17 In re G.C
Gary C. (father) and Reyna C. (mother) appeal from orders of the juvenile court terminating their parental rights and finding that adoption is the permanent plan for minors G.C. and R.C. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395; further undesignated statutory references are to this code.) Parents contend the juvenile court erred in failing to apply the exception to adoption based on avoiding interference with a sibling relationship. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) We will affirm the juvenile court ordersThe selection and implementation hearing held pursuant to section 366.26, “is designed to protect children’s ‘compelling rights . . . to have a placement that is stable, permanent, and that allows the caretaker to make a full emotional commitment to the child.’ [Citation.]” (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 52-53.) “ ‘The permanent plan preferred by the Legislature is adoption. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] If the court finds the child is adoptable, it must termi
Comments on 17 In re G.C