Filed 2/26/18 In re C.V. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----

In re C. V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law C083795

(Super. Ct. Nos. JD235373, JD235374, JD235375)
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

B. P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

In re C. V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law C083800

(Super. Ct. Nos. JD235373, JD235374)


SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

M. C. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.



This consolidated appeal involves B. P. (father), M. C. (mother), and their three children S. V., J. V., and C. V. (collectively, the minors). Father, mother, J. V., and S. V., appeal from findings and orders made on December 22, 2016, at a combined Welfare and Institutions Code sections 388 and 366.26 hearing regarding J. V. and C. V.
As to C. V., the juvenile court denied mother’s section 388 modification petition requesting the court place C. V. with mother or order reunification services. The juvenile court also terminated parental rights as to C. V.
As to J. V., the juvenile court denied mother’s section 388 modification petition requesting the court place J. V. with mother or order reunification services. The juvenile court continued J. V. as a dependent of the court in out-of-home placement, with a permanent plan of placement with the group home and a goal of reunification.
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in denying her section 388 modification petitions as to C. V. and J. V. She also contends the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights as to C. V., arguing there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that C. V. was adoptable. Mother further argues the juvenile court erred in failing to find the sibling relationship exception or beneficial parental relationship exception applied. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i), (v).) Mother also contends the juvenile court erred in relying on therapy reports from Dr. April Hayes.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.200(a)(5), father joins and adopts by reference the arguments made by mother. S. V. and J. V. also join and adopt by reference mother’s argument regarding the juvenile court’s reliance on Dr. Hayes’s reports. Father, S. V., and J. V. also contend the juvenile court erred in failing to find the sibling relationship exception applied.
We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On November 5, 2014, police stopped mother and father in a vehicle and found a gun and ammunition. According to mother, she and father were on their way to pick up groceries. The vehicle was towed, and the parents were arrested and incarcerated, based on charges that included possession of a firearm by a felon.
That same day, the Department placed C. V. (then nine years old), J. V. (then 10 years old), and S. V. (then 14 years old) in protective custody. The petitions alleged mother and father were detained in the county jail and had failed to make arrangements for the minors’ care. (§ 300, subd. (g).) In addition, the minors’ home did not meet basic health and safety standards. (§ 300, subd. (b).) According to the detention report, there were large knives “throughout the home and the home was messy, with no food.” In addition, there was white supremacist gang indicia throughout the home, including a photograph of Hitler, religious flags, books, and news articles, and a World War II replica knife.
During the November 13, 2015, detention hearing, the juvenile court ordered the minors detained with supervised parental visitation two times a week (upon release of mother and father). The juvenile court also found father was the biological and presumed father of the minors and ordered reunification services.
The minors had previously spent time living away from mother and father from March 2010 to March 2013, while the two were incarcerated on felony charges, including mayhem. During mother’s and father’s incarcerations, the minors lived together with Robert M., the paternal grandfather. During this period, they got to know their grandparents’ neighbor, Nancy D. Nancy had maintained contact with the minors, which “helped in stabilizing the children’s behavior.” In May 2014, mother and father were in a vehicle accident, and mother broke her neck and was bound to a hospital bed for three months, making it difficult for her to care for the minors.
In a December 2014 memorandum to the court, it was reported that C. V. “appeared younger than his stated age.” C. V. “screamed as he spoke, needed constant redirection, and moved all about the room.” C. V. and J. V. were on the safety level at the Sacramento Children’s Receiving Home due to aggressive behavior directed toward peers. J. V. had thrown other residents to the ground, yanked an air conditioner/heater out of the wall, and bit and thrown items at staff. S. V. was also on the safety level due to “AWOL behaviors.”
A January 26, 2015, addendum report stated that on the night the minors were detained, police reported the home “was very cluttered,” with dishes “piled high” in the kitchen and “rotted food lying around.” S. V. and J. V. told police they could not remember when or what they last ate. The children’s bedroom contained a bunk bed with stained mattresses, no sheets or blankets, no clothes, torn open garbage bags, and piles of boxes. The parents’ bedroom contained “many items of white supremacist and skinhead indicia,” including a large black and silver knife with a swastika on the handle, and a 10-inch blade in the door frame. There was also a flag with swastikas on it. In the parents’ bedroom, police found an off-white, rock-like substance that tested positive for methamphetamine.
J. V. was placed in a group home on December 3, 2014, where he was enrolled in therapy, helping to stabilize his behavior. C. V. and S. V. were placed together in a foster home on December 4, 2014.
A February 9, 2015, progress report noted the minors had all done “very well” in their placements. The minors were all attending school. C. V. had kicked a five-year-old child in his foster home, drawing blood. J. V. reported witnessing his mother being raped, with mother later being convicted of mayhem upon her alleged rapist. J. V. also reported seeing his mother’s rapist. A social worker who supervised visits between the minors and their grandparents noted the boys were “violent” during the visits, hitting and kicking each other and the paternal grandfather. S. V. and C. V. were also being “more violent” in the foster home toward adults and peers.
On February 9, 2015, the juvenile court ordered no face-to-face contact between the minors and the parents, pending feedback from the therapist.
On February 23, 2015, the petition was amended to include an allegation the minors were suffering, or were at substantial risk of suffering, serous emotional damage as a result of the parents’ conduct and because there was no parent or guardian capable of providing appropriate care. (§ 300, subd. (c).)
In a March 9, 2015, addendum report, J. V.’s therapist recommended limited contact with his family and no contact with his parents, in order to help J. V. “develop trust in his relationships and to interact in more healthy ways with peers and in his community.” The social worker had reduced the paternal grandfather’s visits, since, in her observation, S. V. and C. V.’s behaviors “improve” while outside his presence. In addition, mother encouraged the minors to give the paternal grandfather letters he could mail to mother, in an effort to circumvent an order for letter contact to be supervised by the Department.
In a March 31, 2015 addendum report, Dr. Hayes, who was C. V.’s and S. V.’s therapist, recommended no contact with the parents or grandparents. In addition, the minors should only have supervised visits with each other and not be placed in the same home. Dr. Hayes also reported S. V. was exhibiting antisocial and sociopathic behaviors, obsessions, and delusional thinking that “is encouraged by his family.” According to Dr. Hayes, C. V. had been subject to “extreme neglect” and “exposed to aggressive violence, domestic violence, and extreme racism.” He was “extremely aggressive” for his age and appeared to “normalize violence.” C. V. was a “follower” and had a “somewhat poor” level of functioning due to his “anti-social actions and comments.”
In an April 24, 2015 addendum report, Jeanine Hill, J. V.’s therapist, recommended no phone calls between J. V. and his family, and only supervised visits with C. V. and S. V. Hill also recommended J. V.’s contact with the paternal grandfather be through letter writing or without C. V. and S. V.
During the June 29, 2015, contested disposition/jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained the allegations and declared the minors to be dependents of the court. The juvenile court held that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10), (11), and (13) applied to mother and father and denied reunification services. Both parents filed writ petitions, which this court denied on the merits on October 19, 2015.
The October 26, 2015, selection and implementation report stated mother and father remained incarcerated. J. V. continued to live in a group home, while C. V. and S. V. had been living with Nancy since June and July 2015, respectively. The minors had supervised visits with each other once a week and with the paternal grandparents twice a month. C. V. and S. V. acted aggressively when they visited with J. V., including throwing items out of the room at other people. In sum, the report recommended against guardianship or adoption for the minors.
