In re A.S.
Filed 6/21/12 In re A.S. CA2/1
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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
ONE
>
In re A.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | B238151 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK48020) |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KAREN D., Defendant and Appellant. |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
County. Marilyn
Mordetzky, Referee. Affirmed.
California Appellate Project, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director,
and Anne E. Fragasso for Defendant and Appellant.
John F. Krattli, Acting County
Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and William D. Thetford,
Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
___________________________
Karen D. (Mother) appeals
from the November 9, 2011 order of the juvenile court
terminating her parental rights over
minor A.S. pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.
appeal. Mother contends that the
parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights applies. We disagree because Mother failed to show
that A.S. would suffer detriment from the severance of the parent-child
relationship such that it would outweigh the benefits she would receive from
the stability and permanence of adoption by paternal grandparents. We conclude that adoption was the appropriate
permanent plan for A.S. and affirm the order of the court.
On April 29, 2009, the
Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition pursuant to section 300,
subdivision (b) (failure to protect), section 300, subdivision (d) (sexual
abuse), and section 300, subdivision (g) (no provision for support) on behalf
of A.S., born in 2005. DCFS filed a
first amended petition on June 17, 2009, and a second amended
petition on August 12, 2009. On October 29,
2009,
Mother submitted a waiver of rights, which was accepted by the juvenile
court. Father also submitted on the
termination of his parental rights.
As
amended and sustained, the petition alleged that under section 300,
subdivisions (b) and (d), Mother’s male companion, Richard S., had sexually
abused A.S. by fondling her vagina and causing A.S.’s vagina to bleed, and
Mother “reasonably should have known of the sexual abuse . . . and
failed to take action because she was unaware of the abuseâ€; section 300,
subdivision (b), Mother has an unresolved history of substance abuse, including
methamphetamine and marijuana, which periodically interferes with her ability
to provide regular care and supervision of A.S., and A.S.’s two half siblings
had received permanent placement services because of Mother’s substance abuse;
section 300, subdivision (b), Father has a history of substance abuse,
including methamphetamine and marijuana, which renders him incapable of
providing regular care of A.S.; and section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g),
Father had failed to provide A.S. with the necessities of life.
The events leading up to the
filing of the petition were as follows.
Mother’s parental rights over A.S.’s half siblings were terminated in
2008 after section 300, subdivision (b) allegations were sustained based on
Mother’s assault on maternal grandmother; Mother’s leaving the minors with
relatives without making provision for their care; and Mother’s history of drug
abuse and positive toxicology screens.
Father was in the custody of immigration services in New Mexico and was deported to the Philippines during the course of the
On
April 15, 2009, DCFS received a referral
of allegations of general neglect of A.S. by Mother due to Mother’s ongoing
substance abuse problem. On April 22, 2009, DCFS interviewed paternal grandparents (including
paternal stepgrandfather), who had taken A.S. home from the hospital when she
was born and had cared for her thereafter.
Paternal grandparents stated that A.S. had lived continuously with them
from birth except for visits with Mother, which lasted no more than a week or
two. Every time but once, A.S. had been
sick when she was returned to paternal grandparents by Mother. Paternal grandmother believed Mother had an
ongoing drug problem and was not an “‘appropriate caregiver.’†Although Mother received welfare aid for
A.S., she had not provided for A.S.
Instead, paternal grandparents had provided for the financial needs as
well as the emotional needs of A.S. A.S.
had told paternal grandmother that Richard S. had touched her vagina and that
Mother had wiped off the blood and told her not to say anything. After A.S. told paternal grandmother of the
abuse, paternal grandmother took A.S. to the hospital to be examined by a
“special team that specializes in sexual abuse victims†(SART). Recently, Mother threatened to take A.S. away
from paternal grandparents.
Paternal
aunt told DCFS that she had used drugs with Father and Mother six years
previously and believed Mother currently was using drugs. Paternal aunt also stated that A.S. told her
that Richard S. had touched her vagina and made it bleed, and that Mother had
wiped off the blood.
