IN RE: KEVIN M. et al. (2011)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Nelson M. (Father) appeals from the termination of his parental rights over Kevin M., Judith M., and J.M. (now ages 13, 11, and 6 years, respectively), contending that he met his burden of showing the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i).¹  The minors were adjudged dependents of the juvenile court pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b) (failure to protect), (d) (sexual abuse), and (g) (failure to provide).

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determination that the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights did not apply because the evidence showed Father did not occupy a parental role in the minors' lives;  Judith and Kevin expressed that they wanted to be adopted by their foster mother;  and Judith and Kevin had an emotionally difficult relationship with Father due to Father's relationships with women and his sexual abuse of S.C., an unrelated minor.   We affirm the court's order terminating Father's parental rights.

BACKGROUND

Father's wife and the mother of the minors, E.M. (Mother), was deported to Honduras in 2007.   In late 2007, Father began a relationship with Ana C. Ana, her six-year-old daughter S.C., and her son Jesus C. moved in with Father and the minors in the middle of February 2008.   On February 29, 2008, DCFS received a referral that early in the morning of the previous day, Ana had discovered Father in the bedroom that S.C. shared with the other children.   The bedroom door was locked.   Ana opened the bedroom door with a credit card.   She found Father underneath S.C.'s blanket and leaning over her.   S.C. had gone to bed with her clothes on as she normally did, but Ana found her completely naked with Father lying on top of her, chest to chest.²  Ana's son, Jesus, was sleeping on the other side of S.C. The other three children were sleeping in another bed.   Ana hit Father to get him off S.C. Father said, “ ‘Sorry, I will never do it again.’ ”

When Ana dropped S.C. off at school that day, S.C. told her that they should move out of Father's house.   Ana and S.C. did not return to Father's house.   Three months previously, Ana had noticed Father hugging S.C. with his hands on her hips.   When Ana gave S.C. a look of disapproval, S.C. put on a long jacket to cover Father's hands and continued to hug Father.   Father became upset and defensive when Ana told him that he was acting inappropriately with S.C.

On February 29, 2008, after efforts to locate the minors at school were unsuccessful, DCFS contacted Father by telephone.   Father told DCFS that the minors were at school.   DCFS found the minors without adult supervision in Father's home.   The home was filled with trash and clothes.   Large knives were in the hallway, bathroom, and the minors' room within the minors' reach.   Judith told DCFS that Father had told her to stay home and take care of J.M. and that “ ‘I always stay alone with my brothers'.”   She said Ana and S.C. had moved out the previous day because they did not want to stay in the home anymore.   The minors did not disclose any sexual abuse of them by Father or anyone else to DCFS. The minors were taken to the DCFS office, where Father met them.   Father admitted that he asked the two older minors to stay home from school and take care of J.M. while he was working, but denied that he touched S.C. inappropriately.   The minors were detained from Father's custody that day.

Later, Father told DCFS that Ana had made up the sexual abuse allegations because she wanted to return to her husband, who was due to be released from jail.   He also said that he had received threatening calls from Ana's friend and that three strange men came to his house looking for him.

On March 3, 2008, S.C. told DCFS that she was sleeping in her bed on February 28, 2008, when Father woke her by kissing her on the mouth.   Father took off her pants and underwear and then rubbed her inner thigh and her private parts.   She stated that she was afraid of Father.   S.C. told DCFS that on another occasion, Father kissed her mouth and touched and rubbed her private parts over her clothes.   She stated that Father “ ‘only does it to me.’ ”   On March 7, 2008, S.C. repeated the same allegations concerning the incident in the bedroom to the police.

On March 5, 2008, DCFS filed a petition pursuant to section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (g) on behalf of nine-year-old Kevin, eight-year-old Judith, and two-year-old J.M. The petition alleged as to section 300, subdivision (b) in count 1 that on February 28, 2008, and on a prior occasion, Father sexually abused S.C. by removing her clothing, fondling her vagina, and laying on top of her.   It alleged he kissed S.C.'s mouth and fondled her hips.   The petition alleged that “[t]he sexual abuse of the unrelated child occurred in the children's presence” and that “[o]n a prior occasion, the children's father fondled the unrelated child's vagina and kissed the unrelated child's mouth.”   The petition alleged as to section 300, subdivision (b) in count 2 that Father left the children home alone on numerous occasions without adult supervision;  in count 3 that the minors' home was in a filthy and unsanitary condition;  and in count 4 that Mother failed to provide the children with the necessities of life.   The allegations of section 300, subdivision (d) repeated the allegations of section 300, subdivision (b) in count 1. The allegations of section 300, subdivision (g) repeated the allegations of section 300, subdivision (b) in count 4.