J. V. was meeting developmental milestones, loved to read and write, and was doing well on a local football team. Mother and father had weekly telephone calls with J. V. that were “usually appropriate,” although there were a few calls between J. V. and mother about which staff at J. V.’s group home expressed concern. In addition, mother had told J. V. to lie when he got into trouble at his prior school, and to tell probation that he “forgot what happened.” Mother was also using J. V. to communicate with father, encouraging J. V. to tell father she loved him and they would “be a family again soon.” According to J. V.’s counselor, J. V. had a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and conduct disorder. He received weekly counseling services, and group home staff reported J. V. was doing “well in a structured environment.” J. V.’s behavior had improved, although he was still struggling and had to be restrained 15 times between December 3, 2014 and August 2, 2015. Group home staff recommended J. V. not be placed with his siblings, as it would be “too much” for their caregiver. They further recommended J. V. continue his placement at the group home. J. V. told the social worker he did not want to be adopted, but he would be interested in living with his siblings and Nancy.
C. V. was meeting his developmental milestones and liked to play video games and take care of the farm animals where he was living. C. V. had made friends since starting school, where his attendance was “good,” with no behavior concerns. Nancy described C. V. as, “wanting to please, want[ing] to be loved, and to succeed.” C. V. had “bonded well” with Nancy. He told the social worker he liked living with Nancy and was “always treated fairly.” He did not want to be adopted and instead wanted to return to mother and father. C. V. also was unsure whether he wanted Nancy to be his guardian.
S. V. was also meeting his developmental milestones and enjoyed swimming and martial arts. S. V. had good attendance at school, with no reported behavior concerns. Nancy described S. V. as “moody at times,” and “ ‘indoctrinated’ ” in the white power movement. S. V. became “very upset” when Nancy challenged him on his belief systems, and Nancy was concerned he was imposing his beliefs on C. V. Although Nancy reported they “g[o]t along” overall, S. V. had acted out physically by punching the walls outside the home.
Nancy expressed interest in adopting S. V., C. V., and J. V., although the minors had told her they did “not want to be adopted.” Nancy felt the minors had an unhealthy relationship with mother and father, and did not think it was in their best interest to have contact. She stated she and her family were “committed to the [minors’] success and permanency.”
During the October 26, 2015, section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court held the minors remain dependents of the court and ordered a permanent plan of placement with a foster parent, with a goal of legal guardianship. The juvenile court also ordered regular supervised letter and phone contact for mother and father with the minors, as deemed appropriate by their therapists. The juvenile court did not terminate parental rights.
A December 28, 2015, progress report noted S. V. had become “more disruptive” in Nancy’s home, including destroying furniture and antagonizing C. V. He had become “very disrespectful,” and was unwilling to work with the social worker. On December 21, 2015, Nancy requested S. V. be moved from her home, and S. V. was moved to a group home on December 23, 2015. Mother and father remained incarcerated. S. V. expressed interest in emancipation.
A February 29, 2016, progress report stated J. V. had a “steady decline in major incidences,” but was still “having challenges.” He had “several” suspensions from school and was engaging in “extreme bullying.” He also continued to use racially motivated remarks and did “not respect women.” The report concluded J. V. was “not ready to move to a lower level of care.” S. V. had been doing well in school and wanted to reunite with his mother. S. V. was doing well in his new placement, and there were “no issues with sibling or grandparent visitation.” S. V. punched C. V. twice in the stomach during their last visit. C. V. later told his CASA advocate that the hits “knocked the wind out of [him].” C. V. was also doing well in school and in his home with Nancy. He followed the rules, “[f]or the most part,” and had “routine” visits with his siblings and grandparents. C. V. told a social worker he wanted to return home to his mother, and, if not, with his grandparent, and, if not, with Nancy. Given S. V.’s punching of C. V., the CASA advocate recommended against placing S. V. and C. V. together, “fear[ing] for what he might do to [C. V.] when no one is watching.” In sum, the report concluded the minors were “mostly stable” in their current placement and there was no need to move them.
The April 11, 2016, postpermanency review report recommended the minors be continued as dependents of the court, with a plan of continued out-of-home placement and a goal of legal guardianship for C. V. and emancipation for S. V. and J. V. Mother and father were still incarcerated in county jail. All of the minors were meeting their developmental milestones. The three visited with each other weekly and had letter and weekly telephone contact with mother and father.
S. V. had adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct and participated in various therapeutic groups. J. V. “pick[ed] on” other children in the group home and had “a lot of behavioral difficulty at school,” including suspensions in December 2015 for arguing with a teacher and in February 2016 for punching a peer during recess. J. V. “continues to need a well structured environment with strong limits” and individual therapy to help him identify his feelings and process his anger.
C. V. was a “typical 10 year old,” who liked to play outside and roughhouse with his friends. C. V. was “doing really well” in his school, including no reported behavioral issues. He would “soon” graduate. C. V. had adjusted “well” to his placement. Although C. V. still placed S. V. in a position of authority, he was “learning how to be his own self.”
A Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) report dated March 22, 2016, noted C. V. was doing well in school, including making the honor roll. He was outgoing, well liked by other students, and “able to get along with children of all cultures and races.” C. V. had not visited with mother or father, had not received any letters, and had only received “a couple of calls a few months ago from his mother,” and one call from father, during a visit with J. V. and S. V. C. V. seemed to enjoy his weekly supervised visits with J. V. and S. V., especially with J. V., and continued to visit biweekly with his grandparents. The CASA advocate was “not aware of any [other] family connections being made.” C. V. said he was “very happy” living with Nancy and “well adjusted living there.” He loved taking care of the animals (goats, sheep, geese, chickens, and dogs) and playing on the three acres of surrounding wooded area. C. V. and Nancy had a “good relationship,” with Nancy being “very supportive” of C. V. C. V. had a “good rapport with [Nancy] and sp[oke] highly of her.” C. V. said that if he was not allowed to live with his parents or grandparents, he would want to continue living with Nancy.
A March 30, 2016, CASA advocate report noted S. V. had “adjusted well” to his placement in a group home and was doing well with therapy. S. V. had received letters and phone calls from his mother. S. V. was having difficulty in school and was failing all of his classes, except for English and physical education. He was also 51 credits deficient for graduation. Although S. V. expressed interest in returning to his mother’s care, the CASA advocate believed S. V.’s “best chance for success” was to remain in a stable environment with structure and positive examples of appropriate behavior.
On May 2, 2016, the juvenile court declared Nancy the de facto parent of C. V. and set a section 366.26 hearing regarding C. V. to determine whether adoption or guardianship was the most appropriate permanent plan. (Rules 5.502(10), 5.534.) The court also denied father’s request to discharge his attorney. The court ordered the minors continue as dependent children of the court. S. V. and J. V. would remain in a permanent plan of long-term foster care, with a goal of placement in a less restrictive setting, or of independent living. The court appointed S. V.’s CASA advocate as his educational representative.
On August 8, 2016, the Department filed a request to change its permanent plan recommendation for C. V. from legal guardianship to adoption. According to a memorandum dated August 15, 2016, C. V. told the social worker (on July 8, 2016, July 19, 2016, and August 16, 2016) he wanted Nancy to adopt him.
An August 15, 2016, report from C. V.’s CASA advocate reported mother had been released from county jail, although father remained incarcerated. Mother and C. V. were scheduled to visit later that week. On August 11, 2016, C. V. said he was “open” to Nancy adopting him, although on August 13, 2016, Nancy informed the advocate C. V. had changed his mind and was “only interested in guardianship at this point.” On August 16, 2016, C. V. told his advocate that mother and father “ ‘don’t always make good decisions and I am trying to do what I think is right for me.’ ” Although C. V. did not want to live with mother or father because of their “bad choices,” C. V. wanted contact with his mother and was concerned that would be impossible if he was adopted. C. V. also feared he would lose services if he was adopted, including his CASA advocate. Still, C. V. “wants to stay with [Nancy] because he is happy living there.” C. V. was also getting along well with another foster child in Nancy’s home, who was biracial. Overall, C. V. was “very well adjusted,” “excell[ing] in school,” and seemed to be “very comfortable with his life.” The CASA advocate said guardianship with Nancy was currently in C. V.’s best interest.