A.S.
informed law enforcement authorities and a SART member that Richard S. had
touched her in her private area and that Mother was aware of it and had done
nothing. A.S. lifted her legs into the
air and grabbed between her legs to demonstrate where Richard S. touched
her. She told authorities that Richard
S. put his hand down the front of her pants and touched her “‘really fast’ for
about five minutes with an open hand.â€
When she told Mother that her vagina was hurting, Mother wiped blood
from it.
A.S.
told DCFS that she wanted to live with paternal grandparents, whom she called
“‘Mama’†and “‘Papa,’†because Richard S. “‘is very mean’†to her and hurt her
thumb. She also stated, “‘[S]ome one
hurt my pekpek’ (Tagalog word for vagina).â€
Later, A.S. told DCFS that Richard S. had touched her in her private
area. She pointed to her crotch to show
where Richard S. had touched her, and demonstrated what he had done by putting
her entire hand inside her pants. A.S.
said that then she got blood on her pekpek, which Mother had wiped off. A.S. said that Richard S. had hurt her pekpek
“‘[a] lot of times,’†that he had used his open hand, that Mother “was home,â€
and that she slept between Mother and Richard S. at Mother’s home. Richard S. told A.S. not to tell anyone. A.S. also stated that she loved paternal
grandmother more than Mother, whom she called “‘mommy.’†A safety plan was put in place.
On
April 23, 2009, Mother told DCFS that she was “not comfortable with the
safety plan†because A.S. is “‘always with’†paternal grandfather. Mother could not identify specific
concerns. But an arrangement was made
for A.S. to stay temporarily with maternal aunt.
Later
it was discovered that Mother and Richard S. resided with maternal aunt. On April 29, 2009, A.S. was ordered detained
and place with paternal grandparents.
Mother was ordered to have monitored visitation a minimum of three hours
per week; ordered to submit to a drug test that day and random weekly testing
thereafter; and referred to drug rehabilitation programs, parent education
programs, and individual counseling.
Richard S. was ordered to have no contact with A.S.
Mother denied that A.S. had been sexually molested;
denied that A.S. had ever told her someone had touched her vagina and made it
bleed; and denied ever wiping blood off A.S.’s vagina. She told DCFS that she believed paternal
grandparents had coached A.S. to make sexual
molestation allegations “‘because they never liked me.’†Mother said Richard S. had denied ever
touching A.S. inappropriately. Mother
claimed that A.S. visited her every other weekend. Mother, who was born in 1983, stated that she
started using methamphetamine when she was 22 years old and stopped when she
was 25 years old. She stated she last
used marijuana a year previously.
Richard
S. denied ever touching A.S. inappropriately and stated he was never left alone
with A.S. and had never bathed her.
Father
told DCFS that paternal grandparents have been the main providers for A.S.;
A.S. has lived with paternal grandparents from the time of her birth; he had
used methamphetamine and marijuana with Mother; while Mother was in his car he
had been arrested for possession of drugs that did not belong to him; and he
did not know if Mother currently abused drugs.
Father wanted A.S. to remain with paternal grandparents, where he
believed she would be safe. He was
“‘okay’†with them adopting her. Father
stated he had a low potassium issue that can render him paralyzed.
Mother tested for drugs three times, with negative
results, in May and June 2009. A
June 1, 2009 forensic evaluation of A.S. revealed a normal anal and
genital exam. Weekly visits between
Mother and A.S. went well. Mother’s drug
tests were all negative except for one no show on October 2, 2009, which
DCFS counted as a “dirtyâ€
test.
Meanwhile, Richard S. failed a polygraph test in
connection with a molestation charge against him. Mother told Richard S. that she would
relinquish her parental rights to stay in a relationship with him. No charges were filed against Richard S.
because of A.S.’s age and the absence of corroborating evidence.
On October 29, 2009, Mother submitted a waiver of
rights, which was accepted by the juvenile court. The court sustained the petition as amended.
Subsequently, Mother participated in parenting education
classes and drug and life skills programs.
Mother’s drug tests had been clean from the time she began the programs
in June 2009. Mother had monitored weekly
visits with A.S., during which Mother and A.S. interacted appropriately. Mother paid attention to A.S. and brought
nutritious food for her. No concerns
were reported.
