In re P.S. CA4/3

Filed 7/23/26 In re P.S. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re P.S. et al., Persons Coming
Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL
SERVICES AGENCY, G066311

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20DP0622,
20DP0622A, 20DP0622B,
v. 20DP623, 20DP0623A,
20DP0623B, 20DP0624,
R.S., 20DP0624A, 20DP0624B)

Defendant and Appellant. OPINION

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Robert Goodkin, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Leon J. Page, County Counsel, Debbie Torrez and Deborah B.
Morse, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
R.S. (Father) appeals from an order terminating his parental
rights over his children, P.S., C.S., and R.S. (Minors), at a hearing pursuant
to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (.26 hearing).1 He contends
the Orange County juvenile court (the court) should have applied the
parental-benefit exception to termination of parental rights under section
366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i). We disagree. Father failed to establish the parental-
benefit exception applies to this case. We accordingly affirm the order.
FACTS2
I.
FIRST REMOVAL
In May 2020, Minors were taken into protective custody when
they were 7 years old, 4 years old, and 11 months old. A few days later, the
Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) filed a petition pursuant to
section 300, subdivisions (a), (b)(1), and (j). The petition alleged, inter alia,
that Father and B.H. (Mother) engaged in a physical altercation and
domestic violence in the presence of P.S. and C.S. The petition further alleged
Mother physically abused C.S. and had anger management and mental
health issues. As to Father, the petition alleged he had a criminal history of
arrests and convictions.
After a detention hearing, the court detained Minors pending
jurisdictional proceedings and authorized supervised visitation for Father
and Mother.

1
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
2
Because Mother is not a party to this appeal, we summarize the
pertinent facts regarding Father.

2
In September 2020, the court found an amended version of the
petition to be true, bringing Minors within the provisions of section 300,
subdivisions (b)(1) and (j). The court also declared Minors to be dependents,
removed them from their parents’ custody, and approved the case plan.
Mother and Father participated in services and progressed
to unsupervised visitation. In May 2021, the court returned Minors to
Mother’s custody under family maintenance supervision.
II.
SECOND REMOVAL
In August 2021, Minors were taken back into protective custody,
and SSA filed a supplemental petition (§ 387). The petition alleged Mother
verbally abused Minors, physically abused P.S. and C.S., did not properly
supervise Minors, and had ongoing mental health issues. Regarding Father,
the petition alleged he reported not having a suitable residence for Minors.
The petition further alleged Father may have unresolved substance abuse
issues and had an open criminal case.
In November 2021, the court found an amended version of the
section 387 petition to be true and again removed Minors from Mother’s and
Father’s custody. The court ordered reunification services for Mother and
Father, and it authorized unsupervised visits for Father.
III.
REUNIFICATION
By November 2021, Father obtained housing. During an
overnight visit with Minors, he allowed Minors to have unauthorized contact
with Mother. Father was thereafter prohibited from having overnight visits.
A few months later, Father was again allowed to have overnight
visits, and Minors were returned to his care for a trial return in February

3
2022. In March 2022, Father failed his trial return because he drove Minors
with a suspended license even though he had agreed not to do so. Minors
were accordingly returned to their prior caregiver. Around the same time, the
caregiver reported C.S. had disclosed that Father could be “‘mean’” and asked
them to lie.
In August 2022, an anonymous individual told SSA that Father
regularly used methamphetamine while Minors were in his care. Father
denied any substance use.
In a report, SSA indicated a .26 hearing would not be in the best
interests of Minors because there was no one who could adopt them or accept
legal guardianship at that time. SSA requested Minors remain in foster care
with a relative, a post-permanent plan review hearing, and termination of
reunification services.
At an 18-month review hearing, the court adopted SSA’s
recommendation and ordered Minors to remain in foster care pursuant to a
permanent plan of placement with a willing relative. It also terminated
reunification services due to Father’s minimal progress and authorized
Father to participate in substance abuse testing.
IV.
POST-PERMANENCY SUPERVISION
In October 2022, Father put Minors’ shoes in the microwave and
caused P.S.’s sweater to catch on fire because he believed there were bugs on
them. His behavior scared Minors who were reluctant to visit with him.
Around the same time, the anonymous individual who previously
contacted SSA reported Father was using methamphetamine as well as other
drugs. The individual provided a photograph of a male with drug
paraphernalia. Father did not participate in drug patch testing during this

4
time, and the family therapist believed sessions with Father were no longer
appropriate.
In December 2022, the court scheduled a .26 hearing because
Minors’ caregiver expressed a desire to adopt Minors. But shortly after, the
caregiver requested Minors be removed from her care because she was
frustrated with progress on the case and had to care for another relative.
V.
LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP
In January 2023, Minors were placed with the maternal
grandmother who initially indicated she would adopt Minors. She later only
agreed to legal guardianship, however, and the court appointed the maternal
grandmother to be Minors’ legal guardian in June 2023.
A few months later, the paternal grandfather reported to SSA
that Father needed help but did not provide further details.
In October 2023, the maternal grandmother claimed P.S.
exhibited aggressive behavior and suicidal ideation while C.S. exhibited
negative attention-seeking behavior. But Minors’ therapist reported both
children were well adjusted.
In December 2023, the maternal grandmother’s dog bit R.S. two
times, causing injuries to her face. The maternal grandmother did not seek
medical treatment for R.S.
The next month, P.S. disclosed physical abuse by the maternal
grandmother and indicated she did not feel safe with her. The allegations
were later substantiated, and Minors were removed from the maternal
grandmother’s home.