DCFS reported that Father was arrested on March 24, 2008, and charged with two counts of committing a lewd act against a child under the age of 14 years.   (Pen.Code, § 288, subd. (a).)  DCFS's jurisdiction/disposition report stated that Father continued to deny the allegations of sexual abuse.   Both Judith and Kevin told DCFS that Father had told them to stay home from school on February 28, 2008, to take care of J.M. Father told DCFS that a woman who rented one of the rooms in his home forgot that she was supposed to take the minors to school on the morning of February 28, 2008.   He denied ever leaving the minors home alone.   The minors were in regular telephonic contact with Father, who was incarcerated.   The minors' therapist recommended that the minors visit Father.

On April 16, 2008, after hearing arguments of counsel, the juvenile court found true the allegations of section 300, subdivision (b), counts 1, 2, and 3, and section 300, subdivision (d), count 1. The court amended section 300, subdivision (b), count 1, and section 300, subdivision (g), count 1, by striking the statement that Mother's whereabouts were unknown.   The court amended section 300, subdivision (b), count 4, to read that Mother “ ‘did not make an appropriate plan to provide for the children with the necessities of life.’ ”   The court found section 300, subdivision (b), count 4, and section 300, subdivision (g), count 1, true as amended.   The court found that the minors were persons described by section 300, subdivisions (b), (d), and (g).

The juvenile court proceeded to disposition and ordered Father to attend a parent education program and a Child Sexual Abuse Program (CSAP).   The court ordered Father to have monitored visits with discretion to liberalize in consultation with the minors' therapists after his release from custody.   Mother was ordered to attend a DCFS-approved program of parenting.

DCFS reported that Mother had called DCFS and wanted the minors to be placed with her in Honduras.   DCFS reported that the minors were replaced with Esther S., who lived near their old neighborhood.   On May 5, 2008, when Esther took the minors to visit Father in jail with DCFS approval, they were turned away due to visiting restrictions at the jail.   The minors spoke by telephone to Mother and were given calling cards to telephone her on a weekly basis.

The minors adjusted well to living with Esther and continued the church activities they had formerly participated in with Father and Mother.   Esther took them on camping trips and to singing lessons, instrument lessons, and church activities.   When J.M. began displaying uncontrollable temper tantrums, Esther enrolled him at Children's Institute, Inc., which treated his negative behavior.   DCFS reported that Esther was interested in adopting the three minors.   The court granted Esther educational rights over the minors.   Father was unable to participate in CSAP or parenting classes because they were not offered in jail.   The minors were never able to visit Father in jail because of the inability of the jail to comply with court-ordered accommodations for their visits.   The minors did not want to go to Honduras to be with Mother, who they called on a weekly basis.   Mother sometimes did not answer the minors' telephone calls and did not return calls to DCFS or initiate telephone calls to DCFS. On November 24, 2008, DCFS reported that Mother's home was not acceptable for placement because it was overcrowded and did not provide appropriate living conditions for the minors.

Father was released from custody on December 30, 2008.   He enrolled in CSAP on January 14, 2009.   The minors visited Father four times in February 2009.   Esther reported that Judith was very anxious about visiting Father, told her she was not comfortable visiting Father, and threw up after the first visit.   After the visit with Father, Kevin became more sensitive and J.M. became defiant at his therapy program and regressed into old behavior.   Judith told DCSF that she felt happy at seeing her Father, “ ‘but then I don't because I know what he did.’ ”   Judith stated that she felt uncomfortable because Father looked at her in a certain way and had a “ ‘scary’ ” smile.   Kevin stated that he felt comfortable visiting Father.