On August 19, 2016, mother filed a petition under section 388 asking for the minors to be returned to her or for reunification services. She argued she had a “very strong bond” with the minors and reunification was in the minors’ best interest. She also noted she had completed individual counseling, parenting classes, and substance abuse classes. During her incarceration, she had written letters to the minors twice a week and had made phone calls when possible. Immediately upon her release, she had requested in-person visitation with the minors. She had also enrolled in a substance abuse recovery program and resumed her studies at a local college. On September 7, 2016, the Department filed its opposition to mother’s section 388 petition requesting reunification services for placement of C. V. in her care.
During a hearing on August 29, 2016, the minors’ attorney declared a conflict, indicating it was in the minors’ best interest to have individual attorneys, and the juvenile court stated it would appoint new counsel. The juvenile court ordered visitation for mother with all the minors. The court also ordered reunification services for mother as to J. V. and S. V., including individual counseling and a parenting class for teens. During the hearing, mother stated she would be moving into a three-bedroom home the following month, would start counseling that week, and had a steady income.
A September 12, 2016, progress report noted S. V. wished to be reunited with his mother. A September 16, 2016, addendum report recommended J. V. remain in his current group home and S. V. be returned to his mother’s care. S. V. was refusing to remain in foster care and wanted to return home to his mother. Mother and S. V. had begun having overnight visits, and there were no behavioral issues. Mother was working 20 to 30 hours a week at a restaurant, making $10 per hour, and had a two-bedroom apartment that the social worker assessed to be “suitable.” Mother was receiving services, including substance abuse counseling, parenting classes, and individual counseling.
A September 12, 2016, report from S. V.’s CASA advocate said S. V. was enjoying his weekend visits with mother. He had been moved to a new group home in August 2016, and was “adjusting relatively well” to the new placement. Still, S. V. wanted to return to his mother’s care.
On September 16, 2016, the juvenile court granted the Department the discretion to approve multiple overnight visits for S. V. with mother, not to exceed 29 days.
An October 3, 2017 report, recommended S. V. be returned to his mother’s care and reunification services be offered to mother. It also recommended J. V. remain in out-of-home placement. Both S. V. and J. V. were “not adoptable due to their connection with their biological parents.”
Both S. V. and J. V. were meeting their developmental milestones, although J. V. tended to be a “bit immature.” S. V. had “continuously AWOLed while placed at two facilities” and had not benefitted from services. S. V. had weekly individual therapy and participated in various therapeutic groups. He had received services for oppositional behavior, lying, physical aggression toward peers, running away, verbal altercations, and disrespect toward others. Although he refused to participate in services from June 1 to August 15, 2016, S. V.’s participation had recently increased when mother became involved. Mother was “actively engaging in services and is progressing towards stabilization.” S. V. was doing well with extended visitation with mother, with “no reported problems.”
J. V. was attending weekly therapy, although his participation was “minimal so far.” When he did attend, he was “highly disruptive and would often provoke his peers.” J. V. continued to need a “well structured environment with strong limits” and individual therapy. He exhibited “poor peer interactions” and “disrespect towards staff.” He also continued to have “many safety incidents,” and “often” targeted an eight-year-old resident. He also destroyed property and tried to “attack” younger children. In July 2016, he punched a female staff member and threw a chair, hitting her in the face. The next day, J. V. bragged about injuring her. J. V. “often” used racial slurs when he was angry with peers and staff. Although he was signed up for guitar and football, he missed multiple sessions and was dismissed from football due to “escalations and assaults.” An October 3, 2017, addendum report noted J. V. was no longer participating in individual therapy. J. V. and S. V. had only “sporadic” visits with each other due to S. V.’s “constant AWOL.” J. V. visited with mother weekly. Father had twice-weekly telephone contact with J. V. and S. V.
On November 2, 2016, S. V. and J. V. filed a motion objecting to the recommendation for termination of parental rights for C. V. According to S. V. and J. V., such an order would interfere with the minors’ sibling relationship and would be detrimental to C. V. S. V. and J. V. argued they had a “significant bond” with C. V.
On November 7, 2016, the juvenile court granted mother’s section 388 motion with respect to S. V. and ordered him placed with mother, in an effort to “ensure his safety.” The trial court reasoned circumstances had changed because mother had been released from custody and S. V. was in an unsafe situation in the group home because he was not staying there. The court ordered S. V. had to continue to attend school and participate in services and would remain under the supervision of the Department. The juvenile court also ordered S. V. continue as a dependent of the court. The juvenile court ordered visitation with all of the minors for father, but not face-to-face visits while father was incarcerated.
A December 2, 2016, addendum report described mother’s progress in an outpatient treatment program. The counselor stated that mother “participates actively in groups and appears to provide valuable insight and support to other members of the group.” She also was “open, honest, and has a positive attitude” regarding individual counseling sessions. The group home also reported that mother was “consistently” attending family therapy and demonstrated “high value.” She also demonstrated a “commitment to practice effective and appropriate parenting skills.”
A contested 10-day hearing was held between December 2 and December 22, 2016, regarding section 366.26 for C. V., a postpermanency review for J. V., mother’s section 388 motions for C. V. and J. V., and S. V. and J. V.’s section 388 motion for C. V. After determining mother’s counsel had made a prima facie showing of change in circumstances, the juvenile court heard mother’s section 388 motions and the section 366.26 for C. V. simultaneously. Witnesses included father, mother, the minors, and Nancy.
I
Mother’s Testimony
During the hearing, mother testified the minors had “always been very close” and “love each other very much.” They “always did things together, played games together.” The family had also taken trips together, including a trip to Santa Monica. Prior to November 2014, it had been “common” for S. V. to cook for and care for J. V. and C. V.
Regarding her mayhem conviction, mother testified she held a man against his will and used a blow torch to remove a swastika from the side of the victim’s neck. Mother testified the mayhem victim did not rape her, and she never told C. V. the incident happened due to a rape. C. V. was five years old when she was first sent to jail on the mayhem charge. She now felt “emotional” that she “hurt someone else like that.”
Mother testified she felt she had “neglected” the minors and agreed the Department was right to intervene in 2014 because the white supremacist lifestyle was “not okay” and “only breeds hate and violence.” She only “got involved” in the white supremacist lifestyle because she was afraid of losing her husband. Mother testified that prior to November 2014, S. V. once got so angry that he punched a hole in the wall, and C. V. told mother that made him uncomfortable. In addition, C. V. witnessed father “put his hands on [mother].” Mother denied her house was “dirty” or “messy all the time” prior to her arrest in November 2014.
Although her kids were previously “subjected” to the white supremacist lifestyle, she now lived differently. She no longer allowed weapons in the house or people who are “unhealthy for my children.”
While she was incarcerated from November 2014 to August 2016, mother took parenting classes, participated in substance abuse counseling, and met weekly for an hour with a chaplain regarding anger management. The chaplain also helped mother realize why S. V., J. V., and C. V. were taken from her, and her “role in the responsibility in that.” Mother had become a Christian and now believed in love, faith, and values. Mother felt she had taken responsibility for the reasons why the minors were removed.
Although mother had no in-person visits with the minors while she was incarcerated, she wrote them letters twice a week and received letters from them, although “not very often.” She also had phone calls with J. V., three phone calls with C. V., and five calls with S. V. The first thing she did when she was released from jail was to call the social worker and set up visits with the minors. During their first visit together, S. V., J. V., and C. V. were “very” affectionate with each other. S. V. telling J. V. he loved him, and C. V. and S. V. each telling mother he missed his siblings.
