Filed 3/1/18 In re Matthew G. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Sacramento)
----




In re MATTHEW G., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. C085386


SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.S.,

Defendant and Appellant.

(Super. Ct. No. JD224226 )




C.S., mother of the minor, Matthew G., appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and adopting a permanent plan of adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26 & 395; unspecified statutory references are to this code.) Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that the minor was likely to be adopted. She further contends there was a less detrimental permanent plan based on the minor’s close bond with her, and thus the court erred in finding the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption did not apply. Finding neither claim has merit, we will affirm the juvenile court’s orders.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
A. Prior Child Protective Services Referrals and Dependency Petitions
The minor Matthew (born April 2006) and his siblings or half siblings, E.G. (born February 2005), C.H. (November 2003), and A.M. (born November 2002) (sometimes collectively referred to as the minors), have been the subject of numerous substantiated Child Protective Services (CPS) referrals dating back to 2003 involving the minor’s mother and father, W.G. (sometimes collectively referred to as the parents), or one of the minors’ stepfathers, E.M., K.W., or J.S.
The minors have also been the subject of various dependency petitions filed by the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department). The first set of petitions involving the minor, filed in April 2006, alleged failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)) and abuse of sibling (§ 300, subd. (j)) as a result of mother’s untreated mental health issues, and the parents’ failure to participate in court-ordered services in a previous dependency proceeding based on the parents’ mental health, anger, and substance abuse history. Those allegations were sustained and the minor, C.H., and A.M. were adjudged dependent children of the juvenile court.
The second set of petitions, filed August 2009, alleged serious physical harm (§ 300, subd. (a)) as a result of father’s physical abuse of A.M., including pulling her hair out of her head and hitting her in the face with a brush, and mother’s failure to protect the minor and his siblings; failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)) as a result of father’s physical abuse of A.M. and the medical neglect of the minor and his siblings; and abuse of sibling (§ 300, subd. (j)) as a result of father’s physical abuse of A.M. and the 2002 termination of father’s parental rights over the minor’s half siblings due to physical abuse.
The 2009 petitions were sustained as amended and the minor and three of his siblings (E.G., C.H., and A.M.) were again made dependents of the juvenile court. Father was sentenced to four years in state prison. Reunification services were provided to mother, who was eventually able to reunify with the minor, C.H., and A.M. and dependency was thereafter terminated on December 18, 2012, as to those children. Mother was unable to reunify with E.G. and parental rights were terminated as to that half sibling.
B. Current Dependency Petitions
A third set of dependency petitions, filed in June 2013 (and amended in November 2013), alleged serious physical harm (§ 300, subd. (a)) due to mother’s anger management issues and physical violence during a domestic violence incident with stepfather, J.S., and failure to protect (§ 300, subd. (b)) due to mother’s anger management problems and history of engaging in domestic violence in the presence of the minor and his siblings, her failure to provide adequate care, shelter, and supervision for the minor and his siblings, and mother’s untreated mental health issues.
In particular, it was alleged that mother threw a baking pan hitting J.S. and striking C.H. in the back of the head, and had been observed screaming at C.H., pulling her by the hair and arms and making threats to harm or kill the minors. It was further alleged that the home was filthy and failed to meet basic health and safety standards, the minors were observed to have poor hygiene, unclean clothing, and body odor, and mother had allowed A.M. to self-administer medication.
The minor and his two siblings, A.M. and C.H., were placed into protective custody on June 14, 2013. The social worker spoke with mother, who had difficulty staying focused, made multiple threats of initiating contempt proceedings against the Department, and presented as anxious and agitated. Mother admitted throwing a baking pan, but denied hitting either J.S. or the child, C.H., who she claimed was in bed at the time. She denied abusing C.H. or hitting the minors and denied making threats to harm herself or the minors. Mother also denied maintaining a filthy, unsanitary house, claiming it was always clean. Mother reported having been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, Asperger’s Syndrome, and depression, and claimed she met with her psychiatrist in November or December 2012. Mother stated she was arrested on May 31, 2013, for the domestic violence and physical abuse incident, and met with her psychiatrist in June 2013 upon her release from custody. She claimed to have requested a medical evaluation because she did not believe her medications were working. Mother denied the minors were at risk of abuse or neglect in the home.
The social worker spoke with father, W.G., who was released from prison on August 8, 2012, and was residing with stepfather E.M. W.G. was initially subject to a restraining order prohibiting him from having contact with A.M. or mother following his release from prison in August 2012, and thereafter began attending supervised visits with all three minors in the home of E.M. Father denied having any direct information regarding the allegations in the dependency petitions, and denied ever hitting A.M. He stated the minors called him and E.M. “Daddy” and he requested placement of the three minors so that he and E.M. could coparent the children.
The social worker also spoke with stepfathers K.W. and E.M., both of whom denied having any direct information about the allegations in the petitions. K.W. was awaiting the results of a paternity test regarding C.H., and declined visitation with C.H. pending those results so as not to further confuse the child about the identity of her father. E.M. stated he was the biological father of A.M. and was also awaiting paternity results as to C.H.
