In re Carla S.
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF
In re CARLA S. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.X., Defendant and Appellant. | D049360 (Super. |
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Hideo Chino, Commissioner. Affirmed.
K.X. appeals judgments of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to her minor children Carla S., Joaquin S. and A.S. (collectively the minors) under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26. K.X. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) did not apply to preclude terminating her parental rights. We affirm the judgments.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2005, seven-year-old Carla, three-year-old Joaquin and one-year-old A. became dependents of the juvenile court based on findings their father, Greg S., left them with the maternal grandmother who was arrested on drug charges, and their mother K.X. was unable to protect them because she was incarcerated. The court removed the minors from the custody of their parents and placed them with the paternal grandmother.
K.X. had a history of selling drugs and a child welfare history pertaining to drug abuse and domestic violence. At the time the minors were taken into protective custody, Joaquin was guarded and appeared to have developmental delays. A. was mistrustful and had language delays. The minors suffered from dental neglect.
By the six-month review hearing, the minors were doing well in their paternal grandmother's home and were bonding with her. K.X. remained in prison with a release date of April 2007. She was participating in a forestry program, which prevented her from taking parenting or substance abuse classes. K.X. denied using drugs and did not take responsibility for the lifestyle choices that resulted in her arrest and incarceration. She sent letters to the minors but had no visits with them. Carla replied to K.X.'s letters and sent photographs. The court found the parents had not made substantive progress with their case plans and set the matter for a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing.
The social worker for the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) recommended adoption as the minors' permanent plans. In the social worker's opinion, the minors did not have a beneficial parent-child relationship with either parent and any relationship they had did not outweigh the benefits of permanency through adoption.
The paternal grandmother wanted to adopt the minors. After living in the paternal grandmother's home for the past year, the minors were no longer withdrawn or perceived to have developmental delays. They were happy and comfortable with the paternal grandmother, looked to her to meet their daily needs, and wanted to stay with her. Additionally, there were numerous families willing to adopt the minors individually, and two families interested in adopting all three minors.
The social worker observed two visits between K.X. and the minors. K.X. was loving and appropriate with the minors and they were happy to see her. Although the minors loved their mother, they had no difficulty separating from her after the visits. The social worker believed there was a bond between K.X. and the minors, but the bond did not rise to the level of a beneficial parent-child relationship.
At a contested selection and implementation hearing, social worker Nicole Reed testified K.X. had consistently written letters to the minors while she was incarcerated. Carla told Reed she loved her mother and wanted to visit her, but she wanted to continue living with the paternal grandmother until she was an adult.
Reed testified K.X. was appropriate with the minors during the two visits she supervised. However, K.X.'s love and affection for the minors did not mean K.X. could safely parent the minors, and the parent-child relationship did not outweigh the benefits of adoption. K.X. was still incarcerated, had no job or income, and had a questionable support system. The paternal grandmother was open to continued contact between the minors and their parents as long as the parents were drug free and not engaged in criminal activity.
K.X. testified that before she was arrested, she cared for the minors on a daily basis. She loved her children and wanted to care for them again once she was released from prison in a few months.
The court recognized the minors had a relationship with K.X., but found it was not the type of relationship that warranted a permanent plan other than adoption. Further, the parent-child relationship did not outweigh the benefits of adoption for these minors. The court found the minors were adoptable and none of the statutory exceptions to adoption applied to preclude terminating parental rights.
DISCUSSION
K.X. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) did not apply to preclude terminating her parental rights. K.X. asserts she and the minors had a loving and affectionate relationship, which outweighed the benefits of adoption. She further asserts there was no evidence to support a reasonable inference that completely severing the developed parent-child relationship achieved the goal of long-term security and permanence for the minors.