At the contested disposition hearing on December 10,
2009, the juvenile court ordered Mother to attend drug rehabilitation with
random testing, parent education, individual counseling to address sexual abuse
awareness and protection issues, substance abuse, relapse prevention, and case
issues; weekly NA or AA meetings; and random and on-demand drug testing. Visits remained monitored, with a minimum of
three hours per week for Mother, with discretion to liberalize. The court ordered no contact between Richard
S. and A.S.
In December 2009, DCFS liberalized Mother’s visits by
allowing them to be unmonitored and permitting A.S. to visit Mother and half
siblings overnight at the maternal grandparents’ home. On March 17, 2010, when DCFS told Mother that
A.S. had reported Richard S. was present at maternal grandparents’ home “when
she visits,†Mother became very upset.
Mother denied that Richard S. had molested A.S. She stated that she was
not in a relationship with him and that she had not seen him for a year. She believed A.S. had been brainwashed by
paternal grandparents to say that Richard S. had sexually molested her. Mother told DCFS that she had a job as an
in-home care provider for maternal grandmother and that she was planning to
share an apartment with a male roommate, Abin E.
Later, DCFS received a report that on
March 13, 2010, Mother and Richard S. had arrived together at a birthday
party and left together. A picture of
the two together at the party was given to DCFS. When Mother was confronted with the picture
and reminded that she had stated she had not had any contact with Richard S.
for a year, Mother “froze.†Mother then
said she ran into him at the party and happened to be seated at the same table
when the picture was taken, and that she had forgotten about that event when
she had previously spoken to DCFS.
Maternal grandmother told DCFS that paternal family was making false
allegations against Mother and that Richard S. has never had any contact with
A.S. at her home. She said she would
seek custody of A.S., “as she has her siblings.â€
At an interview of A.S. on April 9, 2010, DCFS
concluded that A.S. had been coached to deny seeing Richard S. at maternal
grandparents’ house, because when shown his picture, she seemed very guarded,
“froze and started speaking really fast ‘I did not see him at my grandma’s
house only my grandpa and my brother.’â€
After this interview, DCFS changed Mother’s visits from unmonitored to
monitored; terminated visits in the maternal grandmother’s home; and terminated
maternal grandmother as a monitor.
Paternal
aunt reported to DCFS in June 2010 that Richard S. was living with Mother. No one answered the door at Mother’s
apartment when DCFS made unannounced visits.
At
a review hearing on July 13, 2010, Mother testified that she had completed
individual counseling to address sexual abuse awareness and protection,
substance abuse,
relapse prevention, and case
issues at the Tarzana Treatment Center.
Mother testified that she had not had any contact with Richard S., other
than at the birthday party they both had attended in March 2010. Mother testified that she knew A.S. was
afraid of Richard S., and therefore she would never permit him to be around
her. DCFS stated that the Tarzana
Treatment Center informed it that sexual abuse awareness counseling was not
part of the curriculum in Mother’s programs.
DCFS stated that paternal aunt reported that she had seen Mother and
Richard S. together at a gas station sometime after the birthday party.
The
juvenile court found that DCFS had provided reasonable services and that Mother
was in partial compliance with the case plan.
The court ordered suitable placement and reunification services to
continue and set the section 366.21, subdivision (f) hearing on
January 11, 2011.
Mother
completed a child sexual abuse program
in December 2010. On December 14,
2010, DCFS liberalized Mother’s visits to unmonitored and allowed overnight
visits at the home of maternal grandmother.
On December 17, 2010, Mother executed an affidavit stating that she
would not allow A.S. to be around Richard S. during her unmonitored visits.
On
December 27, 2010, DCFS visited Mother’s home unannounced and was told by
Abin E. that Mother and Richard S. had moved out of the apartment in August
2010 and he did not know their new address.
On
January 11, 2011, Mother provided the court with a notice of a change of
address and explained that she left the apartment to live with another
boyfriend, who was not Richard S. The
court set the matter for a contested hearing on February 22, 2011, and
ordered a supplemental report to include the results of a re-interview of Abin
E. The court also made an immediate
referral for A.S. to be put in individual counseling to address the fears she
had of returning to Mother.
