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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
11