A
We review the judgment for substantial evidence. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.) If, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court, we uphold those findings. We do not consider the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or evaluate the weight of the evidence. Instead, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record favorably to the juvenile court's order, and affirm the order even if there is substantial evidence supporting a contrary conclusion. (In re Baby Boy L. (1994)24 Cal.App.4th 596, 610; In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.) The parent has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the finding or order. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947; In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
" Adoption, where possible, is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 573.) If the court finds a child cannot be returned to his or her parent and is likely to be adopted if parental rights are terminated, it must select adoption as the permanent plan unless it finds termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child under one of five specified exceptions. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)-(E); In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 401; In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 826.)
Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) is an exception to the adoption preference if termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child because " [t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." We have interpreted the phrase " benefit from continuing the relationship" to refer to a " parent-child" relationship that " 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 other words, the court balances the strength and quality of the natural parent[-]child relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer. If severing the natural parent[-]child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent's rights are not terminated." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575; accord In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 811.) " In other words, if an adoptable child will not suffer great detriment by terminating parental rights, the court must select adoption as the permanent plan." (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 229.)
To meet the burden of proof for this statutory exception, the parent must show more than frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child or pleasant visits. (In re Derek W., supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 827.) " Interaction between natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child. . . . The relationship arises from day-to-day interaction, companionship and shared experiences." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575; In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 51.) The parent must show he or she occupies a parental role in the child's life, resulting in a significant, positive, emotional attachment from child to parent. (In re Autumn H., at p. 575; In re Elizabeth M. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.)
B
Here, K.X.'s incarceration prevented her from regularly visiting the minors, but she was able to maintain contact through letters. When visits occurred on several occasions, K.X. was loving and appropriate. Even if K.X.'s contact is considered to be consistent under the circumstances, K.X. did not meet her burden of showing there was a beneficial parent-child relationship sufficient to apply the exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A).
Although K.X. had been the primary parent figure for the minors for part of their lives, she did not safely parent them. Before the minors were taken into protective custody, K.X. exposed them to domestic violence and substance abuse, neglected their dental needs, and caused them to exhibit developmental delays. Once the minors were placed with the paternal grandmother, they began to thrive, felt safe and secure in her home and wanted to stay there. The minors' relationship with K.X. consisted of seeing her only two times in a 20-month period and receiving letters from her. Although K.X. and the minors loved each other, there was no evidence of a " significant, positive, emotional attachment" from the minors to K.X. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) Rather, the evidence showed the minors' need for permanence and stability through adoption outweighed any interest in preserving parental ties.
Moreover, K.X. did not show that terminating the parent-child relationship would greatly harm the minors. Although the minors were happy to see K.X., they transitioned well after visits and their lives were not adversely impacted by her absence. The minors looked to the paternal grandmother to meet their daily needs and wanted to stay with her. Where, as here, the biological parent does not fulfill a parental role, " the child should be given every opportunity to bond with an individual who will assume the role of a parent." (In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 854.) The court was required to, and did, weigh the strength and quality of the parent-child relationship, and the detriment involved in terminating it, against the potential benefit of an adoptive home for the minors based on their particular needs. The evidence before the court supported a finding the preference for adoption had not been overcome.
K.X. asserts the paternal grandmother's commitment to permanently care for the minors achieved security and stability for them, and thus the court was not required to terminate parental rights. However, once the court found K.X. did not present any evidence to invoke the exceptions of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), it had no discretion to order a permanent plan other than adoption. (In re Erik P., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 401; In re Dakota H., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 229.) Despite K.X.'s preference for guardianship for the minors, the Legislature has decreed that a permanent plan other than adoption " is not in the best interests of children who cannot be returned to their parents. These children can be afforded the best possible opportunity to get on with the task of growing up by placing them in the most permanent and secure alternative that can be afforded them." (In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1419.) The minors, whose needs could not be met by K.X., deserve to have their custody status promptly resolved and their placement made permanent and secure through adoption. Substantial evidence supports the court's finding the exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) did not apply to preclude terminating K.X.'s parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
IRION, J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line attorney.
[1] Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