Abin
E. identified photos of Richard S. and executed an affidavit on
December 28, 2010, that stated he had shared the apartment with Mother and
Richard S. and that Mother and Richard S. had moved out of the apartment in
August 2010. On January 15, 2011,
paternal grandparents reported to DCFS that A.S. had told them she was afraid
to live with Mother. That same day, A.S.
told DCFS that she was not afraid of Mother, but when asked if she was afraid
of anyone in Mother’s home, she started “shaking and closed her eyes and
cowered on the corner.†Upon being asked
to open her eyes, A.S. said she was afraid of “‘Richard’†S. and started
“shaking again and rocking.â€
At
the contested hearing on February 22, 2011, Mother testified that Richard
S. had not lived in the apartment she had shared with Abin E. and that he had
never been present at any visits with A.S.
She testified that the last time she saw Richard S. was at a birthday
party “a year and a half ago.†Mother
testified that even after taking the sexual abuse class, she did not believe
Richard S. had sexually abused A.S.
The
juvenile court terminated reunification services as to both parents and set the
matter for a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 on June 14, 2011. The visitation order remained in full force
and effect.
In
April 2011, after Mother continued to have contact with Richard S. and was seen
“in the community†with him, DCFS changed her visits back to monitored. Mother brought A.S.’s half siblings to her
weekly monitored visits with A.S. The
visits were appropriate. The adoption
home study of the paternal grandparents was approved on November 3,
2010. Paternal grandparents provided
love, compassion, care and all the services A.S. needed, and A.S. was reported
to be very attached to them.
On
September 6, 2011, the juvenile court conducted a hearing pursuant to
Cal.3d 118 and denied Mother’s request for new counsel. The matter was then continued to
September 26, 2011, with a contested hearing date of October 7, 2011.
On September 20, 2011, Mother filed a petition
pursuant to section 388, requesting return of A.S. to Mother, or,
alternatively, further reunification services and unmonitored visits. The petition stated that Mother supported
A.S. regarding the allegations she had made against Richard and that Mother had
not had contact with Richard S. in over two years. The petition stated that the changes she
requested would be better for A.S. because A.S. consistently visited Mother and
half siblings; A.S. enjoyed those visits; A.S. missed Mother and her family;
and A.S. asked Mother “when she can come home.â€
The petition also stated that Mother believed the paternal grandparents
intended to take A.S. to the Philippines and away from the maternal family.
On
October 7, 2011, the court denied Mother’s request for a hearing pursuant
to section 388 on the basis that Mother had failed to state new evidence or a
change of circumstances.
The
juvenile court held the contested section 366.26 hearing on November 3,
2011. DCFS reported that A.S. stated she
loved living with paternal grandparents and did not want to live with Mother
because she did not want to see Richard S.
Mother continued to have regular visits with A.S., who was always happy
to see Mother and greeted her with big hugs.
Mother was always appropriate during the weekly monitored visits that
took place in a variety of places, including the library, movies and
restaurants. Mother occasionally brought
A.S.’s two half siblings to the visits.
At
the hearing, social worker Nkem Anene testified that Mother never attended
A.S.’s medical appointments or telephoned A.S., even though Anene had
encouraged her at the group decision-making meeting to be involved in A.S.’s
life by telephoning A.S. and asking her about school and other issues, and by
communicating with paternal grandparents about A.S.’s appointments and
attending medical appointments. At the
group decision-making meeting, paternal grandparents gave Mother their cell
phone numbers and told her to call them at any time. Mother did not follow up on Anene’s
suggestions to call paternal grandparents and arrange to attend A.S.’s
appointments, although she called them to cancel visits. Anene stated that she had seen Mother and
Richard S. together at a grocery store on March 11, 2011. When Anene approached, Mother ran away. Thereafter, DCFS changed Mother’s visits to
monitored. A.S. told Anene she loved
Mother but did not want to live with her because Richard S., who had hurt A.S.,
lived with Mother.
