits and burdens” of the relationship. (Id. at p. 634.) Courts may “find that terminating a relationship with negative aspects would have some positive effects that weigh in the balance—and may tip it in favor of severing the parental relationship to make way for adoption.” (Id. at p. 635.) “[I]ssues such as those leading to dependency may also be relevant to the detriment from terminating parental rights.” (Id. at p. 638.) While we review underlying factual determinations for substantial evidence, we review for abuse of discretion the ultimate determination whether detriment from the termination of parental rights outweighs the benefit of adoption. (Id. at p. 640.) The juvenile court acted within its discretion by terminating parental rights under these facts. As explained by our Supreme Court, detriment requires consideration of what the child’s life would be like in the adoptive home without the parent present. (In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th at p. 633.) Here, from July 2025 through March 2026, Child lived in Grandmother’s home without Mother in her life. During that period, the Agency reported Child was doing well in school academically and socially; was kind, caring, thoughtful, and sweet; was eating well and generally sleeping well; and felt a strong sense of safety in Grandmother’s home. In essence, while Child 10 missed Mother, she functioned well regardless. For months, Child consistently expressed the desire to be adopted. While she would be sad not to see Mother again, she would also be happy. Both Child’s therapist and teacher reported she struggled with uncertainties, including about Mother finding Child and taking her away after being released from jail, emphasizing her particular need for stability from a known source of safety. Under these circumstances, any detriment from the loss of the parental relationship did not outweigh the benefit of the security and stability of Grandmother’s home. III. We affirm the order.

CASTILLO, J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.

BERMÚDEZ, J.