On April 1, 2009, Judith's therapist reported to DCFS that Judith was exhibiting symptoms of anxiety.   She had trouble focusing, intrusive thoughts, frequent crying, nightmares, and was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder.   She had somatic complaints including vomiting, headaches, and upset stomach.   She had unusual, age-inappropriate symptoms regarding sexuality and stated that she was “ ‘scared [Father] might do the same thing to me as he did to the little girl.’ ”   Judith stated that she felt very safe and comfortable with Esther.   Judith was willing to have conjoint therapy sessions with Father.   On March 30, 2009, Kevin's therapist reported that he had expressed a strong desire to be adopted by Esther and not be returned to Father's custody.   He did not want conjoint therapy sessions with Father.   He expressed anxiety regarding visits with Father, but wanted to continue to visit him.   Both therapists recommended that Father assume responsibility for his actions in bringing about the upheaval in the family, express empathy toward his victim, demonstrate genuine remorse for his actions, promise not to engage in sexually inappropriate acts in the future, and participate in his own mental health intervention.   The therapists recommended that Father write a letter to the minors acknowledging responsibility, showing empathy, and apologizing for his actions.

On April 15, 2009, the juvenile court reinstated Father's educational rights over the minors.   DCFS reported that Esther stated that during a visit with Father, the two older minors confronted him about holding hands with a woman he brought to a court hearing a few days previously.   Esther said the minors expressed indifference about visiting Father and Father told them that if he had really been guilty of molesting S.C., he would still be in jail.   Judith then became upset and told Father that she had seen what he had done to S.C. Esther said that when Father claimed that she could not have seen anything because she had been asleep, she responded, “ ‘[T]hat's what you think, but I saw what happened.’ ”   Judith told DCFS that the visit was “ ‘[n]ot that good’ ” and that she had talked to Father about bringing a strange woman to the court hearing.   Kevin told DCFS that he had spoken to Father about the woman at court.   He first told DCFS that he did not want to visit Father, and then said that he would visit him but did not want to live with him.

In its status review report of September 14, 2009, DCFS reported that the minors stated they wanted to be adopted, but still wanted to visit Father.   DCFS recommended placement of the minors with Father.   Father's visits were liberalized to unmonitored daylong visits in August 2009.   In a last minute information, dated September 14, 2009, DCFS reported that Father's individual therapy was discontinued because Father contradicted Judith's statement that she saw Father pull down S.C.'s underwear and touch her vagina.   During therapy, Father stated with respect to S.C.'s allegations of molestation that “it was an accident that he fell down and wanted to get up.”   Judith's therapist stated that in order for conjoint therapy to be successful, Father had to admit to the sexual abuse in order for therapy to work.   Because Father failed to show remorse and Judith and J.M. did not want conjoint therapy, the therapist recommended against conjoint therapy.   The therapists recommended that minors not be returned to Father's custody because it would be detrimental to their well-being.

A subpoenaed report from the Los Angeles Police Department showed that on June 29, 2009, Judith told the police that she saw Father climb into bed with S.C., remove S.C.'s clothes, and rub his fingers up and down her vagina.   Father told Judith not to tell anyone what she had seen.   Judith stated that Father had never touched her in a bad way or tried to kiss her on the mouth.

Father progressed to unmonitored overnight visits.   On October 19, 2009, DCFS reported in a last minute information that Judith and Kevin stated that their overnight visits on August 29, 2009, September 5, 2009, and September 12, 2009, with Father went well.   Both Judith and Kevin stated that they wanted to go back home with Father.   J.M. became excited when asked how his visits with Father were going.   DCFS reported two one-hour family therapy sessions in which Father and the minors appeared motivated.   On October 19, 2009, the juvenile court ordered an updated assessment of Father's likelihood of reoffending by Father's CSAP and individual/conjoint therapists after they read all court reports and listened to an audio CD dated April 29, 2007, concerning Father's approach to a young girl at a church event.

After listening to the CD, Father's individual/conjoint therapist, Jean Marie Bradshaw, reported to DCFS that Father's conduct at the church event was not acceptable, but that it was not reportable.   She stated in a letter dated October 28, 2009, that Father was remorseful and accountable for the sexual abuse of S.C., but she was unable to predict Father's future behavior.

