In re David P. CA2/7

INTRODUCTION

Mother F.P., father G.M., and minor David M. appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights without a bonding study to help the court determine whether the parental- benefit exception applied.1 We conclude appellants have not met their burden of demonstrating the juvenile court’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd; in other words, that the court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm.

G.M. and David joined F.P.’s argument on appeal that F.P.’s parental rights should not have been terminated without a bonding study. G.M. and David do not raise any other issues. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.200(a)(5) [“Instead of filing a brief, or as part of its brief, a party may join in or adopt by reference all or part of a brief in the same or a related appeal.”]; 5.725(a)(1) [“[t]he court may not terminate the rights of only one parent under section 366.26.”].) As a result, we focus on the facts underlying the proceedings related to F.P.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Dependency Proceedings F.P. and G.M. are the parents of David, born in 2022. On January 23, 2023, when David was five months old, the Los…