E.M. expressed concern regarding mother’s treatment of the minors, noting she mistreated A.M. and yelled at the minors on a regular basis, and the minors often showed up at his home for visitation with offensive body odor and dirty clothing. He also noted mother was “very antisocial” and did not do well in crowds and had suffered from mental health issues for many years. He also reported that mother had, over the past 10 years, experienced psychological breaks whenever she had too much free time. E.M. requested return of all three minors to his care and stated he hoped to coparent the minors with father, noting the minors would only be safe in mother’s home if they were supervised by CPS “24/7.”
Stepfather J.S. denied any risk to the minors at home and denied any abuse or neglect by mother, stating he intended to remain in a relationship with her.
As for the minors, Matthew and C.H. were placed together in a foster home. Matthew stated he was happy at his foster home and did not want to go home to live with his mother. A.M. was originally placed with her sibling, E.G., but was removed due to emotional and behavioral outbursts and was detained in a respite care home. All three minors were attending counseling. All three were scheduled for weekly supervised visits with mother, but A.M. refused to attend. Matthew was attending weekly supervised visits with father. The maternal grandfather and maternal step-grandmother were aware of the proceedings and wished to remain active participants in the minors’ lives. The Department was in the process of contacting the step-grandmother, K.M.S., in Nevada to determine her interest in placement of the minors.
According to the addendum report filed December 4, 2013, when the minor was initially detained with his sister, C.H., in a confidential foster home, the minor presented with behavioral outbursts. He spent the majority of his time seeking out attention from others through negative behaviors and was unable to entertain himself in a safe and productive manner. Following several Team Decision Making (TDM) meetings, services were provided for additional support in the foster home and the minor and C.H. were ultimately moved to separate foster homes. The minor was scheduled for a psychiatry appointment to determine his need for psychotropic medication.
The minors were visiting with mother on a weekly basis. Mother often required redirection during visits due to inappropriate discussions with the minors regarding the court proceedings and the minors’ potential return home. Mother did not respond positively to redirection. The minor’s visits with father were going well.
The Department concluded the minors would not benefit from providing mother with reunification services given that mother had previously been ordered to participate in services on two prior occasions and, despite attending counseling, medication evaluations, and parenting classes, she continued to display “the same behavior patterns as she did approximately ten years ago.” The minors were fearful of mother due to her behaviors.
On January 16, 2014, the juvenile court sustained the November 2013 amended petitions with minor modifications and the minor and his two siblings, A.M. and C.H., were once again adjudged dependents of the juvenile court. The court bypassed services to the parents pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (c) and ordered continued visitation. A selection and implementation hearing (§ 366.26) was calendared for May 14, 2014, as to the minor and A.M.
The progress report filed on January 21, 2014, noted continuing issues with mother regarding visitation. Mother continued to struggle with redirection and her interaction with the minors, was more focused on taking notes from the visits than interacting with the minors, continued to engage in inappropriate discussions in front of or with the minors regarding money, speaking negatively about the foster parents, and speaking inappropriately about the visitation coordinator. Mother was also reportedly using inappropriate methods to discipline the minors, arguing with the stepfather during visits, and bringing junk food during meal times. When confronted with her negative behaviors, mother was uncooperative, argumentative, and angry in the minors’ presence, and refused to accept coaching on parenting techniques.
Father’s weekly visitation with the minor was regular and unremarkable. Father reportedly worked well with the minor and was able to redirect the minor and set appropriate boundaries.
C. Selection and Implementation Report
The selection and implementation report stated there was “not much excitement demonstrated by the parents or children” at the beginning of mother’s twice-monthly visits with the minors, and “no hugs or affection exchanged” at the end of the visits. The visitation supervisor noted that despite incidents where mother said inappropriate things and behaved disrespectfully toward her, the visitation supervisor was able to redirect mother. The Department’s attempts to observe a visit between mother and the minors were unsuccessful due to the fact that mother canceled visits “multiple times.”
The minor’s twice-monthly visits with father were going well, as both demonstrated affection toward one another and interacted appropriately. The only concern was father’s inability to set boundaries regarding the minor’s behavior which required the visitation supervisor to intervene when the minor was disrespectful to father or the visitation supervisor. However, father was able to redirect the minor and correct any disrespectful or inappropriate behaviors.
According to the minor’s foster mother, there were no concerns regarding the minor’s bedtime, eating, or bathing. The minor enjoyed interacting with people but did not enjoy playing by himself. He also enjoyed various sports and was very athletic. There were no academic concerns, although the minor reportedly argued a lot in school and required multiple requests to complete a task.
It was reported that the minor had some behavioral problems, including temper tantrums and physical and verbal abuse of the foster mother as well as destruction of property. It was also reported that the minor could at times be controlling, manipulative, and argumentative.
The minor reportedly enjoyed aggravating his sister, C.H., who was placed in the same foster home. C.H. stated she did not want to live with the minor “because he aggravates her and causes her to lose her temper.” It was noted that the minor and C.H. “would benefit from being separated as they have such poor communication and interactive skills that they continually antagonize each other to their detriment.”
