Filed 9/14/17 C.J. v. Superior Court CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

Introduction

Petitioner C.J., the biological paternal aunt and prospective adoptive parent of minor S.J., files this petition for extraordinary writ[1] challenging an order continuing S.J.’s placement in the home of her de facto parents with her half-siblings. She claims the evidence did not show the placement was in S.J.’s best interests. We disagree and affirm.

Background

We set forth only those facts relevant to the issues raised in the petition.

On July 6, 2017, the juvenile court entered the challenged order after a contested hearing on removal and placement of S.J. That hearing was held following this court’s reversal of an initial order removing S.J. from C.J.’s home and placing her in a home with her half-siblings. (In re S.J. (Feb. 10, 2017, A148215) [nonpub. opn.].) We remanded the case, directing the juvenile court to “designate petitioner as a prospective adoptive parent for S.[J.], entertain a request from petitioner for appointment of counsel, if she makes one, and reconsider S.[J.]’s placement, after a full and fair hearing, in light of current circumstances and S.[J.]’s best interests.” (Id., A148215.)

In preparation for the July 6 hearing, the Bureau submitted a memorandum to the court summarizing the case history. S.J. and her half-brother, J.S., were removed from their mother in February 2012. At the time, S.J. was one year old and J.S. was four. They were placed together in a foster home until April 2013, when they were placed in the home of petitioner, S.J.’s paternal aunt. Petitioner was not a biological relative of J.S. Parental rights of both the mother and alleged father were terminated in January 2014, and the court referred S.J. for adoption placement.

According to the Bureau, there were challenges with the placement with petitioner from the start. There were unauthorized contacts between the minors and their mother while the minors were placed with petitioner. Both minors made conflicting statements about whether they were spanked. Petitioner complained about J.S.’s behavior, and admitted to the social worker she punished J.S. by making him hold cans until his arms hurt. Petitioner later reported J.S. was “physically hyper, dishonest, and was more problematic than average for his age.” In contrast, J.S.’s therapist stated he was “ ‘just a normal kid who needs a lot of positive reinforcement.’ ”

S.J. and her half-brother reportedly were close. Petitioner reported the two minors “got along well.” The social worker observed J.S. shared his toys with S.J., and he “presented as generally helpful and protective of his sister.”

In October 2015, petitioner told the social worker she was “ ‘open’ to adopting the children at some point in the future,” but felt they benefitted from case management from the Bureau. She had previously expressed concern she would lose her childcare subsidy if she adopted the children. Petitioner continued to report that J.S. had behavioral issues, and stated S.J.’s behavior had worsened, claiming S.J. copied J.S., and that S.J. was “ ‘sneaky.’ ” S.J. reported “ ‘we get whoopings,’ which she described as [petitioner] hitting them with a belt on their backsides.” Petitioner told the social worker she was “willing to adopt the children but could not say when.”

Two months later, the social worker informed petitioner “another family, who had adopted the children’s half-sibling, was available to adopt [J.S.] and [S.J.]” Petitioner stated she was not willing to let S.J. change placements, although “she acknowledged that splitting up the children will be difficult for them.” J.S. was moved to the prospective adoptive family’s home, and reportedly “really liked” it, but “wished [S.J.] could live with him.”

In a January 2016 school visit with the social worker, S.J. reported petitioner “ ‘hit me with scissors.’ ” The social worker asked S.J. if she should be worried about her, and S.J. said “ ‘yes.’ ” An investigation of the allegations was initiated, but determined to be unfounded in February.

One month later, the social worker informed petitioner the Bureau “intended to request that [S.J.] be placed with [J.S.]” The social worker told petitioner the primary reason was the sibling bond, and there were also concerns about the “multiple allegations of physical discipline.”

At a placement hearing in April 2016, the court ordered S.J. to be placed with J.S. in his adoptive family’s home.

Following our reversal of that order, and at our direction, the court designated C.J. a prospective adoptive parent, referred her for appointment of counsel, and thereafter held a hearing at which it reconsidered S.J.’s placement. The court also designated S.J.’s current caretakers (J.S.’s adoptive parents), as de facto parents, and referred them for appointment of counsel.

At the new hearing in July 2017, the social worker testified that S.J., by then six years old, had been placed with the de facto parents for over a year. She was placed with them “with the expressed idea that they were going to adopt her,” and the de facto parents never wavered in their commitment to adopt her. S.J.’s half-brother, J.S., and another half-brother had already been adopted by the de facto parents. The social worker reported S.J.’s placement in a home with her half-brother was a positive and beneficial experience for S.J. She testified the siblings were “playful” together, and that J.S. “takes on the big brother role and is protective and nice with his sister for the most part.” S.J. had expressed to the social worker she would like to be adopted and stay in her current home forever. She called the de facto parents “mom and dad.”

The social worker testified she believed changing S.J.’s placement would be harmful. She explained that, until her current placement, S.J. had never “truly formed a parent-child relationship that was apparent . . . and still didn’t have an adult who was committed to parenting her.”

C.J. submitted on the evidence regarding the removal and placement. She testified only regarding the issue of future visitation. She did explain, however, that her intention was “always to adopt” S.J., but the “reservation was with her brother. We were having issues and that’s why the adoption was delayed with issues with her brother.”

The court found S.J.’s “placement with her brother in a home that was ready to commit long-term was in her best interest and continues to be in her best interest,” and continued that placement order. The court ordered visitation at the discretion of the de facto parents and Bureau.

Discussion

C.J. asserts it was not in S.J.’s best interests to continue her placement with the de facto parents rather than placing her with C.J.

A court hearing a motion for change of placement after termination of parental rights “must recognize this shift of focus in determining the ultimate question before it, that is, the best interests of the child.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) We review a juvenile court’s decision on whether to change a minor’s placement for abuse of discretion. (In re M.M. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 54, 64.) However, the court’s finding regarding whether the change is in the minor’s best interests is reviewed for substantial evidence. (Ibid.)

The evidence before the court all militated in favor of continuing S.J.’s current placement. S.J. had been living with the de facto parents for over a year. Those parents had already adopted two of her half-siblings, and were committed to adopting her. The social worker testified to the importance of the bond between S.J. and her half-brother J.S., with whom she had lived since infancy. C.J. acknowledged, “splitting up the children will be difficult for them.” The evidence showed S.J. was happy and thriving in her current placement, and wanted to be adopted by the de facto parents, whom she called “mom and dad.”

C.J. asserts she “only needed one item” to “finish the adoption” of S.J. Although C.J. was a loving aunt to S.J., there had been a considerable delay in C.J.’s completion of the requirements for adoption. The evidence showed C.J. had been equivocating about the adoption for almost three years.

Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s finding that it was in S.J.’s best interest to remain in her current placement with her two half-siblings and de facto parents, who were also committed to adopting her. Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion.

Disposition

The petition for extraordinary writ is denied. Our decision is final as to this court on filing of this opinion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).)

_________________________

Banke, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Margulies, Acting P.J.

_________________________

Dondero, J.

A151890, C.J. v. Superior Court