In re M.V.

INTRODUCTION

K.V. (Mother) and David V. (Father) appeal the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights to daughter M.V. (born 2014). They contend the court erred in its analysis of the beneficial parent-child relationship exception set forth in Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), violated their due process rights, substituted its judgment for that of the Legislature, exhibited bias, and improperly discounted the opinion of the psychologist who performed the bonding study. We affirm the order terminating parental rights.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

I. Events Prior to and Including the First Appeal

M.V., then four years old, “came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in November 2018 when law enforcement officers conducting a search at the family’s home discovered thousands of pornographic images of children one to 13 years of age. Both parents admitted having child pornography on their phones and that some of the minors depicted could have been younger than 15 years old. Images of a child’s vagina on Mother’s cell phone were suspected to be images of M.V. [¶]…