In re Mateo V. CA1/4 filed 8/19/26

Filed 8/19/26 In re Mateo V. CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISIONFOUR

In re MATEO V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CHILDREN & FAMLY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
M.M.,
Defendant and Appellant.

A175813

(Contra Costa County
Super. Ct. No. J25-00177)

M.M. (mother) appeals from the order terminating her parentalrights to her now two-year-old son, Mateo. She contends the court erred by denying her request for a bonding study and in failing to apply the sibling relationship exception to the termination of parental rights. We find no error and affirm.
BACKGROUND
In June 2024, shortly after Mateo’s birth, the Napa County Health and Human Services Department filed a petition alleging under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1), that mother has unmanaged mental illness that impairs her ability to provide adequate care, supervision, and protection for Mateo, and on several occasions Mateo was exposed, in utero, to acts of intimate partner violence. The petition also alleged under section 300, subdivision (j), that Mateo’s older sibling experienced emotional abuse and neglect in that he was exposed to multiple instances of domestic violence involving mother and that Mateo was at similar risk of neglect. Mateo was detained pending the jurisdiction hearing.
In August 2024, the Napa County Superior Court found the allegations of the petition true, continued Mateo’s out-of-home placement, and ordered reunification services for mother.At the six-month review hearing, the court found that mother was making adequate progress on her case plan and continued reunification services.
In February 2025, the case was transferred to Contra Costa County after the court determined that mother had relocated there.In advance of the 12-month review hearing, the Contra Costa County Children and Family Services Bureau (the Bureau)filed a report recommending termination of reunification services.
In November 2025, the court issued an order terminating reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing. The court found that reasonable services had been provided by the social services agency but that mother had not made significant progress in resolving the domestic violence issues that brought her to court. At the conclusion of the review hearing, mother requested a bonding study,which the court denied.
In February 2026, this court denied mother’s petition for extraordinary writ. (M.M. v. Superior Ct. of Contra Costa County (Feb. 5, 2026, A174850) nonpub. opn.) In doing so, we rejected mother’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that reasonable reunification services were provided. (Ibid.)Mother’s petition did not challenge the denial of herrequest for a bonding study.
In advance of the section 366.26 hearing, the Bureau submitted a reportrecommending termination of parental rights. The report indicated that Mateo had been placed in the home of his prospective adoptive parents sinceJuly 2024. The minor remained developmentally ontarget and was described as very comfortable and happywith his foster parents. He was very affectionate with them andthey were attentive and affectionate in return.
The report characterized mother’s attendance at visits as consistent but noted that she had cancelled approximately 20 visits within the last year. The report indicates that mother wasaffectionate and attentive towards Mateo during the visits.
The social worker opined that,despite the visitation, mother didnot appear to occupy a parental role in Mateo’s life,and thus that severing the relationship would not interfere with an existing parent-child relationship sufficient to support the beneficial-relationship exception. The social workerdescribed mother as a familiar person to Mateo rather than aparent. The report also stated that Mateo sometimes wanted to leavevisits and did not show distress when visits ended and motherdeparted.
As to his sibling relationships, the report indicated that Mateo has had only limited visits with his paternal half-sisters, and concludedthat there is no sibling bond between Mateo and his two paternal half-sisters thatwould outweigh the benefit of legal permanence for Mateo through adoption. The report also indicated that, while Mateo does not reside with his maternal half-brother, Andrew, he sees him “on a weekly basis when he goes over to the maternal grandparents’ home.” Thesocial worker reported that the prospective adoptiveparents have expressed their desire for Mateo to maintain this sibling relationship after adoption.
At the section 366.26 hearing, when asked about whether she had been able to evaluate Mateo’s bond with Andrew, the social worker testified, “In this situation, the siblings are not residing together, so I can—as a social worker, I am basing it on Mateo, because he is our dependent. But what we do discuss with the family is the relationship with half-siblings, and I know that he goes and sees the half-siblings, his brother, weekly. They do also go out and do other functions together outside of the maternal great-grandparents’ home, but—and that relationship we talk about with the prospective adoptive family is that they will maintain that relationship. But I can’t base it because they are not residing together, but they can still maintain that sibling relationship.”In her closing argument, mother’s counsel renewed her request fora bonding study to evaluate mother’s relationship with Mateo. She also requested that the Bureau be ordered to conduct an evaluation of the bond between Mateo and Andrew. Shearguedthat the sibling relationship “has not even been considered and it’s not addressed in the report. No opinion is in the report about the bond between Mateo and Andrew, but it is noted both in the report and in the caregiver’s information that they’ve had regular visits. And so, the Court doesn’t have enough information to decide whether termination would be againstMateo’s interest because it would sever that bond.”
The court denied both requests. With respect to the parental bonding study, the court explained, “I find that it is not proper to continue this case any longer for there to be a bonding study between the mother and the child. I don’t want to repeat all the reasons why I denied the bonding study to begin with, but a significant one was that this baby has been outside the mother’s custody and care since day one of—or day two of his life. And so I don’t think that a bonding study is appropriate or helpful in this case. And it’s certainly not appropriate to ask for on[e]. . . in the middle of a .26 hearing.So, the request by mother’s counsel to continue this matter for a bonding study with mother is denied.”
With respect to Mateo’s relationship with Andrew, the court found it had “sufficient information” regarding their relationshipbased on “the information from the caregivers about the visits with Andrew, as well as the information in [the Bureau’s] report.” The court noted that Andrew is onlyfiveand Mateo was 20 monthsat the time of the hearing.The court also noted that they only lived in the same home briefly when Mateo was one month old.