5
In February 2024, Minors were placed back with their prior
caregiver, and SSA filed a second supplemental petition (§ 387). The court
detained Minors and ordered supervised visitation for Mother and Father.
VI.
TERMINATION OF LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP AND FATHER’S VISITATION
In March 2024, SSA filed a section 388 petition to terminate the
maternal grandmother’s legal guardianship.
A few months later, SSA reported it was concerned about
Father’s mental health and recommended his visitation hours be reduced.
SSA noted Father believed SSA was monitoring him through his electronic
devices.
C.S. opted out of visits with Father since March 2024 but
resumed visits in September 2024. She reported Father allowed Minors to
have an unmonitored phone call with Mother during one visit.
In October 2024, the court granted SSA’s section 388 petition and
terminated the maternal grandmother’s legal guardianship. A few weeks
later, the court set a .26 hearing to reassess Minors’ permanent plan. The
court also ordered a bonding study for Mother and Father.
VII.
SSA’S .26 REPORTS
According to SSA’s .26 reports, Minors’ caregiver was now willing
to adopt Minors, and Minors repeatedly expressed they wanted to be adopted
by her. Minors had a “strong sense of love and belonging with” the caregiver.
C.S. reported she did not feel comfortable with or loved by
Father. She also indicated Father told her he did not trust Minors because
they talk to SSA.

6
By March 2025, the paternal grandparents no longer wanted to
supervise Father’s visits with Minors because he facilitated unauthorized
contacts with Mother. Father and the paternal grandparents also argued in
front of Minors.
Around the same time, Dr. Gerardo D. Canul assessed Father
along with Minors and determined placement with Father would likely
jeopardize Minors’ psychological and emotional growth.
In April 2025, Father’s monitored visitation was increased from
four hours to eight hours per week. A few months later, Father sent
concerning text messages to SSA stating he “completed a surveillance scan
around his room . . . and picked up signals that he might have been under
SSA’s surveillance.”
VIII.
.26 HEARING
A. Dr. Canul’s Testimony
Dr. Canul testified about the results of his bonding study as a
court appointed expert. He noted Minors were comfortable and familiar with
Father but characterized this as “minimal positive.” He added that Minors
were “willing to exchange pleasantries” with Father. But Dr. Canul also
testified about a “worrisome” moment where Father made “nonsensical”
comments and did not notice Minors’ confusion in response. In that moment,
Minors were “semi-frozen.” He concluded Father’s behavior had been
unresolved for a period of time and created “at minimum emotional
discomfort and confusion” for Minors. Finally, he agreed severing Minors’
relationship with Father would likely be a loss to Minors.

7
B. Minors’ Testimony
P.S. was 12 years old and testified about the activities she did
with Father, which included trips to the pool, playing games at an arcade,
visits to a trampoline park, and biking. She loved Father and wanted to
continue seeing him, but she wanted to live with the caregiver. She felt good
about being adopted by the caregiver.
C.S. was nine years old and testified about the activities she did
with Father, including trips to a trampoline park. She wanted to live with the
caregiver who she loved and did not know if she wanted to continue doing
certain activities with Father. When asked if she wanted to stay with the
caregiver and continue visits with Father, she agreed. She also testified that
she loved Father and would be sad if she never saw him again.
R.S. likewise testified about the activities she did with Father.
She liked seeing Father and wanted to continue visits with him. She also
testified she liked the caregiver but wanted to live with Mother.
C. The Social Worker’s Testimony
The social worker’s testimony was generally consistent with
SSA’s reports. She recommended the court terminate parental rights and
believed adoption was the appropriate permanent plan for Minors.
D. Father’s Testimony
Father testified he was not asking for Minors to be returned to
his care. He believed it would be detrimental to take them away from their
caregiver, but he wanted to continue seeing them. Father also filed a trial
brief arguing the court should apply the parental-benefit exception to
termination of parental rights.