Mother currently lived in a two-bedroom apartment, with S. V. having his own bedroom. If J. V. moved in, she would sleep on the couch so he could have his own bedroom. If C. V. also moved in, he and J. V. would share a room. Mother testified that physical aggression between the minors was “no longer tolerated or allowed in my home.” Since her release from jail, there were a “couple of times” where she “fell short” on rent due to lack of hours at work, but she was not in danger of being evicted. A charity had also helped her pay her utility bill.
Upon mother’s release from jail, she followed the social worker’s recommendations and started classes before the juvenile court ordered them, including parenting classes, individual counseling, and group therapy. Mother still was doing classes as of the date of the hearing. In addition, mother, J. V., and S. V. had been receiving weekly family therapy, with J. V. and S. V. also receiving individual therapy. Mother found her therapy team helpful, especially with parenting advice and disciplinary techniques. With the team’s advice, she had successfully grounded S. V. Mother acknowledged she and the minors had issues with trust, irritation, anger, and fear, and testified the team helped her address those with J. V. So far, she had a total of five sessions. Mother testified the family therapy was “going good,” and they were “making progress.” J. V. and S. V. were “learning how to interact as siblings,” and how to express their opinions properly without yelling or hitting.
Mother also received individual counseling from Strategies for Change. Four days a week, she received two and one-half hours of counseling and classes for substance abuse, anger management, and psychological issues. Mother was no longer required to do substance abuse testing.
Mother was “very open and honest” with her individual counselor, including about being “severely tortured” by her stepfather from age eight to 16 years. Mother testified she suffered from PTSD and was depressed in November 2014. In addition, mother was hospitalized in August 2014 due to a suicide attempt and drug overdose. She began individual counseling on September 30, 2016. She was under a “pretty substantial amount of stress and anxiety” when she was released from jail in August 2016, although she did not feel she currently had any mental health problems. She was not currently depressed, nor was she taking any medication for depression.
Mother testified she and father now had a “rocky” relationship. Although she still loved him, she “need[ed] to see change.” She had been talking with father daily when she was first released from jail in August 2016, but, as of the hearing, she had not spoken with father in a few weeks.
Mother had four supervised visits with C. V. since her release. Mother testified visits were “positive,” and they would color and talk about his girlfriend and school. Mother also brought snacks, and she hugged him “a lot.” Mother testified the “hardest part is letting them go home.” Although mother agreed C. V. was doing well in foster care, she testified it would not be harmful to C. V.’s stability if she “stood in the way of him being adopted.” Mother loved C. V. “more than anything on this earth” and they were “very close.” Mother promised that if C. V. were returned to her care, C. V. could continue a relationship with Nancy and his CASA advocate, if he wanted. Prior to C. V.’s detention, mother had been his primary caregiver. Mother testified she had taught C. V. “family first,” which meant love and loyalty between the family.
Mother currently visited with J. V. three times a week, including three unsupervised all day visits. Mother felt she could provide a well-structured environment with strong limits for J. V., as recommended by the social workers. She planned to impose a strict bedtime and prohibit swearing, hitting, or putting each other down. In addition, the therapy team had given her helpful strategies for handling J. V.’s oppositional defiance disorder and PTSD. She felt J. V.’s counseling and therapy was helpful for him, and he seemed more willing to engage because he saw her engage in her own therapy. J. V. had attended every session and told mother he loved her but had a hard time trusting her because she had been incarcerated, even though she promised that would never happen again after the mayhem conviction. Mother was trying to be “transparent with everything that I do,” so the minors would feel comfortable and “able to freely express how they feel.”
Mother testified it was a “difficult” transition to having S. V. back home. S. V. had “made progress” since returning to her care. He had challenged her authority “a few times,” but he did not cross the limits she set. In addition, he was “not so angry anymore” and was “open for discussion.” They got along at home, and S. V. told her that he considered her to “be his mentor.” S. V. did punch a hole in the wall since returning to mother’s home.
Mother testified she felt she could handle the minors together. Although the boys liked to “roughhouse,” J. V. and S. V. now had a tap out system to let each other know when to stop. In mother’s opinion, C. V. did not get picked on by S. V. or J. V. S. V. and J. V. were now getting along well in mother’s home, and she did not think that would change if C. V. returned to her care. She felt she could handle any aggressive behavior, especially since she had been teaching S. V. that violence was “not okay.” Mother testified she had “concerns” about C. V.’s ability to maintain contact with S. V. and J. V. if he were adopted.
II
C. V.’s Testimony
C. V. was 11 years old at the time of the hearing. He considered his family to be mother, father, J. V., and S. V., whom he lived with until the parents’ first incarceration. For the three and one-half years that mother was incarcerated for the mayhem conviction, C. V., S. V., and J. V. lived together with their paternal grandparent. Once mother and father were released, C. V., J. V., and S. V. resumed living with them.
C. V. testified that when he lived with mother and father prior to November 2014, S. V. did all the cooking and cleaning, although mother would sometimes help. Mother would also help with homework or if C. V. got hurt. But, C. V. felt “uncomfortable” with mother’s lying and stealing, including the “receipt trick” whereby they got food at McDonald’s by saying they never got the food from an old receipt.
During this period, he shared a room with J. V. and S. V., and it was “nice.” C. V. testified J. V. and S. V. “always had my back,” including stopping bullies at school. In addition, S. V. would make C. V. feel safe with a group hug during fights between mother and father, and J. V. would protect C. V. at school. C. V. testified it did not feel like home without his brothers because they made him feel “complete.”
Still, J. V. had “severe rage issues” when they lived together. J. V. would push and hit C. V., rather than S. V., because S. V. would “hit a lot harder.” S. V. also had anger issues and would push J. V. and C. V. Once or twice a week, the minors would start roughhousing, which would escalate to anger and hitting because they “didn’t know how to stop.” The hitting made C. V. feel “uncomfortable.” Wrestling between the minors would “escalate” to “hitting” every week. The hitting hurt and was “[t]errible.” In addition, S. V. punched holes in the wall “whenever he was mad.” This made C. V. feel “[u]nsafe,” because S. V. could “do that to me.”
C. V. testified S. V. continued to fight with him every week when they lived together with Nancy. The fights escalated to hitting when “someone just had to be right.” C. V. grew afraid of S. V. when these fights escalated and felt the fighting was not “normal” for brothers.
C. V. testified it was “difficult” when he was removed from his parents’ home, since that was “all I knew.” C. V. wrote letters to mother while she was in jail, so he could “remain in contact.” He wanted to have visits with S. V., J. V., and mother. It was “important” for his family to interact together, and it was important to him to remain in contact with his mother now.
Since leaving his parents’ home, C. V. also visited with S. V. and J. V. weekly. C. V. enjoyed the visits because “it’s all three of us together as a family.” In addition, the hitting had stopped and C. V. no longer felt uncomfortable. C. V. also liked that S. V. and J. V. now showed him more emotion than when they were all living together, including hugging. C. V. felt that S. V. and J. V. had both become “a lot . . . kinder.” His brothers “always put [him] in a good mood,” and he missed living with them. He would like to visit with his brothers “every day.” C. V. also felt better now that S. V. was living with mother, because S. V. had only punched the wall once.
Still, based on talking with Nancy, C. V. understood that he would be able to visit with S. V. and J. V. if he were adopted. Although they had not had a “full conversation,” C. V. believed he would “always” be able to have visits with S. V. and J. V., although a visit might be postponed for a week if Nancy felt the current visit was not “healthy.” C. V. testified that it made him feel safe to know that Nancy would decide if a visit was “healthy.”
Nancy also told C. V. “all the time” that he would be able to see mother if he remained in Nancy’s care. It would be “terrible” if he were not allowed to see mother again and he wanted to “strongly stay in contact,” including visitation. C. V. testified he wanted to see mother “[e]very day” even if he remained in Nancy’s care. C. V. also wanted to visit with father even if it was in prison.