Father's CSAP therapist, Luz Celaya, stated that although Father did not abuse the minor in the church incident, she was concerned that he exhibited a “ ‘pattern of behavior.’ ”   Celaya recommended that the minors not have overnight visits or return home to Father until she had an opportunity to discuss the church incident with Father.   She recommended monitored visits.

On October 29, 2009, J.M.'s therapist, Ashley Youngblood, reported that in conjoint sessions with J.M., “[F]ather continues to state that his touching to child [S.C.] was accidental․  [F]ather has stated that the statement[s] made by child [S.C.] were the result of her mother's [coaching].”   Youngblood also informed DCFS that Father told her of a previous incident where he had offended a young girl when he told her she was beautiful.   On November 18, 2009, Bradshaw and Youngblood (Judith's and J.M.'s therapist) opined that in order to start conjoint therapy with Kevin and Judith, Father had to admit in detail to his actions concerning S.C. Youngblood reported that in conjoint sessions with J.M., Father had not fully admitted to his actual actions.

On November 9, 2009, DCFS reported that on October 27, 2009, Father's probation officer contacted DCFS to report that he had consulted with his supervisor, who determined that Father could not continue to have unmonitored visits with the minors.   Initially, the probation officer had incorrectly advised DCFS that Father could have unmonitored visits with minors.   The terms of Father's probation were:  “Do not associate with children under the age of 14 unless responsible adults are present” and “The defendant is to cooperate with [DCFS] on visit[ation] with his own child.”   Father's unmonitored visits ceased and his visits were returned to monitored contact.   Father's petition to modify his probation condition was denied in November 2009.   Father's probation was for a term of five years.

On November 23, 2009, both therapists reported that Father appeared not to have the behavior of a sex offender.   Bradshaw opined that the abuse of S.C. may have been situational.   Celaya noted that Father acted on impulse with S.C. and that he admitted his actions were inappropriate and accidental.   Celaya noted that the incident at the church occurred prior to Father's therapy.   DCFS reported that the criminal court declined to change the order regarding Father's contact with minors under the age of 14 years and therefore DCFS could not recommend that minors reunify with Father.

On December 2, 2009, DCFS reported that family therapy sessions had ceased because Father could not transport the minors to and from the therapy sessions due to the terms of his probation prohibiting him from unmonitored contact with minors under 14 years of age.   DCFS reported that Father continued with his own therapy, was compliant with court orders, and continued to have monitored weekly visits with the minors.   Kevin stated that he was happy with Esther and with Father and “ ‘want[ed] the judge to decide for us, either we stay here or we go with my father.’ ”   Judith was happy with Father and wanted to return home to him.   DCFS recommended termination of family reunification services for Father because he could not have unsupervised contact with minors.   DCFS also recommended termination of family reunification services for Mother because she had minimal contact with the minors and DCFS and she had not complied with any court orders.   The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that continued jurisdiction was necessary because conditions continued to exist which justified the court taking jurisdiction pursuant to section 300.   It determined that the return of the minors to the parents' custody would create a substantial risk of detriment to the safety, protection, physical or emotional well-being of the minors, creating a continuing necessity for their current placement.   The court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing.

On April 5, 2010, DCFS reported that Father had maintained weekly monitored contact with the minors.   The minors had become increasingly comfortable with their visits with Father.   Esther was 54 years old, had three grown children, had adopted two children in 2003, and wanted to adopt the minors.   DCFS reported Esther to be pleasant, kind, gentle, and upbeat.   Esther was very family oriented, made the minors “the center of life in the household,” and took them to the park, library, pool, beach, church and to visit relatives.   DCFS reported that Esther “continues to provide a safe and stable home environment encouraging their growth and independence.”   She “has been supportive in the [minors'] relationship with their father and has maintained their best interest in her decision to provide a permanent home.”   Esther was described as “financially, physically and emotional[ly] stable to provide a permanent home through adoption for all three children.”   The minors were adoptable and they expressed a desire to remain with Esther.   J.M. was too young to make a statement but showed verbal and physical affection toward Esther.