8
IX.
THE COURT’S RULING
The court found Minors adoptable and terminated parental
rights. The court also found the parental-benefit exception did not apply.
As to the parental-benefit exception, the court held Father
established he had regular visitation and contact with Minors. The court
further believed there was an attachment between P.S. and Father. But the
court emphasized portions of Dr. Canul’s testimony and report where Dr.
Canul found “a low level of emotional attachment.” The court added that Dr.
Canul found there was “not a strong attachment quality in the relationship
and . . . that severance of that relationship . . . would be painful, but [Minors
were] . . . essentially better with a more stable caregiver than with . . .
[F]ather.” The court further considered Minors’ testimony and SSA’s reports.
Father timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Father contends the court should have applied the parental-
benefit exception to termination of parental rights. (§ 366.26, subd.
(c)(1)(B)(i).) For the reasons post, the court did not err.
I.
APPLICABLE LAW AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Once reunification services have ended, the juvenile court is
required to terminate parental rights unless an exception to adoption applies.
(§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) One of those exceptions is the parental-benefit
exception. (Id., subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Under the statutory exception, the court
must terminate parental rights unless it “finds a compelling reason for
determining that termination would be detrimental to the child” because
“[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child

9
and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (Ibid.) In In re
Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 (Caden C.), our Supreme Court identified
three elements a parent must prove to establish the parental-benefit
exception: “(1) regular visitation and contact, and (2) a relationship, the
continuation of which would benefit the child such that (3) the termination of
parental rights would be detrimental to the child.” (Id. at p. 631.) The first
two elements are reviewed for substantial evidence. (Id. at p. 639.) The third
element is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 640.) We address each of
the three elements in turn below.
II.
THE PARENTAL-BENEFIT EXCEPTION DOES NOT APPLY
A. Regular Visitation and Contact
As the Caden C. court observed, the “regular visitation and
contact” element is “straightforward.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.)
“The question is just whether ‘parents visit consistently,’ taking into account
‘the extent permitted by court orders.’” (Ibid.) Courts accordingly should
consider whether parents “‘maintained regular visitation and contact with
the child.’” (Ibid.)
Here, the SSA reports and Minors’ testimony at the .26 hearing
suggest Father had regular visitation and contact with Minors. Father took
Minors to the pool, an arcade, trampoline park, biking, and more. Given these
facts, substantial evidence supports the court’s finding that Father
maintained regular visitation and contact with Minors. SSA also does not
appear to dispute this finding.
B. Beneficial Relationship
As to the benefit element, the Caden C. court noted “courts assess
whether ‘the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.’” (Caden

10
C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.) The benefit showing requires proof of “a
substantial, positive, emotional attachment to the parent.” (Id. at p. 636.)
“[T]he relationship may be shaped by a slew of factors, such as ‘[t]he 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.’” (Id. at p. 632.) Courts “consider how children feel
about, interact with, look to, or talk about their parents.” (Ibid.)
In this case, Minors were taken into protective custody when they
were 7 years old, 4 years old, and 11 months old. They were thereafter out of
Father’s care for more than five years. While P.S. and C.S. testified they
loved Father and wanted to continue visits with him, they both wanted to live
with their caregiver. C.S. also was not sure if she wanted to continue certain
activities with Father and previously opted out of visits with him for a period
of time. When asked if she wanted to continue seeing Father assuming P.S.
continued to see him, C.S. testified, “I don’t know.” Dr. Canul further testified
Minors appeared confused and “semi-frozen” in response to Father’s
nonsensical comments on one occasion. He opined Father’s unresolved
behavioral problems created emotional discomfort and confusion for Minors.
In short, although Father undoubtedly had positive interactions
with Minors during their visits, a beneficial relationship requires “more than
the incidental benefit a child gains from any amount of positive contact with”
the parent in visits. (In re Katherine J. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 303, 318.)
“[P]leasant and cordial . . . visits are, by themselves, insufficient to mandate
a permanent plan other than adoption.” (In re Brian R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th
904, 924.) Instead, Father was required to demonstrate a “‘substantial,
positive emotional attachment.’” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 633.)

11
Overall, there is substantial evidence supporting a finding that Father did
not demonstrate a beneficial relationship.
C. Detriment Resulting from Termination of Relationship
With respect to the third element, a court “must decide whether
the harm from severing the child’s relationship with the parent outweighs
the benefit to the child of placement in a new adoptive home.” (Caden C.,
supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.) “By making this decision, the trial court
determines whether terminating parental rights serves the child’s best
interests.” (Ibid.)
Minors lived with their caregiver for several years, and Minors
were happy and thriving in her care. Indeed, P.S. and C.S. testified they
wanted to live with her, and C.S. testified she loved her. SSA and counsel for
Minors further opined that any benefit Minors received from Father was
outweighed by being in a home with the caregiver. Although Father
previously suggested legal guardianship may have been the most appropriate
plan for Minors, a court may choose a permanent plan “‘other than the norm,
which remains adoption’” only “‘in exceptional circumstances.’” (Caden C.,
supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 631.) Considering the record as a whole, the evidence
supports a finding that Minors would be best served by adoption. We cannot
find the court abused its discretion.

12
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.

SANCHEZ, ACTING P. J.

WE CONCUR:

GOODING, J.

SCOTT, J.

13