Social
worker Shereda Usher testified that earlier that day A.S. had told Usher that
she did not want to live with Mother because she did not want to see Richard
S. A.S. said she loved her half siblings
and wanted to continue to have a relationship with them.
At
the continued hearing on November 9, 2011, Mother described the activities
that she and A.S. participated in during her weekly two and one-half hour
visits, such as coloring, reading, visiting the library, visiting the mall,
baking, playing games, and visiting to the park. Although Mother talked to A.S. about school,
she did not help her with homework during the visits. Mother testified that she did not know the
name of A.S.’s school and never attended any activities at her school. She stated that she was never told she could
participate in A.S.’s school activities, medical appointments, or dental
appointments and denied attending a meeting where Anene encouraged her to
become more involved in A.S.’s life. She
said the paternal grandparents never asked her if she would like to attend
A.S.’s dentist or medical appointments.
She denied knowing why her visits were changed from unmonitored to
monitored. She denied seeing Anene in
the grocery store and stated that the last time she had contact with Richard S.
was two years previously, and she did not believe that Richard S. sexually abused
A.S.
The juvenile court terminated parental
rights after finding A.S. was adoptable and that Mother had not proven any
statutory exception to the termination of her parental rights. The court observed that Mother must show more
than frequent and loving contact or pleasant visits: She must show that she occupies a parental
role in A.S.’s life, resulting in a significant, positive emotional attachment
between A.S. and Mother. The court
concluded that although A.S. was not afraid of Mother and enjoyed visiting her,
Mother’s denial of her relationship with Richard S. and his abuse of A.S. did
not promote A.S.’s well-being. The court
determined that A.S. does not trust Mother to safeguard her and that it would
be detrimental to return her to the care and custody of Mother.
Mother appealed from the order
terminating parental rights.
Mother did not
show that the parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental
rights applied
Mother contends that the parental relationship exception to
termination of parental rights applied because Mother maintained regular
visitation and contact with A.S. and A.S. would benefit from continuing the
relationship with Mother. We disagree.
Once the juvenile court has
determined by clear and convincing evidence “that it is likely the child will
be adopted, the court shall terminate parental rights and order the child
placed for adoption.†(§ 366.26, subd.
(c)(1).) “Adoption,
where possible, is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature. [Citations.]
‘Only if adoption is not possible, or if there are countervailing
circumstances, or if it is not in the child’s best interests are other, less
permanent plans, such as guardianship or long-term foster care
considered.’ [Citation.]†(In re
Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573–574.) If the court finds a compelling reason
for determining that termination would be detrimental to the minor, the court
shall not terminate parental rights but shall order legal guardianship or
long-term foster care for the minor. (§
366.26, subd. (c)(4)(A).) Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B) sets
forth six circumstances where the court may forgo adoption and retain
parental rights.
One of the reasons is if “[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).)
The parental
relationship must be more than “‘frequent and loving contact.’†(In re
Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424.) “[T]he 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.†(
must be examined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the many
variables which affect a parent/child bond.
The age of the child, the portion of the child’s life spent in the
parent’s custody, the ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ effect of interaction between parent
and child, and the child’s particular needs are some of the variables which
logically affect a parent/child bond.†(
evidence supported the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights where
relationship was one of friendship, and termination of relationship would not
be detrimental to the minor, who “had been a dependent for three-quarters of
her young life and needed a stable, permanent homeâ€].)
We review
the juvenile court’s determination of whether the parent-child exception to
termination of parental rights exists under the sufficiency of the evidence
standard. (In re Autumn H., supra,
27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) “‘“When the
sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding or order is challenged on
appeal, the reviewing court must determine if there is any substantial
evidence, that is, evidence which is reasonable, credible, and of solid value
to support the conclusion of the trier of fact.
[Citation.] In making this determination,
all conflicts [in the evidence and in reasonable inferences from the evidence]
are to be resolved in favor of the prevailing party, and issues of
questions for the trier of fact.
[Citation.]â€â€™ [Citation.] While substantial evidence may consist of
inferences, such inferences must rest on the evidence; inferences that are the
result of speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding. [Citation.]†(In re
Precious D. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1258–1259.)