The minor and C.H. visited with their sister, A.M., on a monthly basis. Visits with their sibling E.G. terminated following E.G.’s adoption.
The minor’s relationship with his father and his foster parents was reportedly positive, and he interacted affectionately with his father before and after visits.
The Department assessed the minor as “somewhat adoptable” due to his age (eight years old at the time) and his behavioral concerns, and noted that ongoing intervention would likely bring about significant change in those behaviors. When discussing adoption, the minor stated he would like to have a forever family and would prefer to be placed in a home separate from C.H. It was noted that the minor visited regularly with both parents, but was not distressed at the end of the visits and did not ask for additional visits or complain he missed his parents or siblings. The Department was looking for a home that would allow postadoptive contact between the minor and his parents if beneficial to the minor. While there was no adoptive home identified, the Department noted that with additional time, an adoptive home could be identified and requested an additional 90 days for that purpose.
D. Initial Section 366.26 Hearing and Subsequent Review Hearings
At the May 14, 2014, selection and implementation hearing, the minor’s counsel requested an additional 90 days to allow the minor to spend time with his half sibling, E.G., in her foster home. Counsel argued visits with mother would be detrimental and requested no visitation between the minor and mother during the 90-day period. Mother objected to the no-visitation request and asked the court to find the minor not adoptable. Father requested that twice-monthly visitation continue, stated he did not feel the minor and E.G. could live together, and stated he wanted a friend of his assessed for adoption. The court continued the selection and implementation hearing as to the minor for further hearing on the request to suspend mother’s visitation.
The July 11, 2014, addendum report stated the minor met with a prospective adoptive family, with whom he was having regular visits. He communicated his wish to be adopted by the prospective family. Placement with the family was set for the end of July. Based on that information, the Department stated the minor was likely to be adopted and recommended termination of parental rights and a permanent plan of adoption.
On August 6, 2014, the court set the matter for a contested hearing and modified visitation to a minimum of once per month, all at mother’s request.
The August 21, 2014, addendum report stated the minor moved into the home of his new foster parents, who were licensed and approved for an adoption home study. The minor was reportedly very happy in his new placement, and the foster parents reported he was “a joy to have in the home.” The minor was very clear in stating he wanted to be adopted and wanted to stay with his new foster parents “forever.” The foster mother reportedly had experience and skills in handling challenging children and has utilized those skills in the minor’s placement. Since the minor’s placement, there had only been one incident in which he could not be redirected. A discussion with the foster parents and the minor revealed the minor required lots of physical activity to promote his good behavior, so the foster parents indicated they would be signing the minor up for baseball.
The minor was continuing visits with both parents. He visited weekly with father; however, visits with mother were reduced to once per month due to mother’s cancellation of multiple visits, her disrespectful behavior toward the supervision monitor, and her inappropriate behavior during visits. The Department indicated “multiple concerns and difficulty” with mother’s visits--including inappropriate conversations with the minors, loud verbal altercations with the stepfather, and a loud tone during visits--which required repeated redirection and intervention by the visitation supervisor.
The Department reiterated that, based on improvements in the minor’s behavior and the fact that many families were interested in placement, the minor was generally adoptable.
The September 11, 2014, addendum report stated that, on August 30, 2014, there was an incident in the minor’s foster home that resulted in the minor being transported by law enforcement to the hospital on a possible 5150 hold. The minor exhibited extreme behaviors following a visit with his siblings earlier in the day and, while out with his caretakers running errands, the minor threatened to run away several times. Once home, the situation escalated when the minor picked up a screw driver and damaged the television and stabbed a storm door with a knife. He also threatened to harm the family pets, his foster parents, and himself. The foster mother accompanied the minor to the hospital and remained there with him until he was released to the foster family’s home that night. The social worker spoke with the foster parents, who indicated they may not be willing to move forward with adoption of the minor due to the incident.
According to the visitation logs, the minor’s visits with his siblings were difficult, as the children struggled to get along and had to be redirected by the supervision monitor.
On September 2, 2014, the social worker spoke again with the foster father, who was initially distraught by the incident and by the minor’s continued behaviors in the home, noting the minor was defiant and disrespectful to him at all times. The foster father stated he was fearful of the minor during the incident with the knife, but that he and the foster mother were still “very committed” to the minor and had grown to love him. The foster father stated he and the foster mother expected the minor to act out and were prepared for such behavior and noted a safety plan had been established in the event of any future incidents or extreme behavioral problems, including contacting the WRAP services team and calling 911 if the minor became a danger to himself or others. The WRAP team was reportedly making a referral for the minor to therapeutic behavioral services, and the foster father was hopeful those services, along with ongoing WRAP services, would be beneficial and provide support to the minor and the foster family.
The Department assessed the stability of the placement as “fragile” due to the severity of the minor’s recent behaviors in the foster home. While the foster parents expressed their full commitment to providing permanency for the minor, the Department noted that the minor had only been in the home a short period of time, was still adjusting to the placement, and had recently begun therapeutic WRAP and therapeutic behaviors services, and he and his caretakers would benefit from continued participation in those services to ensure the minor’s mental health needs were met. Concluding it would be detrimental to terminate parental rights at a time when the stability of the placement was uncertain, the Department requested a continuance of up to 60 days to assess the minor’s stability and permanency with the current foster family.
