In re Darien B.

Filed 6/11/10 In re Darien B. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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)

----

Appellant Onika B.,[1] the mother of the four children Kaneia B., Michael B., Darian B., and Joanna B., appeals from orders of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code,  395, 366.26.)[2] She contends the finding that three of the four children were adoptable is not supported by substantial evidence, and the juvenile court should have applied the parent-child and sibling relationship exceptions to adoption. We shall affirm the juvenile courts orders.

BACKGROUND

In August 2006, appellant lived at home with her 10 children: Marvell B. (born November 1988), Calin B. (born March 1991), Nicolas B. (born April 1993), Jerrecka B. (born April 1994), Javon B. (born June 1995), Markayla B. (born December 1996), Taleshia B. (born December 1997), Kaneia B. (born December 2000), Michael B. (born March 2002), and Darian B. (born August 2004).[3] The 11th child, Joanna, was born in September 2006. In August 2006, the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) filed a nondetained dependency petition alleging jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (b) (failure to protect).

Appellant had a lengthy history of child welfare referrals for keeping an unsafe and dirty home. She refused offers for general services two times before accepting family maintenance services in July 2005. Services included food, emergency in-home caretakers, 10 beds, and a refrigerator. In November 2005, the case was closed after the family moved and could not be located.

In an unannounced May 2006 visit, social workers found a filthy odor permeating outside the home, with piles of trash and clothing throughout the interior. There was one couch and two beds for 11 people, little food in the refrigerator, and the kitchen cupboards were completely empty. The jurisdiction and disposition report recommended reunification services, placement of the children with appellant, and deferred disposition for six months.

A June 2006 mental health assessment of appellant related she was not forthcoming with information on common stressors or minor faults. Appellant was not able to address problems or difficulties with raising her children because she refused to recognize the problems. The report concluded it was unlikely appellant would admit to difficulties and seek help.

In October 2006, the juvenile court held the petitions in abeyance for six months.

In February 2007, Elk Grove police responded to appellants home after two 911 calls from the home. The smell of rotten garbage and urine was overwhelming as officers entered the house. The officers found a filthy home, with dirty clothes and food lying everywhere. There was a dirty baby bottle on the floor, and no formula for the baby. The house smelled of urine and feces, and feces were smeared over the walls of the bathrooms. There were no beds in the home even though at least two cribs and two bunk beds had been given to the family.

Mounds of clothes were piled throughout the house, even blocking the door to the garage. The social worker determined this was the second time within a few days that the children had been left alone for an extended period of time. The bathtubs were full of water and cleanser; and a five year old was found on the bathroom floor next to one of these tubs. The unsecured swimming pool was filthy. The pool was so dark officers had it dragged by the fire department to ensure there was no child in the pool.

The refrigerator was empty except for a few rotting vegetables. There was no can opener; it appeared the children would open cans with a steak knife when they were hungry. Cans of food opened with a knife were left throughout the house, and an opened can with jagged edges was found next to four-month-old Joanna. Rotting food was found all over the floor. A package of meat was left to rot on the center island of the kitchen next to a bottle of Pine-Sol.

The stairs were littered with garbage, and a broken table containing a plate with moldy food was at the top. The furniture DHHS obtained for the family was broken and in a shambles; knives were all over the house and a pair of scissors was within the reach of all the children under the age of six years old. The stove did not work. Gas burners were on but not lit, and the house smelled of gas.

The children were taken into protective custody. Marvell said he was waiting for this to happen[.] Jerrecka was taking care of baby Joanna, but was unaware of any diaper or formula. Kaneia was afraid because appellant was not around, and she was glad she would be cared for. Appellant was arrested for felony child endangerment when she arrived home.

In February 2007, DHHS filed a detained section 300 petition for Joanna, and detained first amended petitions for the remaining children.

In the March 2007 jurisdiction and disposition report, a social worker observed the minors did not have socialization skills and acted like little animals. They would urinate on garbage cans, and appellant would not interact with her children on visits. Teachers found that the childrens behavior noticeably improved after being placed in protective custody.

According to her social worker, appellant often lies and provides the bare minimum for the minors. Appellant denied most of the allegations about her home, blaming them on racist neighbors.