On June 2, 2010, DCFS reported that on May 6, 2010, Judith was placed on a psychiatric hold for two weeks based on depression and suicide ideation.   She stated she did not want to be adopted because she did not want to change her last name and was afraid that she would not be able to visit Father after the adoption was finalized.   She stated she preferred legal guardianship.   Kevin stated that he definitely wanted to be adopted by Esther.   J.M. was unable to communicate where he wanted to live.   Esther stated that she wanted to adopt the minors and was aware that Kevin has a short temper and is demanding, that Judith has anger issues and problems focusing, and that J.M. has speech issues.   Esther was not interested in entering into a post-adoption contract agreement, but wanted discretion to arrange visits with Father and Mother.   Esther was provided information about legal guardianship by DCFS, and an expert was appointed to assess whether adoption or guardianship would be in Judith's best interest.

On July 14, 2010, Judith told DCFS, “ ‘[M]y dad said is best that I stay here and adoption is better for me.   Since I cannot go with my dad this is the best place for me.’ ”   Father stated, “[W]hat I want is for my children to be together and that they are not sent to their country because they have better opportunities here;  that is the reason that we sacrificed to come to this country.”   On July 28, 2010, DCFS reported that Father was in compliance with the conditions of his probation and financial obligations.   Father's probation officer reported on July 12, 2010, that Father continued to maintain his innocence during his period of probation but stated that he holds no anger toward the victim.   Father “agreed to accept the deal because he did not have the money to continue to fight the allegations.”   Father continued to attempt to modify the conditions of his probation so that he could be permitted unmonitored contact with the minors.

The juvenile court commenced a contested hearing pursuant to section 366.26 on August 10, 2010.   The court denied Father's request for a continuance in order for him to seek modification of the probation condition requiring him to have monitored visits with minors under 14 years old.   The court determined that even if the criminal court granted the modification “it does not appear as if a change would be in their best interest at this time, especially in light of Judith's situation.' ”   Judith testified that she wanted to be adopted by Esther.   She testified that when she was eight years old, she wanted to be adopted.   Then, when she had unsupervised visits with Father, she wanted to live with him.   After the visits again became monitored, she changed her mind and decided that she wanted to be adopted because “all along I knew that I couldn't go with my dad because of the crime that he did.”   The hearing was continued, and on August 30, 2010, questioning of Judith resumed.   Judith testified that she wanted to be adopted even if Esther did not allow her to see Father.   She stated that she did not want to or care if she saw Father after she was adopted.   She testified that she might want to see Father when she grew up.   She stated that she did not want to change her first and middle name, but that she would be fine with changing her last name.   She also stated that she was uncomfortable on her last visit with Father and that she was always nervous when she visited him.

Kevin testified that he loved Father and that he was glad to see him on his visits, but he realized Father “did kind of mess up doing what he did, so.”   Kevin stated that in comparing Esther's home with Father's home, he would rather be adopted.   He also stated that during overnight visits with Father he had been afraid that something might happen to Judith.   He said that at one time he wanted to be back with Father, but when he saw Father with a strange lady at court, he changed his mind.   He stated he would like to see Father on monitored visits every three weeks or so.

Father testified that Kevin had lived with him for nine years, Judith for seven to eight years, and J.M. for three years.   After his release from jail, he had weekly monitored visits with the minors beginning in mid-January 2009, progressing to unmonitored overnight visits for one or two months in 2009.   But the overnight visits ceased when DCFS determined that as a condition of probation, Father was not allowed to have unsupervised visits with minors under 14 years of age.   Father unsuccessfully attempted to modify the probation condition, which he acknowledged would be in effect for two and one-half more years.   Father testified that during the unmonitored visits, he prepared meals, ironed the minors' clothes, asked them if they wanted to play outside, prayed with them, talked, told stories, and watched movies with them.   He helped J.M. with homework by drawing cars and houses and repeating the names of his toys.   He could not remember the name of Kevin's school, but he had picked Kevin up at the school four times.   He never met Kevin's teachers because they were busy and because he waited for Kevin in the principal's office.   He gave Kevin a weekly allowance of $10, Judith $10, and J.M. $5.