At the September 17, 2014, hearing, the juvenile court continued the contested selection and implementation hearing 60 days.
According to the November 7, 2014, addendum report, the minor was removed from his foster home on October 14, 2014, and placed in his previous foster home on an emergency basis and then in the Sacramento Children’s Home. The Department assessed that the minor required a more intensive, therapeutic placement to help ameliorate his extreme behaviors. The minor was reportedly adjusting well to the group home program and appeared to be doing well. He continued to receive WRAP and therapeutic behavioral services in addition to counseling and behavior modification through staff and support services. The Department concluded that, due to the minor’s need for intensive placement, adoption was not an appropriate plan until his behaviors stabilized in a regular foster home and he could be reassessed. The Department requested that the minor’s permanent plan be changed to permanency placement with a long-term goal of adoption.
On December 3, 2014, the juvenile court found termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the minor due to the minor’s placement in a residential treatment facility, the unlikelihood of adoption, and the need for additional time to stabilize. The court identified the minor’s permanent plan as placement with his current caretakers with a specific goal of adoption or legal guardianship, and ordered regular visitation with both parents subject to the Department’s supervision.
The post-permanency review report filed May 6, 2015, stated the minor was placed in a confidential foster home on December 1, 2014. Mother had not maintained contact with the Department, nor had she provided evidence of participation in services during the reporting period. Mother was arrested on January 2, 2015, for willfully causing or permitting a child to suffer under circumstances other than those likely to cause great bodily injury or death. (Pen. Code, § 273a, subd. (b).)
The minor was reportedly developmentally on track, adjusting well to his current foster home placement, and enjoying time with friends and his foster parents. The caregiver reported the minor was argumentative and had temper tantrums, and can be disrespectful and is quick to anger. However, the minor was receiving WRAP services and his tantrums had reportedly decreased due to the current foster parents’ refusal to engage when the minor becomes argumentative and tests limits. The caregiver stated she would not adopt the minor but would provide long-term placement. No relatives had come forward requesting placement and there were no pending assessments of any relative or nonrelative extended family member.
The minor was visiting twice monthly with his siblings and mother. While his visits with mother were “okay,” there were several occasions when the minor and mother argued. Weekly visits with father were unremarkable.
The minor expressed a desire to be adopted or to return to the care of either mother or father. The Department recommended the minor remain in his current placement to continue working on treatment goals and, once stabilized, be reassessed for an adoptive or guardianship home.
At the August 3, 2015, contested post permanency review hearing, the parents submitted on the recommendations of the Department. The court set a subsequent review hearing for November 18, 2015.
The post permanency review report filed November 6, 2015, stated the minor was still placed in a confidential foster home. The social worker reported her last communication with mother was August 12, 2015, when the social worker inquired about whether there were any relatives that could possibly care for the minor. The social worker’s last communication with father was a voicemail message left on August 14, 2015.
The minor was reportedly still receiving services and his tantrums had decreased due, in part, to an increase in his medication. The minor was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder. The medication he was prescribed due to poor impulse control was reportedly working effectively. While the minor’s tantrums had decreased, he was reportedly isolating himself.
On May 7, 2015, the foster parents gave a seven-day notice due to the minor being defiant. However, it was later rescinded after it was discovered that mother had instructed the minor to act out in order to return home. Mother later denied telling the minor to act out. On September 14, 2015, law enforcement was contacted after the minor acted out aggressively, refused to take his medication, and was kicking and throwing things, destroying property, and crying and screaming. The behavior reportedly began when the minor’s time on YouTube was decreased. After meeting with law enforcement, the minor apologized to his foster parents.
Monthly visitation between mother and the minor was reportedly “okay,” but the two often argued over things mother borrowed or mother’s broken promises. Weekly visits with father were unremarkable. The minor reported that he enjoyed visiting with his parents. The minor had an overnight visit with C.H., whose foster family reported the visit went well and requested an additional night. Both minors’ foster families reported the visit went “great” and the minor returned home without incident. The minor stated he understood he would not be adopted by his current caregivers but said he wished to live with them until he turned 18.
The Department recommended a permanent plan of placement with the current caregiver and stabilization of the minor’s behaviors in order to move toward legal guardianship or adoption.
At the November 18, 2015, post permanency review hearing, the court adopted the Department’s findings and orders and set the matter for additional review hearings in May 2016 and November 2016.
According to the post-permanency review report filed April 25, 2016, the minor was still in his foster placement, receiving treatment services, and doing well. The specifically-tailored services, along with medication, were helping to manage the minor’s outbursts. The minor’s behavior had reportedly improved, with less yelling and tantrums.