C. V. was “conflicted” about whether he should be adopted. He loved mother, but had known his “de facto parent” Nancy, “all my life.” C. V. was “happy” living with Nancy, whom he looked to for “help.” While living with Nancy, C. V. no longer had “anger built up inside.” He had “no reason to [be] angry now,” and his therapy services had helped him learn healthy ways to “cope” with anger. School was going well, and Nancy’s home was “safe, there’s a lot of trust, and everyone gets along fine.” He could not say the same about living with mother and father, since there was “a lot of violence between us brothers.” C. V. testified he told his CASA advocate he did not want to return to mother and father because they had made bad choices, including the mayhem conviction and returning to jail.
Still, C. V. wanted to be back in the same home with mother, S. V., and J. V., testifying he would choose to “go home” with mother if he had to decide that day. Were he returned to mother’s care, he would “strongly support” continuing to have contact with Nancy and wanted to see her every day.
Despite only having two visits with mother since she began receiving services, C. V. had noticed a change. She “actually cares now,” and “doesn’t have all that stress.” Based on mother’s testimony, C. V. testified that mother was “doing the best she can to not scam, not lie, and pay her bills on time.” C. V. continued to have a lack of trust in his mother. He wanted to work toward fixing it and was “open” to participating in family counseling with mother and his brothers. C. V. thought mother should “continue to try to get [him] in her care.”
III
Nancy’s Testimony
Nancy testified she lived next door to the minors’ paternal grandfather and first met the minors when they were trick or treating with mother and father. They were dressed in neo-Nazi uniforms and “had swastikas painted all over their faces.” Nancy next saw the minors when they moved in with the paternal grandfather in 2010, while mother and father were incarcerated. In 2014, Nancy found out through a mutual friend that mother and father had been arrested and the minors had been detained. When Nancy got home, she “immediately” called the Department to let them know she was interested in having the minors placed with her. When she found out her landlord would not allow her to have three additional children, she moved to a larger home. She became a licensed foster care provider, and C. V. and S. V. came to live with her in June and July 2015, respectively. She had “always” been willing to adopt C. V., S. V., and J. V.
While S. V. and C. V. lived with Nancy, she observed C. V. did not have “normal sibling interaction.” S. V. was “very controlling” of C. V., and the two were aggressive with each other, with “a lot” of hitting and kicking. This was not “normal childhood roughhousing,” as S. V. would put C. V. in a headlock and repeatedly pretend to break his neck. Nancy testified that since coming to live with her, C. V. had become a “happy and productive young man.” He was doing “amazing” in school and “love[d] being at the house with everybody.”
When Nancy was asked how she felt about visitation between C. V. and his brothers if she adopted C. V., she testified she believed it was best for C. V. “to have a very positive, mutually rewarding relationship with his family members. If it can be done in a safe way, I encourage that.” She was concerned about the children being “kind” and “gentle” with each other, versus hitting and “shaming comments.” She intended to have a professional service arrange and supervise visits between the minors, although she might eventually feel comfortable supervising the visits herself. Nancy was unsure how much it would cost to have third-party supervision or who would pay. If she could not afford third-party supervision, “we would have to find a way to make it work.” She was also unsure how often she would allow the minors to visit together, as she tried to “live in the present with this case.” She was also “happy to encourage and to support” visitation with mother, provided the relationship was “mutually rewarding,” “positive,” and “safe.” She told C. V. she would encourage a relationship with his mother, “provided it is safe.” Nancy felt C. V. had a “dysfunctional” bond with his mother, since he had told Nancy he did not trust her, did not feel she was there for him, and did not feel supported by her.
IV
J. V.’s Testimony
J. V. testified he wanted to return to his mother’s care. When he first came to the group home, he would “fight for no reason,” lie, and steal, but now he was trying to change so he could go home with his mother. J. V. had not gotten into a physical confrontation at the group home in two months, although one month before the hearing he grew so mad that he used his head to bang the walls in the group home. At the time, he “didn’t think that life was worth living.” Family counseling was helping, with S. V. getting “nicer,” and mother “doing what she needs to.” Although J. V. trusted mother the day of the hearing, he told mother during one of their family therapy sessions he did not trust her because she had “broke[n] way too many promises in the past,” including going back to jail after saying she would not. Prior to the minors’ detention in November 2014, mother and father used to “stay in [their] bedroom a lot” and did drugs.
It was a “struggle” when the minors first moved in with their paternal grandfather after their parents’ detention for the mayhem charges. But, J. V. testified, living with C. V. and S. V. made it easier to be separated from his parents. They were the “Three Musketeers” and would “stick together forever.” It had been “tough” living apart from C. V. and S. V. for two years. Although J. V. had been aggressive with C. V., he also protected him against bullies at school. J. V. loved C. V. “with all [his] heart.” J. V. testified he thought he, S. V., and C. V. should “[a]lways” stay in one home “together.” J. V. did not feel “very good” about the prospect of C. V. being adopted, since he had heard Nancy say she would not allow visitation with mother or father, and J. V. feared Nancy would not let C. V. visit with him either.
V
S. V.’s Testimony
S. V. testified he had always lived with his brothers prior to being detained by the Department. Although he had a good relationship with Nancy when he first moved in with her, he gradually began to feel “hostility” toward her religious and political views.
Mother had changed since November 2014, and was now “somebody who functions normally.” She worked and associated with different people. In addition, she had instituted more structure and rules in the house, and S. V. felt “more safe” living with her. S. V. thought parental rights should not be terminated for C. V., because mother was “doing very well” and “deserves to have her children back.” S. V. also had concerns Nancy would not allow him to communicate with C. V. S. V. loved C. V. “[v]ery much” and wanted to see him return home.
VI
Father’s Testimony
Father testified he was not in support of C. V. being adopted. He testified Nancy had not facilitated phone calls with C. V., and, as a result, father had only spoken with C. V. once since his incarceration. Father wanted more contact with C. V.
Father testified he had a substance abuse problem and entered a “detox” program in 2014. Although he briefly abused painkillers after the car accident in May 2014, he had not used since August 2014. After the accident, mother took psychotropic medications, prescription painkillers, and methamphetamine. Mother stopped after her overdose in August 2014.
VII
Juvenile Court’s Decision
A
Mother’s Section 388 Petitions
The juvenile court denied mother’s section 388 petitions to place J. V. and C. V. with her or for her to receive services. The court held mother had failed to show changed circumstances. The court noted mother had participated in programs while she was incarcerated and was eagerly participating in services since her release, including counseling and parenting classes. In addition, mother presented evidence she had a “consistently clean home,” was employed, and had recognized how her pervious lifestyle harmed the minors. However, the court reasoned, “[t]his case isn’t about . . . a dirty home. All of these children have extreme emotional problems, and their parents and the lifestyle they exposed them to caused them to develop those problems.” The court found “questionable” mother’s testimony about her awareness of how her prior lifestyle affected the minors, given her prior statements the minors only had trouble when the Department intervened, and her current denial that C. V. continued to have emotional challenges. Although mother was learning how to create a positive environment for S. V., she needed to demonstrate a “consistent commitment” to overcoming violence and putting her children’s needs above hers. Mother had only been released for four and one-half months, while her violent lifestyle and parenting “occurred for years.” In addition, although the court found J. V. should have a “goal” of returning to mother, it noted J. V. needed structure, discipline, reassurance, love, and acceptance. Mother needed to “be that person,” but that “requires a great deal of change in [her].”