Father denied that Kevin was nervous during overnight visits with him.   He stated that Judith was afraid of him at the beginning and sometimes when Esther monitored the visits, but she was not fearful during the overnight visits.   Father testified that the minors were happy to see him on their last visit.   He also admitted telling Judith that he wanted her to be adopted by Esther because the criminal court would not allow him unsupervised visits with the minors.   He preferred to have the opportunity to finish his programs to prove his rehabilitation and have the minors returned to him.   He testified that the criminal court allowed him unlimited monitored visits with the minors.   But he did not have more than one visit a week with the minors because Esther did not have more time to be a monitor, the minors would be jealous of a female monitor, and DCFS would frown upon a male monitor.   His greatest wish was for the minors to remain together and he hoped to continue contact if they were adopted.

The juvenile court determined the minors were adoptable and that it would be detrimental to return the minors to Father and Mother.   The court noted Father had visited the minors regularly throughout the case.   But the court concluded the minors would not benefit from continuing the relationship because Father did not act in a parental role or “understand[ ] the day-to-day [events] of the [minors'] lives.”   The court stated Father's probation condition allowed him unlimited access to the minors as long as a monitor was present.   But Father did not see the minors more than once weekly after the overnight visits were discontinued.   The court noted Father did not show an effort to find an approved monitor.   Nor did Father show he had contacted approved monitors to monitor the visits.   The court noted Father did not know the name of the minors' school, that he did not really know the type of homework they did, and that he did not give financial support to the minors other than a token allowance.   On September 9, 2010, the court determined there was no exception to adoption and terminated parental rights.

Father appealed from the order terminating parental rights.

DISCUSSION

Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's determination that the beneficial parental relationship exception to terminating parental rights did not apply

Father contends that because the evidence showed he regularly visited the minors and that a continuing relationship with him would benefit them, the juvenile court erred in concluding that the beneficial parental relationship exception to terminating parental rights did not apply.   We disagree with his argument because the evidence showed Father did not occupy a parental role in the minors' lives;  Judith and Kevin expressed that they wanted to be adopted by Esther;  and Judith and Kevin had an emotionally difficult relationship with Father due to Father's relationships with women and his sexual abuse of S.C.

Pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), “If the court determines, based on the assessment provided as ordered under subdivision (i) of Section 366.21, subdivision (b) of Section 366.22, or subdivision (b) of Section 366.25, 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․  Under these circumstances, the 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.”

The parent has the burden of showing that the statutory exception applies.   (In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 826.)   The parent must do more than demonstrate frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits;  rather, the parent must show that he or she occupies a parental role in the life of the child.  (Id. at p. 827.)   The parent must show that his or her relationship with the minor promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents.   In other words, the court balances the strength and quality of the natural parent/child relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer.   If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parents rights are not terminated.  (Ibid.) The factors to be considered include:  (1) the age of the child, (2) the portion of the childs life spent in the parents custody, (3) the positive or negative effect of interaction between the parent and the child, and (4) the childs particular needs.  (In re Helen W. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 71, 81.)   We review the juvenile court's determination of whether an exception to termination of parental rights exists for substantial evidence.  (In re Derek W., supra, at p. 827;  In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575;  contra, In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 [reviewing court should apply abuse of discretion standard].)

“ ‘ “When the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on appeal, the reviewing court must determine if there is any substantial evidence, that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support the conclusion of the trier of fact.  [Citation.]  In making this determination, all conflicts [in the evidence and in reasonable inferences from the evidence] are to be resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and issues of fact and credibility are questions for the trier of fact.  [Citation.]” ’  [Citation.]   While substantial evidence may consist of inferences, such inferences must rest on the evidence;  inferences that are the result of speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding.  [Citation.]”  (In re Precious D. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1258–1259.)

Here, the evidence showed that Father had maintained regular contact with the minors throughout the case.   While incarcerated he talked to them regularly by telephone.   After he was released from jail, he had regular monitored visits, then regular unmonitored visits, then went back to regular monitored visits.   But there is substantial evidence that the minors would not benefit from continuing the relationship with Father.   Father did not occupy a parental role in the minors' lives;  Judith and Kevin expressed that they wanted to be adopted by Esther;  and Judith and Kevin had an emotionally difficult relationship with Father.