Attempts to contact mother were unsuccessful. The social worker was informed that mother planned to move with her partner approximately five hours north of Sacramento on April 5, 2016, and planned to travel to Sacramento each month to maintain visitation with the minor. Monthly visitation with mother was going well and mother was interacting appropriately with the minor. Father was maintaining weekly visits with the minor, which were reportedly going well. The minor had regular overnight visits with C.H. and her adoptive family and expressed to the family that he enjoyed being with them and missed them when he was away. The minor stated he was eager to be adopted by the family currently adopting C.H. Staff concluded the minor would benefit from continued support to stabilize his behaviors. It was noted that he would transition into the home of C.H.’s adoptive parents before being sent to adoption to allow time to finalize C.H.’s adoption and allow her to settle in before moving the minor into the home.
The Department recommended the minor remain in his current placement and work on his remaining treatment goals and, upon finalization of C.H.’s adoption, make a slow transition into the adoptive home so as not to interrupt the current positive behavioral progress, with the ultimate goal of adoption.
At the May 4, 2016, hearing, the court adopted the Department’s findings and orders and set the matter for further review hearing.
The post-permanency review report filed October 19, 2016, noted the minor was placed with C.H. in her adoptive home on June 17, 2016. He was adjusting to his new placement and continued to have good and bad days. The minor had developed a close bond with the caregivers and was stable in the home. The caregivers reported the minor was making progress and they were committed to pursuing adoption.
The minor’s school reported the minor had become frustrated and angered at the way the other students were treating him and making fun of him and began to cry. When another student pushed him, the minor punched the student in the side and was suspended for two days. The minor also reportedly called another student a “Bitch” on two occasions and was argumentative with his teacher.
The minor’s therapist reported that she was meeting with the minor weekly and had developed a positive rapport with him. The minor appeared to be engaged and open to treatment, and his caregivers also participated and were engaged in conjoint counseling. The minor was taking his medication and reported he felt it was helping him stay focused most of the time with no noticed side effects.
Monthly supervised visits with mother continued; however, stepfather J.S. reportedly paced and talked to himself about how CPS was destroying his family during visits. He was agitated and angry and glared at the therapist, and made those around him uncomfortable. The social worker informed mother on August 16, 2016, that stepfather J.S. was not approved to attend her visits with the minor. Given the visitation monitor’s safety concerns with the stepfather, mother’s visits were moved to a new location.
Visits between the minor and father were occurring twice a month, as father was enrolled in school and unable to make all of his weekly visits. However, the minor stated he enjoyed visits with his parents.
The Department recommended a permanent plan of placement with the current caregivers with a plan of adoption, noting the minor would be monitored by the social worker during his first six months in his new placement for continued support in stabilizing his behaviors.
On November 2, 2016, the court set the matter for a selection and implementation hearing to determine whether adoption and termination of parental rights, guardianship, or long-term foster care was the most appropriate plan for the minor.
The March 1, 2017, selection and implementation report stated mother was more consistent in her recent visits with the minor, despite her “very blunt” communication style. Father was reportedly on time and appropriate and consistent during visits with the minor. The minor transitioned easily back into the caregivers’ home after visits.
The minor was doing well in school. Since the incident of aggressive behavior in August 2016, there were no reported behavioral concerns in school. While the minor had a history of being argumentative with his teachers, he was continuing to work on this behavior with his therapist.
The caregiver reported that C.H. became afraid and hid under her bed when the minor screamed, yelled, and slammed doors, and was concerned the minor’s behavior might have triggered unpleasant childhood memories and trauma for C.H. On January 4, 2016, the caregivers stated they were not willing to provide placement or permanency for the minor. The minor was thereafter placed in a confidential emergency foster home on January 19, 2017, while the Department searched for a new placement. Since the minor was removed from C.H.’s adoptive home, the minor and C.H. continued to maintain telephone contact and C.H.’s adoptive parents stated they would consider visits in the near future. The social worker noted that, despite some of his negative behaviors, the minor had come a long way and was doing well and was making great progress, and his loss of placement was due to the previous caregivers’ unwillingness to take ownership in the situation.
The Department assessed the minor as specifically adoptable due to his age and behaviors. On February 2, 2017, a prospective family completed disclosures and stated they would like to move forward with preplacement visits. The Department stated it would not recommend termination of parental rights until the minor became stable, and requested a 90-day continuance.
On April 5, 2017, the parties agreed to, and the court authorized, out-of-county placement of the minor. He was placed with his new confidential caregivers on April 7, 2017.
The addendum report filed May 18, 2017, (referred to by the juvenile court at the subsequent hearing as the “June 14 addendum report”) stated the minor’s current caregivers had expressed interest in adopting the minor. Since placement with the current caregivers, the minor seemed well-adjusted and stated he was in favor of being adopted. The caregivers reported that the minor struggled two weeks into the placement. There were two incidents when the minor was told he could not have something or was redirected and the minor balled up his fists and screamed in the foster father’s face. The caregivers reported they were able to calm the minor down and, since those incidents, the minor had stabilized. The caregivers remained committed to providing the minor permanency through adoption, and appeared to be patient and supportive of the minor. The minor stated he liked living with the caregivers and would like to be adopted.
The Department asserted it would not be detrimental to terminate parental rights in order to allow the minor to have permanency through adoption. The caregivers stated they would support postadoption contact between the minor and the parents if appropriate. The Department assessed the minor as likely to be adopted and recommended termination of parental rights.