The juvenile court also held it would not be in C. V.’s best interest to grant mother’s section 388 petitions. In June 2015, the court held the minors were suffering or at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage as a result of the parents’ conduct. In addition, the court sustained allegations the minors had exhibited violent tendencies and aggressive behaviors, and the minors required “therapeutic intervention to address issues with oppositional behavior, anger control, and violence.” The court noted Dr. Hayes’s March 2015 report, including the finding that C. V. was “extremely aggressive” for his age, had a distorted perception of the world, was a social outcast, and normalized violence. Dr. Hayes noted these behaviors had been “encouraged and role-modeled” by his parents and grandparents. However, noted the court, “[C. V.]’s time away from his family has transformed him.” He had friends, was doing well at school, and had empathy for others. In sum, he had “become a kind, considerate, and sensitive young boy, who feels safe in expressing how he feels, something he was not allowed to do in his own home with his parents.” The court reasoned: “Returning [C. V.] to his mother would jeopardize both his stability and his safety. [¶] Having [C. V.] wait six more months to see if his mother can pull it together for him, would delay permanency.”
B
Review Hearing For J. V.
The juvenile court also held it would not reopen services under the section 366.3, subdivision (d)(4) status review hearing regarding J. V. The court ordered a permanent plan be placement with the current group home, with a “specific goal of return home.”
C
Section 366.26 Hearing For C. V.
The juvenile court found C. V. was adoptable. He was well adjusted, doing well in school, and had no significant behavioral problems. In addition, C. V. was “thriving” and “happy” in Nancy’s care. Although C. V. had recently said he wanted to return to his mother, he had previously told social workers that he wanted to be adopted by Nancy.
The beneficial parent relationship exception did not apply. C. V. never had a significant positive emotional attachment with his parents, nor had one developed since mother and father were incarcerated in November 2014. C. V. spent “a great deal of time” outside the care of mother and father, and mother and father were not physically or emotionally available for him. Mother and father failed to intervene when C. V.’s brothers beat and bullied him and failed to allow C. V. to safely express his objections to the white supremacist lifestyle. C. V. never consistently looked to mother or father to meet his everyday needs, and he now trusted Nancy to fulfill his needs and guide and protect him. In addition, it was not in C. V.’s best interest to continue his relationship with his parents since he “has thrived in his foster home.” In sum, the parents had failed to prove that severing the parent-child relationship would deprive C. V. of a substantial positive and emotional attachment such that he would be greatly harmed.
The sibling relationship exception also did not apply. Although C. V. grew up with his brothers and shared early life experiences, the court could not find that C. V. had a substantial relationship with his siblings. Their relationships were not “predominately positive or loving . . . or healthy.” S. V. and J. V. emotionally and physically abused C. V., including S. V. punching C. V. in the stomach in January 2016. C. V. told his CASA advocate that S. V. “has always been that way, that’s the way he is.” The court noted Dr. Hayes’s assessment that C. V.’s behavior was “quite different when he was with [S. V.],” and said that C. V. should be in a separate home so he could develop behaviors and attitudes that are socially acceptable. In addition, continuing the sibling relationship would not outweigh the benefits that C. V. would receive through the permanency of adoption.
The juvenile court ordered C. V. declared permanently freed from the custody and control of mother and father. The court ordered adoption as the permanent plan for C. V.
Mother and father filed timely appeals.
DISCUSSION
I
Section 388 Petitions
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in denying her section 388 petitions regarding J. V. and C. V. “To prevail on a section 388 petition, the moving party must establish that (1) new evidence or changed circumstances exist, and (2) the proposed change would promote the best interests of the child.” (In re J.T. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 953, 965.) “[T]he petitioner must show changed, not changing, circumstances.” (In re Mickel O. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 586, 615.) The change of circumstances or new evidence “must be of such significant nature that it requires a setting aside or modification of the challenged prior order.” (Ansley v. Superior Court (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 477, 485; see also In re Jamika W. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1446, 1451.) “In assessing the best interests of the child, ‘a primary consideration . . . is the goal of assuring stability and continuity.’ ” (In re Mickel O., at p. 616.)
In considering whether the parent has made the requisite showing, the juvenile court may consider “the seriousness of the reason leading to the child’s removal, the reason the problem was not resolved, the passage of time since the child’s removal, the relative strength of the bonds with the child, the nature of the change of circumstance and the reason the change was not made sooner.” (In re Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 616.) We review for abuse of discretion a juvenile court’s denial of a section 388 petition. (In re J.T., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 965.)
According to mother, there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court’s finding that her circumstances had not changed. She had “done everything asked of her and more” since her release from jail four months before the December 2016 hearing, working “closely with the social worker and the [therapy] team.” She also acknowledged her mistakes and disavowed her past life. Mother further argues that the juvenile court previously found circumstances had changed, since it placed S. V. with her. Mother also argues the juvenile court erred in finding it was not in C. V.’s best interest to offer reunification services to mother.
Even if mother demonstrated it was in C. V.’s best interest to offer reunification services to mother, substantial evidence supports the finding of the juvenile court that mother did not demonstrate a change of circumstances that would justify granting services to mother with respect to C. V. or placing J. V. or C. V. with mother. As the juvenile court explained during the December 2016 hearing, “This case isn’t about . . . a dirty home. All of these children have extreme emotional problems, and their parents and the lifestyle they exposed them to caused them to develop these problems.” According to mother’s testimony, prior to the minors’ detention, the family was living a “white supremacist lifestyle,” which bred “hate and violence.” In June 2015, the juvenile court found true that mother and father had “exhibited violent dispositions” and “caused the children to suffer and put the children at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional harm.” As a result, all three minors “exhibited violent tendencies” and “untoward aggressive behaviors to others,” and “require[d] therapeutic intervention to address issues with oppositional behavior, anger control, and violence.” In March 2015, Dr. Hayes reported C. V. had been “exposed to aggressive violence, domestic violence, and extreme racism” in his parents’ home. As a result, C. V. was “extremely aggressive” for his age, and appeared to “normalize violence.” A February 2015 progress report noted C. V. had kicked a five-year-old child in his foster home hard enough to draw blood. Similarly, Jeanine Hill reported in April 2015 that J. V. believed that “fighting and destroying property are acceptable responses to being angry or frustrated.” J. V. punched, kicked, and threatened his residential peers and staff, and needed support to learn “more functional ways of engaging in interpersonal relationships.” In addition, the minors were “violent” and had “aggressive interactions” during their visits with each other and their grandfather, hitting and kicking each other and their grandfather.
As of the December 2016 hearing, mother had only been released from custody for four months. The record does not show she had sufficient opportunity to address how to support J. V. and C. V. in a healthy lifestyle. Mother testified that during her incarceration from November 2014 to August 2016, she took parenting classes, participated in substance abuse counseling, and met weekly for an hour with a chaplain regarding anger management. Still, she had no services prior to her release, since the juvenile court had denied her reunification services in June 2015 under section 361.5, subdivision (b). Although she was currently undergoing counseling and family therapy, as of the hearing, mother had only attended five sessions of family therapy. Mother also testified she had only participated in individual therapy since September 30, 2016, and there were still issues she did not yet “have the strength to talk about” with her therapist.
Although mother testified she had taken responsibility for the reasons why the minors were removed and now believed in love, faith, and values, she acknowledged she and the minors had issues with trust, irritation, anger, and fear. C. V. testified he did not trust mother. J. V. also testified he told mother during one of their family therapy sessions he did not trust her because she had “broke[n] way too many promises in the past.” Moreover, despite attempting suicide in August 2014, suffering from PTSD and depression, and being under a “pretty substantial amount of stress and anxiety” when she was released in August 2016, mother testified she did not feel she had any mental health problems. Regardless of whether circumstances had changed with respect to S. V., the record supports the conclusion that mother was still addressing her issues. We find no abuse of discretion.