Kevin and Judith had difficult and conflicted relationships with Father based on his relationships with women and his sexual abuse of S.C. Both Kevin and Judith were angry that Father had shown up in court holding hands with a woman.   And Kevin expressed that he had been fearful during overnight visits that Father would abuse Judith.   Judith, who had witnessed Fathers abuse of S.C., became angry with him during visits when he contradicted Judiths statements that she had seen him molest S.C. When Father was released from jail and commenced monitored visits, Judith expressed fear of Father.   After overnight visits, she stated that she wanted to stay with him.   But subsequently she changed her mind and wanted to be adopted.   When Fathers visits changed from unmonitored back to monitored, Judith experienced nightmares, anxiety, and had to be hospitalized for depression and suicidal ideation.

Father eventually showed remorse and assumed responsibility for his actions with S.C. and was allowed to enroll in family therapy sessions.   But Father never made the detailed admissions that would have permitted him to participate in conjoint therapy with Judith and Kevin.   Also, Fathers probation officer reported on July 12, 2010, that Father continued to maintain his innocence throughout the probationary period.

And Kevin and Judith stated that they wanted to be adopted by Esther, who provided a home that could meet their needs.   At the time of the hearing, Judith, age 11, explained that although she wanted at one point to live with Father, she later changed her mind because she realized she could not live with Father because of his abuse of S.C. Kevin, age 13, stated that Father had messed up and that in comparing Esthers home to Fathers home, he preferred to be adopted by Esther.   Judith and Kevin were old enough to express a preference and testified that they wanted to be adopted and would be fine with limited or no visits from Father.   J.M., age 5, was unable to express a preference.   But he was strongly attached to Esther and had spent almost half his life in the care of Esther.

We do not agree with Father that there was substantial evidence of a parental relationship.   He argues that he had raised the minors prior to their removal and lived almost three years with J.M., seven to eight years with Judith, and nine years with Kevin.   He urges that he maintained regular visitation after their removal;  he complied with all requirements of the criminal court, the juvenile court, and DCFS;  he made efforts to prepare a safe home environment for the minors;  he was on track for return of the minors until unmonitored visits were discontinued;  he showed remorse for his actions;  and Judiths breakdown occurred after unmonitored visits were discontinued.   He points out that during the overnight visits, he cooked meals, ironed the minors clothing, helped them with homework, watched movies, and took them on appropriate outings.   He also urges that he gave them weekly allowances.

While Fathers attempts to comply with the criminal courts and the juvenile courts orders are laudable and we note that the showing of an exception is difficult to make where the parent has not progressed beyond supervised visitation (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 51), the evidence shows that Father did not assume a parental role.   The evidence shows that after unmonitored visitation was discontinued, Father was allowed unlimited monitored access to the minors.   But Father only saw the minors on a weekly one-hour basis.   He claims that he tried to arrange for monitors so that his visits could be increased, but was told to take a person [he] knew as a monitor.   He claims his children objected to female monitors and DCFS frowned on male monitors.   But there is no evidence in the record showing he attempted to arrange for approved monitors who would have been acceptable to DCFS.

The evidence showed that Father did not have a parental bond with the minors.   Instead, the minors were conflicted about their relationship with him, did not trust him, and wanted to be adopted.   As the court noted, Father did not help support the minors financially, only offering a small allowance each week.   And as the court also noted, although Father said he helped J.M. draw pictures of cars and houses for homework, he did not know the name of Kevins school and had never met his teachers.

We agree with the juvenile court that Father failed to show that the relationship he had with the minors would promote the well-being of the minors to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the minors would gain in a permanent home with Esther.   We conclude that substantial evidence supported the juvenile courts determination that Father did not show the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i).

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court's order terminating parental rights is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

We concur:

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code..  FN1. Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

FN2. The detention report stated that Ana informed DCFS that Father and S.C. both had clothes on when she entered the room..  FN2. The detention report stated that Ana informed DCFS that Father and S.C. both had clothes on when she entered the room.

CHANEY, J. JOHNSON, J.