At the June 14, 2017, selection and implementation hearing, the court found there was clear and convincing evidence the minor would be adopted, ordered termination of parental rights, and committed the minor to the care and custody of the Department for suitable adoptive placement.
DISCUSSION
I
Substantial Evidence Supported Finding the Minor was Likely to be Adopted
Mother contends there was insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that Matthew was likely to be adopted. We disagree.
“If the court determines, based on the assessment . . . and any other relevant evidence, by a clear and convincing standard, that it is likely the child will be adopted, the court shall terminate parental rights and order the child placed for adoption.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) “Although a finding of adoptability must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, it [i.e., the determination that it is likely the child will be adopted within a reasonable time] is nevertheless a low threshold.” (In re K.B. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1292.)
Determination of whether a child is likely to be adopted focuses first upon the characteristics of the child; therefore, a finding of adoptability does not require that the child already be in a prospective adoptive home or that there is “a proposed adoptive parent ‘waiting in the wings.’ ” (In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649 (Sarah M.).) A finding that a child is not adoptable depends on whether the child suffers from any problems, such as “age, physical condition, [or] emotional state,” that would make it difficult to find a willing adoptive parent. (Ibid.; see also In re I.I. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 857, 870.) The fact that a prospective adoptive parent has shown interest in adopting a minor is substantial evidence the minor is likely to be adopted within a reasonable time, either by that parent or some other. (In re J.I. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 903, 911; In re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1154; Sarah M., at p. 1651.)
We review the juvenile court’s finding on this issue under the substantial evidence standard, giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving any evidentiary conflicts in favor of affirming. (In re I.I., supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 869.) That is, we must determine whether the record contains substantial evidence from which the court could find clear and convincing evidence that the child was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. (In re B.D. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1218, 1232.) If so, “[i]t is irrelevant that there may be evidence which would support a contrary conclusion.” (In re K.B., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1292.)
Here, the minor was placed with the adoptive family on April 7, 2017. By May 18, 2017, the time of the filing of the addendum report, the minor was reportedly doing well and adjusting to his new placement and liked his new caregivers. The prospective adoptive parents were described as patient and supportive of the minor even when the minor reportedly balled up his fists and screamed in the face of the foster father when he was told he could not have something or was redirected. Despite such behavior after just over one month of placement, the caregivers were nonetheless able to calm the minor down and help him to become more stabilized over time, and remained committed to providing the minor with permanency through adoption. The minor was in favor of adoption by his caregivers.
Mother claims it was simply too soon to find the minor adoptable, given his challenging behavioral issues and the lack of evidence of any “exceptional expertise” on the part of the caregivers to help deal with difficult times. Acknowledging that a prospective adoptive parent’s expression of interest in adopting a minor is sufficient evidence the minor is likely to be adopted within a reasonable time either by the prospective adoptive parents or by some other family (see In re Lukas B., supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 1154; In re J.I., supra, 108 Cal.App.4th at p. 911; Sarah M., supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1651), mother asserts the rule does not apply where, as here, the minor was not found to be “generally adoptable.” She claims the minor could only be found to be “specifically adoptable” when and if an adoptive family has been found willing to adopt. (Sarah M., at p. 1651.)
The court in Sarah M. recognized that “in some cases a minor who ordinarily might be considered unadoptable due to age, poor physical health, physical disability, or emotional instability is nonetheless likely to be adopted because a prospective adoptive family has been identified as willing to adopt the child. Where the social worker opines that the minor is likely to be adopted based solely on the existence of a prospective adoptive parent who is willing to adopt the minor, an inquiry may be made into whether there is any legal impediment to adoption by that parent . . . . In such cases, the existence of one of these legal impediments to adoption is relevant because the legal impediment would preclude the very basis upon which the social worker formed the opinion that the minor is likely to be adopted.” (Sarah M., supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1650.) Affirming the juvenile court’s finding of adoptability, the appellate court stated, “[W]here evidence of a minor’s adoptability is not based solely on the existence of a prospective adoptive parent who is willing to adopt the child, the potential adoptive parent’s suitability to adopt is irrelevant to the issue whether the minor is likely to be adopted.” (Id. at p. 1651.)
Here, the social worker’s opinion regarding the minor’s adoptability was not based solely on the existence of a prospective adoptive family that was willing to adopt the minor. Her opinion was based, in part, on the fact that the minor’s behavioral issues were continuing to stabilize and his therapeutic team was working closely with him and his caretakers to provide support and services for his transition into the home.
Even assuming the opinion of adoptability had been premised solely on the identification of the foster family willing to adopt, mother concedes there was no legal impediment to adoption by the prospective adoptive family.