II
Use Of Dr. Hayes’s Assessment
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in relying on Dr. Hayes’s assessment report when it denied her section 388 petition for reunification services for C. V. and in rejecting the sibling relationship exception when terminating parental rights. According to mother, Dr. Hayes’s assessment was irrelevant because it was made 20 months before the December 2016 hearing and because it was focused on “only two specific issues: whether the children should participate in the jurisdiction and disposition hearings and whether they should live together.” Mother argues the issues before the court during the December 2016 hearing were different and circumstances had changed.
Mother further argues the juvenile court erroneously relied on portions of the report that it had previously ordered redacted. Mother objects to the following statements from Dr. Hayes, as recited by the juvenile court in issuing its decision: (1) “[C. V.] appeared to have a highly distorted perception of the world that he is surrounded by, that he is surrounded by bad people, and he must be violent in order to live day-to-day,” (2) “[C. V.] met the requirements for conduct disorder, a childhood onset, and displayed some antisocial behavior,” and (3) “[C. V.] described having peer issues and described him as a social outcast due to his antisocial actions and comments.” S. V., J. V., and father join and adopt this argument and further contend the court should not have considered Dr. Hayes’s report with respect to the sibling relationship exception. (Rule 8.200(a)(5); § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).)
The Department contends mother has forfeited her argument by failing to object to the juvenile court’s consideration of the entire record, citing In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 221 [a “party forfeits the right to claim error as grounds for reversal on appeal when he or she fails to raise the objection in the trial court”]. In the alternative, the Department argues the juvenile court properly considered the entire factual and procedural history of the case.
Regardless of whether mother forfeited the argument by failing to object to the consideration of this evidence at the juvenile court, her contentions lack merit. (See Evid. Code, § 353; see also People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1171 [a defendant who does not object at the trial court to the admission of evidence (as required under Evid. Code, § 353) fails to preserve the issue on appeal].)
A
The Juvenile Court Did Not Erroneously Rely On Any Redacted
Material From Dr. Hayes’s Report Regarding C. V.
The record shows the juvenile court did not redact the portions of Dr. Hayes’s report regarding C. V. referred to by mother in her opening brief. During the May 11, 2015 hearing regarding the minors’ request to redact Dr. Hayes’s reports, the juvenile court denied the minors’ request regarding Dr. Hayes’s statements about C. V., reasoning that Dr. Hayes’s “opinions, observations, and diagnoses are relevant to the area of inquiry directed by the Court” and were not privileged pursuant to Evidence Code section 1017. We note the statements cited by mother were in the redacted version of Dr. Hayes’s report regarding C. V. submitted to the court by the Department on May 18, 2015. As such, the record does not support mother’s contention the juvenile court violated its own redaction order and improperly relied upon information not in evidence.
B
Dr. Hayes’s Report Regarding C. V. Was Relevant
Despite mother’s contentions, Dr. Hayes’s statements were relevant to the December 2016 hearing. Dr. Hayes’s assessment that C. V. was “extremely aggressive” for his age, had a “distorted perception of the world,” and “met the requirements for conduct disorder” gave background and context to the juvenile court’s prior findings in June 2015 that the minors (1) were suffering or at substantial risk of suffering serious emotional damage as a result of mother’s and father’s conduct and (2) exhibited violent tendencies, demonstrated untoward aggressive behaviors, and required therapeutic intervention. In addition, Dr. Hayes assessed C. V.’s status soon after he was detained from his parents’ home, making her observations highly relevant in light of the juvenile court’s observation that C. V.’s separation from his mother had “transformed him.” As such, Dr. Hayes’s conclusions assisted the court in determining whether it was in C. V.’s best interest to place him with mother or grant her reunification services. (See In re Mickel O., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 616 [juvenile court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case when evaluating a § 388 petition].) For the same reason, Dr. Hayes’s report was relevant to the court’s determination of whether it was in C. V.’s best interest to terminate parental rights or find applicable the sibling relationship exception. (See, e.g., § 366.26, subd. (h)(1) [at all proceedings under § 366.26, “the court shall consider the wishes of the child and shall act in the best interests of the child”]; see also § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v) [directing juvenile court to consider “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”].) We find no error.
III
Adoptability Of C. V.
Mother argues the juvenile court’s finding that C. V. is adoptable is not supported by substantial evidence. According to mother, the juvenile court failed to consider C. V.’s objections to adoption. Mother further argues the “only reason” offered by the Department was C. V.’s willingness to be adopted. We disagree.
Before terminating parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for a minor, a court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the minor is likely to be adopted. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1368.) We review for substantial evidence a juvenile court’s finding that a minor is adoptable. (In re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1154.) “[W]e presume in favor of the order, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, giving the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in support of the order.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.)
“The issue of adoptability . . . focuses on the minor, e.g., whether the minor’s age, physical condition, and emotional state make it difficult to find a person willing to adopt the minor.” (In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649.) It is not required that there be a prospective adoptive parent, and the minor need not already be in a potential adoptive home. (Id. at p. 1649; see also § 366.26, subd. (c)(1) [“The fact that the child is not yet placed in a preadoptive home . . . shall not constitute a basis for the court to conclude that it is not likely the child will be adopted”].) “[T]here must be convincing evidence of the likelihood that adoption will take place within a reasonable time.” (In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616, 624.)
At all proceedings under section 366.26, “the court shall consider the wishes of the child and shall act in the best interests of the child.” (§ 366.26, subd. (h)(1).) However, the court does not have to follow the minor’s wishes unless he or she is age 12 or over and objects to the termination of parental rights, because what a minor wants is not necessarily determinative of his or her best interests. (In re Joshua G. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 189, 201; see also § 366.26, subds. (c)(1)(B)(ii), (h).)
The evidence supports the finding that C. V. was likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. As of the hearing, Nancy, a licensed foster parent, had cared for C. V. since June 2015. She had consistently expressed an interest in adopting C. V. and had been granted de facto parent status. (See § 366.26, subd. (n) [setting out criteria for prospective adoptive parent].) “[A] prospective adoptive parent’s willingness to adopt generally indicates the minor is likely to be adopted within a reasonable time either by the prospective adoptive parent or by some other family.” (In re Sarah M., supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1650.)
Despite mother’s contentions, C. V.’s wishes were not binding on the juvenile court because he was 11 years old at the time of the section 366.26 hearing. Moreover, during the December 2016 hearing, C. V. testified he was “conflicted” about whether he should be adopted. During the hearing, he testified he loved mother, but had known his “de facto parent” Nancy, “all my life” and was “happy” living with Nancy. Nancy’s home was “safe, there’s a lot of trust, and everyone gets along fine.” Although C. V. testified he wanted to return to mother, he also wanted to see Nancy every day. In addition, C. V. still did not trust mother. In July and August 2016, C. V. told the social worker and his CASA advocate that he wanted to be adopted by Nancy.
Regardless of C. V.’s wishes, the juvenile court was required to act in his best interests. (§ 366.26, subd. (h)(1).) A September 2016 addendum report described C. V. as “thriv[ing]” in Nancy’s care. He had “good grades in school, was on the honor roll, and received numerous awards.” The August 2016 report from C. V.’s CASA advocate described C. V. as “very well adjusted,” “very comfortable with his life,” and “excelling in school.” In addition, C. V. testified during the December 2016 hearing that he looked to Nancy for “help,” and had “no reason to [be] angry” now that he lived with Nancy. Under these circumstances, there is substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s decision to find the minor adoptable and to terminate parental rights.