As we explain, we conclude Mother fails to show that
the benefit to A.S. from continuing the relationship with Mother outweighed the
benefits she would receive from the permanence of being adopted. While Mother had a loving relationship with
A.S., she did not occupy a parental role in her life. It is disturbing that Mother consistently denied
that Richard S. could have sexually abused A.S. and continued to maintain
contact with him and expose A.S. to him during unmonitored visits, even though
A.S. expressed fear of Richard S. and Mother was ordered to not allow contact
between Richard S. and A.S. And Mother
denied a continuing relationship with Richard S., even though A.S. told DCFS
and parental grandparents that Richard S. lived with Mother; Abin E. executed
an affidavit stating that Richard S. and Mother shared his apartment until
August 2010; Mother was photographed with Richard S. at a birthday party; DCFS
encountered Mother and Richard S. together at a grocery store; and paternal
aunt reported Richard S. was living with Mother.
Further, at the time parental rights were terminated
A.S. had been detained from Mother’s care for two and a half years and was
thriving with paternal grandparents, who had taken her home from the hospital
when she was born and with whom she had lived her entire life. The evidence showed that grandparents and A.S.
were closely bonded and paternal grandparents had demonstrated that they were
able to care for A.S. and to meet all of her medical, developmental, and
emotional needs. A.S. consistently
stated that she loved parental grandmother more than Mother. Throughout the dependency proceedings, she
told DCFS that she wanted to live with parental grandparents because she was
afraid of Richard S., who lived with Mother and had sexually abused her.
Nevertheless, on appeal Mother minimizes the effect of
her denial of Richard S.’s sexual abuse of A.S., preferring to focus on the
pleasant visits she had with A.S. Mother
urges that an exception to the termination of parental rights exists because
her “inability to reunify was based on her reluctance to accept Richard’s sexual
abuse of [A.S.],†not because she had failed to complete her case plan or
because she had not demonstrated a parental relationship with A.S. Mother argues that she had visited A.S.
regularly from the time she was detained, her visits were appropriate, and she
had achieved unmonitored visitation for a period in excess of six months. She argues that she assumed a parental role
in A.S.’s life by providing her with games, crafts, food; taking A.S. on
outings; and allowing A.S. to visit her half siblings. She also argues that she would have been
involved in medical appointments and school activities had she known she could
have been, citing In re Brandon C.
(1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530.
In re Brandon C. does not assist
Mother. In that case, the appellate
court concluded that the juvenile court’s order of legal guardianship was
supported by substantial evidence where the mother had completed her drug
rehabilitation program, her random drug tests had been negative, her housing
and employment had been stable for many months, the mother visited the boys
consistently to the extent permitted by the juvenile court’s orders, and the juvenile court “obviously credited the
testimony from both mother and grandmother that there
was a close bond between mother and the boys, and that a continuation of
contact would be beneficial to the children.†(In re
Brandon C., supra, 71 Cal.App.4th
at p. 1537.) There, DCFS had the burden
to show that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s
ruling. Here, on the other hand, the
burden is on Mother to show that an exception to termination of parental rights
applies. She fails to do so. Mother cannot show more than frequent and
loving contact with A.S. Even though
Mother was encouraged to telephone A.S. and arrange to attend appointments and
school activities with her, Mother did not know the name of A.S.’s school, did
not arrange to attend A.S.’s school activities or medical appointments, did not
call her, and did not provide financial support for her. A.S. consistently indicated a preference for
paternal grandparents. And as much as
Mother would like to avoid discussion of her relationship with Richard S.,
Mother continued to deny that Richard S. had sexually abused A.S., lied that
she had stopped seeing him, and exposed A.S. to Richard S. during unmonitored
visits in contravention of court order.
Mother simply did not act in a parental role toward A.S.
We conclude that Mother failed to show that
termination of parental rights would result in a detriment that would outweigh
A.S.’s need for a permanent, stable home.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile
court’s order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
MALLANO,
P. J.
We concur:
CHANEY, J.
JOHNSON, J.
and Institutions Code.