Mother further claims the likelihood of adoptability must also include evidence the prospective adoptive family is “prepared” to adopt the minor. (In re Jennilee T. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 212, 223 (Jennilee T.).) Jennilee T. says no such thing. There, the social worker testified that “a neurological examination revealed the minor was at risk for developmental problems and further testing was recommended,” but she did not believe the exam results would interfere with adoption, noting “ ‘the family that we had identified other than the relative had indicated that they were willing to accept a child with such a background and all the attendant risks.’ ” (Jennilee T., at p. 224.) The father argued that, until the genetic evaluation was completed and the results analyzed, there was substantial doubt as to the minor’s adoptability either by the identified family or any other family. (Ibid.) The appellate court disagreed and noted that, “in reaching its conclusion Jennilee was likely to be adopted, the [juvenile] court recognized it may not even be known until the child reaches her teenage years whether she has any dysfunction. Noting her parents did not manifest their difficulties until late in their development, the court stated: ‘So while it would be attractive to know more about the child, I don’t think it’s going to make much difference as to the adoptability of the child.’ Thus, the results of the testing would not necessarily help the agency in placing Jennilee. The court also co
mmented: ‘Obviously, you’re going to have to reveal to any pre-adoptive parents what the genetic background is and see if they still wish to take the child with that kind of potential.’ ” (Id. at p. 225.) The Jennilee T. court neither implied, nor do we infer from its ruling, that any prospective adoptive family must demonstrate that it is prepared to adopt a minor or it holds some “exceptional expertise” with which to deal with any potential difficulties.
Mother contends the minor’s significant emotional and behavioral challenges had affected several of his previous placements despite confidence the placement was going to be successful, and thus an assessment of the prospective family’s ability to meet his “special needs” was imperative. Mother notes the minor required “a full support team to stabilize him emotionally” and had behavioral challenges that negatively affected more than one of his previous placements. As an example, she points to the fact that, despite that his previous caretakers still wanted to move forward with adoption following the August 2014 incident and were provided with support, services, and a safety plan in the event of future incidents, the minor nevertheless required removal and placement into a higher level of care. She also details the fluctuation of the minor’s emotional and behavioral problems over the next several years and notes that, despite the positive aspects of his current foster home, there were issues that had not been fleshed out, such as the lack of information regarding the foster family’s expertise in handling children with special needs. In that regard, she recites a handful of cases wherein an adoptability finding was upheld on appeal based, in part, on the foster family’s experience in raising adoptive children with special needs and periods of preadoptive placement much longer than the two months of placement here. We are not persuaded.
Here, the minor was living with a potential adoptive family that was committed to adopting him despite his behavioral issues, and the foster family had an approved home study. As the Department aptly notes, the minor had been removed from the parents subject to dependency proceedings three times beginning in 2006, and suffered from a tremendous amount of stress and upheaval as a result. However, while the minor’s behavioral and emotional issues were by no means resolved at the time of the selection and implementation hearing, those issues had stabilized tremendously and he was making progress both in home and in school. There were certainly points between his initial removal and his placement with his current caretakers when the minor’s behavioral issues became more pronounced and required more intensive treatment and care, but there were also numerous examples of the minor’s progress. For example, two months after being placed in a level 12 group home, the minor had stabilized enough to be placed in a foster home and thereafter have extended and overnight visits with his sibling, C.H., and her adoptive family with the goal of adoptive placement for the minor as well. While the minor’s eventual placement with C.H.’s adoptive family was not ultimately successful because the minor’s negative behaviors triggered C.H.’s memories of past trauma, the social worker noted the placement failure was not the result of the minor’s behaviors but rather the caregivers’ unwillingness to do what was necessary to make the placement successful. Thereafter, the minor spent less than one month in emergency foster care before a new potential adoptive family was identified. Preplacement visits began and, two months later, the minor was placed in his current placement.
With regard to the foster family’s suitability to provide for the minor, as previously discussed, mother has not provided any authority to support her claim that a prospective adoptive family must possess expertise in dealing with children with special needs. In any event, the record contains sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the minor’s prospective adoptive family was indeed suitable. For example, the addendum report filed May 18, 2017, (referred to by the juvenile court as the “June 14 addendum report”) stated the minor’s current caregivers had, within two weeks of placement, already dealt with the minor’s behavioral problems similar to those exhibited in some of his prior placements. The caregivers were, unlike some of the prior caregivers, able to calm the minor down and were patient and supportive of the minor. Since those incidents, the minor’s behavior began to stabilize. The foster father was self-employed and had a flexible work schedule, and both caregivers planned to take time off from work to help the minor adjust and bond. The caregivers had completed the requisite child abuse and criminal background checks. They remained committed to adoption and were ready, willing, and able to do so upon completion of a home study. They were reportedly financially solvent and understood the legal and financial responsibilities involved in adopting the minor, and had assumed their parental role, fulfilling the minor’s psychological need for care and affection on a daily basis. It should also be noted that the Department provided the minor with a therapeutic team that was continuing its support of the minor and the foster family and assisted in transitioning the minor into his current foster home. The social worker’s reports contain sufficient evidence of suitability. Any claim mother may have of omissions or defects in the reports not raised in the juvenile court is forfeited on appeal. (In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616, 622; In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 399-400.)
There was no error in the juvenile court’s finding that the minor was likely to be adopted.
II
Insufficient Evidence to Support Beneficial Parental Relationship Exception
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption did not apply. In particular, mother contends the court failed to consider evidence that supported a “less detrimental plan” such as guardianship. This claim lacks merit as well.