IV
Plan Of Adoption
At the selection and implementation hearing held pursuant to section 366.26, a juvenile court must choose one of the several “ ‘possible alternative permanent plans for a minor child. . . . The permanent plan preferred by the Legislature is adoption. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] If the court finds the child is adoptable, it must terminate parental rights absent circumstances under which it would be detrimental to the child.” (In re Ronell A., supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 1368.) There are only limited circumstances which permit the court to find a “compelling reason for determining that termination [of parental rights] would be detrimental to the child.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).) The party claiming the exception has the burden of establishing an exception to termination of parental rights. (In re Cristella C. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1372, 1373; In re Melvin A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252; rule 5.725(d)(2); Evid. Code, § 500.)
A
Beneficial Parental Relationship Exception
Mother contends the juvenile court erred in failing to find the beneficial parental relationship exception applied to C. V. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) According to mother, she visited with C. V. as much as she was allowed, sent him regular letters, and called. She also points to C. V.’s testimony as evidence that C. V. would benefit from maintaining their relationship.
Termination of parental rights may be detrimental to the minor when: “[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) “Because a section 366.26 hearing occurs only after the court has repeatedly found the parent unable to meet the child’s needs, it is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent’s rights will prevail over the Legislature’s preference for adoptive placement.” (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350.) We review with deference a juvenile court’s rejection of an exception to adoption. (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315 [whether the standard of review is deemed substantial evidence or abuse of discretion, broad deference to the lower court is required]; In re Jasmine D., at p. 1351 [abuse of discretion]; In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 [substantial evidence].)
To prove the beneficial parental relationship exception applies, “the parent must show more than frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits -- the parent must show that he or she occupies a parental role in the life of the child.” (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1527.) Moreover, it is not enough simply to show “some benefit to the child from a continued relationship with the parent, or some detriment from termination of parental rights.” (In re Jasmine D., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1349.) “[T]he parent must show that severing the natural parent-child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed.” (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 466.)
Here, mother can show neither substantial attachment nor great harm. From the inception of C. V.’s detention, mother had limited interaction with C. V. During her incarceration from November 2014 to August 2016, she had no in-person visits with C. V. She wrote letters to the minors twice a week, but they did not write back “very often.” Mother testified she only had three phone calls with C. V. during her incarceration. Mother testified she started visiting with C. V. once a month upon her release, and the visits were “positive.” As of the hearing, she had only had four supervised one-hour visits with C. V.
Moreover, although C. V. testified he loved mother and wanted to return to her care, he still did not trust her. He felt unsafe when he was living with mother and father because there was “a lot of violence between us brothers.” In addition, C. V. felt “uncomfortable” with mother’s lying and stealing. In comparison, C. V. had known Nancy “all [his] life,” and was “happy living there.” He was doing well in school, and Nancy’s home was “safe, there’s a lot of trust, and everyone gets along fine.” Given these circumstances, mother failed to show the minor had a significant, positive, emotional attachment to her that would outweigh the well-being the minors would gain in a permanent home with adoptive parents. (See In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 297; accord, In re Jasmine D., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1345.) We find no error.
B
Sibling Relationship Exception
Father, S. V., and J. V. contend the juvenile court erred in failing to find the sibling relationship exception applied to C. V. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) According to father, S. V., and J. V., substantial evidence established that terminating parental rights as to C. V. would substantially interfere with his sibling relationships. C. V. was raised in the same home and lived with S. V. and J. V. for most of his life, including the nine years before the minors’ detention, plus eight months when S. V. and C. V. were placed in the same foster home. In addition, the minors shared many common experiences, including family activities like swimming and a trip to Santa Monica. They also played roughly together, and sometimes the boys would become violent. After the boys were detained, they regularly visited with each other and maintained a strong bond. According to S. V., J. V., and father, Nancy was noncommittal about allowing continued contact between the minors.
S. V. and J. V. further argue the juvenile court erred in determining the benefit C. V. would receive from a permanent home outweighed the detriment to him from losing his sibling relationships. According to S. V. and J. V., the juvenile court also disregarded C. V.’s expressed desire to remain with his brothers.
A juvenile court may find that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child if it would result in “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).)
In considering whether the sibling relationship exception applies, a juvenile court must first determine “whether terminating parental rights would substantially interfere with the sibling relationship.” (In re L. Y. L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 951-952.) “To show a substantial interference with a sibling relationship the [moving party] must show the existence of a significant sibling relationship, the severance of which would be detrimental to the child.” (Id. at p. 952.) The court must evaluate “the nature and extent of the sibling relationship, including whether the child and sibling were raised in the same house, shared significant common experiences or have existing close and strong bonds.” (Id. at p. 952.)
There is a “heavy burden” on the party opposing adoption under the sibling relationship exception. (In re Daniel H. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 804, 813.) The authors of the legislation envisioned that use of this exception would “ ‘likely be rare.’ ” (In re L. Y. L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 950.) “If the court determines terminating parental rights would substantially interfere with [a significant] sibling relationship, the court is then directed to weigh the child’s best interest in continuing that sibling relationship against the benefit the child would receive by the permanency of adoption.” (Id. at p. 952; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v) [directing juvenile court to consider “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”].)
To be sure, there was evidence that C. V. had a bond with his siblings, given his testimony that he enjoyed his weekly visits with S. V. and J. V. and missed living with his bothers. In addition, until C. V. was nine years old, he lived in the same home as J. V. and S. V., and they shared early life experiences such as family outings.
The contention that Nancy would stop allowing visits between the minors is speculative and unsupported by the record. Nancy testified she believed it was best for C. V. “to have a very positive, mutually rewarding relationship with his family members,” including his siblings. She would encourage a “safe” relationship between the minors, and intended to have a professional service arrange and supervise visits between the minors, although she might eventually feel comfortable supervising the visits herself. Nancy made her commitment to these visits when she testified she “would have to find a way to make it work,” even if she could not afford to pay for third-party supervision. Similarly, C. V. testified he believed he would “always be able to have visits with [his] brothers.” Although C. V. and Nancy had not had a “full conversation” about the issue, they had talked about it. Although Nancy might sometimes limit a visit if she didn’t feel it was “healthy,” C. V. testified he did not think she would stop visits entirely. (See, e.g., In re Daisy D. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 287, 293 [assertion that anticipated adoptive parents would stop sibling visits after adoption was speculative and unsupported by the record, where anticipated adoptive parents intended to maintain contact between the siblings]; In re Salvador M. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1417, 1422 [the record did not “suggest that the brothers’ relationship would be terminated, as both [the mother] and the grandmother have indicated they recognize the value of the sibling relationship”].)
Regardless, the juvenile court could conclude C. V.’s interest in continuing his sibling relationship with S. V. and J. V. was outweighed by the benefit he would receive by the permanency of adoption. C. V. testified that, while they were living together with mother and father, the minors would hit each other every week and it was “terrible.” In addition, C. V. felt unsafe with S. V.’s violent outbursts, including punching holes in the wall “whenever he was mad.” This violence continued after the minors’ detention, with S. V. fighting with C. V. every week while the two lived together with Nancy. Even after S. V. moved out of Nancy’s home, the behavior continued. During a 2016 visit, S. V. hit C. V. twice very hard in the stomach. C. V. told his CASA advocate this happened often, since S. V. had “always been abusive, that’s the way he is.” In addition, S. V. punched a hole in the wall since returning to mother’s home. The violent nature of C. V.’s relationship with S. V. and J. V. does not support the application of the sibling relationship exception, especially since C. V. was “thriv[ing]” in Nancy’s care. (See In re Isaiah S. (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 428, 439 [nature of the minor’s relationship with his sibling did not support application of the sibling relationship exception where, despite bond between the siblings, the record indicated the boys “were often physically aggressive with one another” and frequently fought].) C. V. was doing well in school, felt “safe” and “happy” in Nancy’s home, looked to Nancy for his needs, and no longer had “anger built up inside.” There was no error.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.



/s/
Robie, J.



We concur:



/s/
Raye, P. J.



/s/
Murray, J.