In re Dolores R.

Filed 3/28/06 In re Dolores R. CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David Doi, Judge. Affirmed.

Kate M. Chandler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Francisco R.

Michael A. Salazar, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Patricia A.

Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, Larry Cory, Assistant County Counsel, and Jacklyn Louie, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Defendant.

________________

INTRODUCTION

Appellants Francisco R. and Patricia A. appeal from a dependency court order terminating their parental rights over their daughter, Dolores R.[1] (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.[2]) We affirm the order.

BACKGROUND

Dolores, who now is more than two years old, is a dependent of the court as a result of severe physical abuse inflicted by Francisco R., as well as Patricia A.'s failure to protect her despite her knowledge of the abuse (§ 300, subds. (a), (b), (e), (g) & (i)). When Dolores was detained at five months of age, she had an external cranial hematoma and her right arm had been fractured in two places. One of the fractures was old and healing; the other was more recent. Since July 2004, Dolores has lived with her current caregivers, Ana and Rolando C., who have provided her with a loving home and want to adopt her.

The dependency court ordered that no reunification services be offered to the parents pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(5), removed Dolores from the custody of her parents and set the matter for a section 366.26 hearing. Neither parent sought writ relief (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38) from the order setting the section 366.26 hearing.

The Department of Children and Family Services recommended that appellants' parental rights be terminated and that Dolores be freed for adoption by Ana and Rolando C. In the Department's view, adoption was in Dolores's best interests, in that there was no likelihood that Dolores safely could be returned to her parents. Patricia continued her relationship with Francisco, a relationship the Department believed was fraught with abuse. As a result of Patricia's unwillingness to extricate herself from this harmful relationship and her inability to protect herself, returning Dolores to her parents was not an option.

At the section 366.26 hearing held in August 2005, the dependency court determined that Dolores was adoptable and that appellants had failed to establish an exception to termination of parental rights. The court further rejected the parents' assertion that Ana C. intentionally had interfered with their visitation by bringing her other children along with her when she monitored visits and prevented the necessary bond from forming. The court consequently terminated appellants' parental rights and freed Dolores for adoption.[3]

DISCUSSION

Appellants contend that their parental rights should not have been terminated, in that they share a parent-child relationship with Dolores (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)). We disagree.

An order terminating parental rights pursuant to section 366.26 is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. (In re Jessie G. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1, 9; In re Jose V. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1792, 1801.) The dependency court's decision will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. (In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 827; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.)

Adoption is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573; In re Jesse B. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 845, 851.) Once the court has found by clear and convincing evidence that the child should not be returned to the parent and the child is likely to be adopted, it is the parent's burden to show exceptional circumstances exist, making it proper to implement a permanent plan other than adoption. (Autumn H., supra, at p. 574.) Absent evidence that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to Dolores, the legislative preference for adoption over legal guardianship or long-term foster care must be implemented.

The parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights arises when the parent has â€