In re T.P.

         NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

         APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J516705A-B Lloyd M. Harmon, Juvenile Court Referee.

          McINTYRE, J.

         Timothy A. appeals juvenile court orders terminating his parental rights to his daughters, T.P. and J.P. He contends the court erred by terminating his parental rights because he showed the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights and adoption of Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). (Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.) We affirm the orders.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On May 31, 2007, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned under section 300, subdivision (b), on behalf of two-year-old T.P. and three-month-old J.P. on the basis of their mother, Jennifer's, marijuana use and the fact that when police entered the family home to arrest Timothy for domestic violence, the family was in a closed room heavy with smoke, and there was marijuana under a mattress. The Agency initially also petitioned under section 300, subdivision (g). The court later dismissed the subdivision (g) counts.

         Police had responded to the family home because of a call regarding domestic violence between Timothy and a woman, Nicolette R., who said she was a prostitute for Timothy and he had beaten her because she did not make sufficient money. Jennifer said she had prostituted herself for Timothy in the past, but no longer did so. Timothy denied the domestic violence and denied having any women engage in prostitution for him. He had had two earlier arrests for domestic violence, one with Jennifer and one with Nicolette.

         The court sustained the petitions, removed custody from the parents, ordered reunification services and ordered the children placed with the paternal grandmother (the grandmother). Timothy was incarcerated. He was released in December 2007 and began services. He and Jennifer had supervised visits with the children.

         In November 2008 Timothy was incarcerated again after being arrested for check fraud and for driving under the influence. Jennifer said she was no longer in a relationship with him. In December T.P. and J.P. began a 60-day trial visit with Jennifer, and, at the 18-month review hearing in March 2009, the court ordered them placed with her.

         However, in September 2009, Jennifer decided she could no longer care for the children. The court removed custody, terminated services, ordered the children placed with the grandmother and set a section 366.26 hearing.

         The social worker recommended the children be adopted. She said they were young and meeting developmental milestones, and the grandmother wanted to adopt them. If she were not able to adopt, 23 approved adoptive families wished to adopt two children with T.P.'s and J.P.'s characteristics. The social worker said Timothy had visited them after his release from custody in December 2009. At a January 2010 visit, T.P. hugged him and called him "Daddy, " but J.P. just said "hi" and continued to play with toys. After he was arrested again in February 2010, he called the grandmother's home to speak to the children. T.P. tended to misbehave after his calls. The social worker concluded the children saw him more as a playmate than a parent.

         After considering the evidence and arguments of counsel, the court found T.P. and J.P. were likely to be adopted if parental rights were terminated and none of the statutory exceptions to termination of parental rights and adoption applied in the case. It terminated parental rights and referred the children for adoption.

         DISCUSSION

         Timothy contends the court erred by not finding the children would benefit from continuing their relationships with him. He argues he maintained regular visitation and contact and occupied a significant role in their lives, and their relationships should have been preserved.

         Adoption is the permanent plan favored by the Legislature. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573.) If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a child is adoptable, it becomes the parent's burden to show that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child because a specified statutory exception exists. (Id. at p. 574.) Under the exception found in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), the parent is required to show termination would be detrimental in that "[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." In In re Brandon C. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1534, the court noted "[c]ourts have required more than just 'frequent and loving contact' to establish the requisite benefit for [the] exception." In interpreting the meaning of "benefit" in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), this court stated in In re Autumn H., supra, at p. 575:

         "In the context of the dependency scheme prescribed by the Legislature, we interpret the 'benefit from continuing the [parent/child] relationship' exception to mean the relationship 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 reviewing whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding, the appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's order, giving the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in favor of the order. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.)

         Assuming Timothy maintained regular visitation and contact with the children, he did not show he has parent-child relationships with them or that the relationships are so beneficial that it would be detrimental to them to terminate parental rights. He did not fulfill a parental role. The children had pleasant visits with him when he was not in custody, but during much of the dependency period he was incarcerated and able to visit only by telephone or through glass at the facility where he was housed. He was incarcerated from May 2007 through December 2007, from November 2008 through December 2009, again in February 2010, and was in custody at the time of the section 366.26 hearing in July 2010. The grandmother said he was able to provide appropriate care during visits, but the parents fed the girls candy and fast food even when asked not to do so and they did not redirect T.P.'s behavior, causing her to regress when she returned to the grandmother's home. The children appeared to enjoy visiting him, but there is no indication in the record that they asked for him when he did not visit or that they had difficulty separating from him when visits ended. The grandmother provided a home for them and took care of their daily needs. Timothy has not shown error by the court not applying the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights.

         Timothy misplaces reliance on In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, In re Brandon C., supra, 71 Cal.App.4th 1530 and In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289. In In re Amber M., supra, at pp. 689-690, this court stated the common theme of the testimony in the case was that the beneficial parent-child relationship outweighed the benefits to the child of adoption. The mother visited often and fulfilled a parental role during visits. Here, Timothy did not present evidence the children viewed him as a father figure or that they shared a strong emotional attachment. Instead, the evidence showed adoption would provide the stability and security they needed and would outweigh any benefits they would gain from continuing their parent-child relationships with him.

         In re Brandon C., supra, 71 Cal.App.4th 1530, is in a different procedural position in that the juvenile court found the beneficial parent-child relationship exception was present to prevent terminating parental rights. The reviewing court held substantial evidence supported the finding the exception applied. (Id. at pp. 1533, 1536-1538.) We also decline to reweigh the evidence and hold substantial evidence supports the finding of the trial court.

         In re S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th 289, also does not support Timothy's position. In In re S.B., this court reversed the trial court's finding that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply after concluding the child would be greatly harmed by loss of the significant positive relationship she shared with her father. The father had complied with every aspect of his case plan, frequently visited his daughter and was devoted to her. She loved him and wanted to live with him. (Id. at pp. 294-295.) Timothy did not make such a showing. Further, while factual comparisons between cases provide insight, these comparisons are not dispositive. The determination on appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply. We conclude that on the facts of this case, the court's findings are fully supported.

         DISPOSITION

         The orders are affirmed.

          WE CONCUR: HALLER, Acting P. J., McDONALD, J.