“ ‘At the selection and implementation hearing held pursuant to section 366.26, a juvenile court must make one of four possible alternative permanent plans for a minor child. . . . The permanent plan preferred by the Legislature is adoption. [Citation.]’ [Citations.] If the court finds the child is adoptable, it must terminate parental rights absent circumstances under which it would be detrimental to the child.” (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1368.)
“One exception to adoption is the beneficial parental relationship exception. This exception is set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) which states: ‘[T]he court shall terminate parental rights unless either of the following applies: [¶] . . . [¶] (B) The court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child due to one or more of the following circumstances: [¶] (i) The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.’ [Citation.] The [parent] has the burden of proving [the parent’s] relationship with the children would outweigh the well-being they would gain in a permanent home with an adoptive parent. [Citations.]” (In re Noah G. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1300 (Noah G.).)
“Because a section 366.26 hearing occurs only after the court has repeatedly found the parent unable to meet the child’s needs, it is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent’s rights will prevail over the Legislature’s preference for adoptive placement.” (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350.)
The party claiming the exception has the burden of establishing the existence of any circumstances that constitute an exception to termination of parental rights. (In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 553.) The factual predicate of the exception must be supported by substantial evidence, but the juvenile court exercises its discretion in weighing that evidence and determining detriment. (In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 622; In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315.)
The exception “must be examined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the many variables which affect a parent/child bond. The age of the child, the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, the ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child’s particular needs are some of the variables which logically affect a parent/child bond.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.)
“On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, we presume in favor of the order, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in support of the order.” (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) “ ‘[E]valuating the factual basis for an exercise of discretion is similar to analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence for the ruling. . . . Broad deference must be shown to the trial judge.’ ” (In re Jasmine D., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1351.)
Here, mother’s visitation with the minor had reportedly only recently been consistent. Visits were either canceled by mother or were canceled by the Department due to mother’s disrespectful behavior toward the visitation monitor or her inappropriate discussions with the minors. Stepfather J.S. was accompanying mother to visits and the two were engaging in loud verbal altercations requiring intervention from the visitation monitor. In May 2015, the minor’s twice-monthly visits with mother were reportedly “okay” but there had been several occasions when mother and the minor argued. The same was true of the minor’s now once-monthly visits in November 2015. However, it was also reported that, in June 2015, mother had instructed the minor to act out in his foster placement so that he could be returned home, although mother denied having done so. By May 2016, mother’s once-monthly visits with the minor were reportedly going well. In August 2016, mother was informed her husband J.S.’s attendance at the visits was not authorized and was raising safety concerns. Thereafter, visitation was moved to a new location and, for the most part, mother regularly visited the minor on a monthly basis.
However, “[e]vidence of frequent and loving contact is not enough to establish a beneficial parental relationship.” (Noah G., supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1300.) Mother must also show she “occupies a parental role in the children’s lives.” (Ibid.) There is little evidence in the record that mother occupied a parental role in the minor’s life. Virtually ignoring the first prong of the beneficial parental relationship exception, mother focuses on her bond with the minor and contends the minor was very connected to her, was in her care from birth to three years old and then again from five to six years old, shared that he missed her in every therapy session, and was very excited when he was able to reunify with her in 2012. She also claims that, although the minor expressed his desire to be adopted, he also expressed his desire to return home and, as recently as September 2016, he was referring to his caretakers not as his parents but as his “foster parents.” Finally, she claims she was a firm presence throughout the minor’s entire life and their bond was “deep and significant.” However, other than the September 2016 foster agency report regarding monthly visitation, mother supports these claims with citations to portions of the record that refer to facts and circumstances most of which occurred in 2012, and the latest of which occurred in May 2014, including the social worker’s 2012 observation that the minor “appears to enjoy spending time with his family, and there is a significant bond.” In any event, it was mother’s burden to demonstrate that she occupied a parental role in the minor’s life. She failed to do so.
Even assuming mother occupied a parental role with the minor, she has not demonstrated her “relationship with the [minor] would outweigh the well-being [he] would gain in a permanent home with an adoptive parent. [Citations.]” (Noah G., supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1300.) As previously discussed, the minor was doing relatively well in his current placement. While there were two behavioral incidents reported, the caregivers were able to calm the minor down and stabilize his behavior. The minor stated he liked his caregivers and expressed his desire to be adopted by them. The caregivers also stated they would support postadoption contact between the minor and both parents if appropriate. On the other hand, foster family staff noted that, while mother had recently been more consistent in her visitation, she was observed to be “very blunt in her communication with the [minor].” She was reportedly “loud, verbally aggressive, and has talked down to the [minor].” It was further observed that the minor “does not really react when the mother communicates in this manner as it seems the [minor] is use[d] to this type of engagement.” While the minor stated in March 2017 that both mother and father were important people in his life, he also stated he would like to be adopted.
Mother failed to carry her burden of establishing either prong of the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption. Therefore, the juvenile court did not err in finding the exception does not apply.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.



HULL , J.



We concur:



BLEASE , Acting P. J.



BUTZ , J.