Ultimately, the court found Mateo to be adoptable by clear and convincing evidence both generally and specifically and that Mateo would not suffer detriment if the parents’ rights wereterminated. The court found that the parental relationship exception did not apply because even if mother had regularly visited, she did not have a quality parent-child relationship. The court also found that mother had not met her burden of proving that the bond between Mateo and Andrew was sufficient to support application of the sibling relationship exception.
DISCUSSION
I.
Mother contends the court abused its discretion in denying her request for a parental bonding study.She argues that in light of her “substantial visitation history coupled with evidence of warm and nurturing interactions, the refusal to permit an independent expert assessment deprived [her] of a fair opportunity to develop the very evidence most probative of her statutory defense.”
The juvenile court has discretion under Evidence Code section 730to appoint an expert to study the strength and nature of the relationship between a minor and the minor’s parents. In In re Caden C. (2021) 11Cal.5th 614, at page 633, footnote 4, the court advised courts to “seriously consider, where requested and appropriate, allowing for a bonding study or other relevant expert testimony” when deciding on the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights. There is, however, “no requirement in statutory or case law that a court must secure a bonding study as a condition precedent” to terminating parental rights.(InreLorenzoC. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1339.)
The Bureau contends that the juvenile court reasonably concluded that mother’s request for a bonding study was untimely and unnecessary. We agree. The trial court reasonably found that mother’s belated request would have resulted in a significant delay inthe proceedings and that further study was not warranted in this case. As the court noted, Mateo was essentially removed from his mother’s care at birth. Because mother had supervised visitation throughout these proceedings, the observations and opinions contained in the Bureau’s report provide an ample basis on which to evaluate Mateo’s relationship with his mother.
II.
Mother contends that the Bureau’s report was deficient insofar as it failed to meaningfully describe Mateo’s relationship with his brother, and thus,she argues that the juvenile court did not havesufficient information before it to reject application of the sibling relationship exception.
Under section 366.26, if the court finds that the child is adoptable, it must terminate parental rights unless it finds that termination would be detrimental to the child because, among other “compelling” reasons, “[t]here would be substantial interference with a child’s sibling relationship, taking into consideration the nature and extent of the relationship, including, but not limited to, whether the child was raised with a sibling in the same home, whether the child shared significant common experiences or has existing close and strong bonds with a sibling, and whether ongoing contact is in the child’s best interest, including the child’s long-term emotional interest, as compared to the benefit of legal permanence through adoption.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).)
“The required reports in dependency proceedings vary by hearing, but in general they are all designed to make sure the court has the evidence before it to make the necessary findings at each stage of the proceeding.” (InreB.D. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 803, 821.) “The purpose of the section 366.26 report is to provide the juvenile court with the information necessary to determine the permanent plan for the children.” (In re Mary C. (2020) 48Cal.App.5th 793, 800 (Mary C.).)Accordingly, reports for the section 366.26 hearing must contain an assessment of “the amount of and nature of” any contact between the child and extended family, including siblings. (§ 366.21(i)(1)(B).) “ ‘ “Deficiencies in an assessment report . . . go to the weight of the evidence, and if sufficiently egregious may impair the basis of a court’s decision to terminate parental rights.” ’[Citations.] But we consider the evidence in the whole record in determining whether substantial evidence supports the termination of parental rights” including the applicability of any section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B) exception. (Mary C., at p. 801.)
As set forth above, the Bureau’s report indicated that Mateo sees his older brother on a weekly basis when he goes to his grandmother’s home.The report also indicated thatMateo lived with his grandmother for a month when he was first detained. Mother concedes that the report providesthe necessary information about the amount of their contact but suggests that it failed to include information about the nature of that contact.She faults the report for failing to describe how the brothers interact, whether Andrew displays affection or caretaking toward Mateo, whether Mateo recognizes and responds to his brother, whether the relationship has deepened over time, or what its loss would mean to Mateo. Assuming, without deciding, that this type of information should have been included, any deficiency in this regard is harmless in light of the full record.
The record also contains the following information from the July 2025 status review report: “Mateo has visited with Andrew and the maternal family on the following dates for approximately 4 hours each: 07/24/24, 08/11/24, 09/15/24, 10/12/24, 10/31/24, 11/14/24, 12/18/24, 01/22/25, 03/12/25, 04/23/25. 06/28/25. It is reported that Andrew is extremely excited to see Mateo. He is learning how to play gently with his younger sibling. [¶] The 06/28/25 visit was a birthday party for Mateo which included Andrew and his father, maternal great grandparents and variety of maternal family members. Mateo maintaining a connection to healthy, consistent and supportive family members continue[s] to be fostered by the current caregivers.”
As a whole, the record reflects that Mateo lived with Andrew as a newborn for approximately a month. For the first year of his life, he visited once a month for approximately four hours at a time. From 12 to 20 months, he visited Andrew’s home weekly. Accordingly, the siblings did not live togetherfor any significant amount of time and did not have an existing “close and strong bond” prior to the dependency proceeding. As some courts have observed, “application of the sibling relationship exception will be rare, particularly when the proceedings concern a young child . . . whose need for a competent, attentive and caring parent is paramount.”(In re MichaelG. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 580, 593; see also In re Isaiah S. (2016) 5Cal.App.5th 428, 437 [“The sibling relationship exception contains ‘strong language creating a heavy burden for the party opposing adoption’ ”].) Given the relevant criteria for evaluation of the sibling relationship exception, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the bond between 20-month-old Mateo and his five-year-old brother wasnot sufficient to establish “exceptional circumstances” warrantingdeparture from “ ‘the norm’” of adoption. (In reCaden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 631 [“ ‘[t]he statutory exceptions merely permit the court, in exceptional circumstances [citation], to choose an option other than the norm, which remains adoption’”].)
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
GOLDMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BROWN, P. J.
STREETER, J.