In a February 2007 interview, Michael said he wanted to live with appellant. He admitted sleeping on the floor with a blanket but no pillow. Kaneia also slept on the floor, as did Marvell. Marvell thought having 10 siblings was kinda fun, but a little chaotic. The paternal grandmother, Keita M., had been in the home many times, and described appellant as a great mom.

Marvells dependency was dismissed in March 2007, after he turned 18. In May 2007, the juvenile court dismissed the February 2007 petitions and sustained second amended petitions filed that day. Joanna was placed with her paternal grandmother, Keita M., and the other children were continued in foster care.

The balance of this opinion addresses appellant and the four children who are the subjects of this appeal: Kaneia B. (age 9), Michael B. (age 8), Darian B. (age 5), and Joanna B (age 3). A September 2007 report said Kaneia wanted to return home to appellant, while the remaining children were not asked due to their ages. Darian and Michael were placed in the same foster home. Darian was a sweet and affectionate child who behaved well, but at times displayed learned behaviors from his brother Michael.

Michael often displayed unusual behaviors. When upset, he would urinate on the bedroom walls, carpet, dresser, and bed. He often paced around the house in anger during the first two to three months in foster placement.

Michael was hyperactive, and often defiant in public. He was easily angered and refused to listen to his foster mother. At the beginning of counseling he told the therapist that he hated her; he also kicked and threw toys at the counselor. Michael was very disruptive in kindergarten, being sent to the principals office three times. However, Michael had made great progress in counseling.

Kaneia was placed in a foster home with her sister Taleshia after the previous foster parents gave their seven-day notice due to the girls misbehavior. Kaneias previous foster mother said she displayed inappropriate behaviors like acting out sexually, or urinating on the bed or in the closet when she was upset. The new foster mother said Kaneia was adjusting well, although she was often hyperactive and would lie without taking responsibility for her actions. She had no problems in school.

Appellants 11 children ran around and chased each other on visits, appearing to enjoy themselves, but at times getting out of control. She brought healthy snacks and juices to the visits. Darian, Michael, and Kaneia were more affectionate with appellant than the other children. It was apparent that the children were connected to appellant and came to her for affection.

Appellants home was in foreclosure, but she told DHHS her landlord was fighting the matter and promised to find her another place if necessary. She made progress in counseling, achieving some understanding of why her children had been removed. However, it was still difficult to explain services to appellant, who was easily defensive, argumentative, and immature.

A July 2007 psychological evaluation determined appellant had a marked impairment with general reasoning and commonsense reasoning skills. She had no insight into the problems at home and saw no need for services. Appellants deficits were chronic and probably not amenable to change or rehabilitation.

An October 2007 application to administer psychotropic drugs to Michael was withdrawn after appellants opposition. In May 2008, the juvenile court granted DHHSs request to administer psychotropic drugs to address Michaels ADHD.

A March 2008 report noted Kaneia wanted to return home to appellant. Joanna, Darian, and Michael were too young to be asked.

Appellants visits were very chaotic at times; little children would run off into the hall and appellant would not follow. On a few occasions, security had to come in and assist with controlling the children. Appellant seemed very limited during visits, and needed several prompts to redirect the children when they misbehaved. She would bring a single big bag of snacks to the visit and would not apportion the snacks between the children, which led to chaos. Michael would eat and drink until he threw up.

Joanna continued to thrive in her paternal grandmothers care. Darian and Michael were placed together in two different foster homes in the last six months. However, the changed placements related to the foster parents rather than the boys behavior. They were doing well in their current foster home, although Darian got into a fight with the foster fathers three-year-old grandson.

Michael continued to make progress with his behavior. He wet his bed and was hyperactive at times, but the foster parents said both boys were good and they were glad to have them. In therapy, Michael was working on expressing his feelings without resorting to physical aggression. He told his therapist that he missed his mother.

Kaneia and Taleshia were placed in three different foster homes in the last six months because of the foster parents circumstances. According to the previous foster mother, both girls wet their beds and had a hard time getting along. Kaneia was doing well in first grade. She was very open and engaging in counseling, but needed to continue.

Appellant was evicted from her home in November 2007. She misled DHHS personnel about the eviction notices and where she had been living after eviction. Appellant was also very resistant to DHHSs efforts to help her with housing.

Appellants first referral to Alta California Regional Center for a mental health evaluation was closed because she failed to complete the application. After a second referral succeeded, she was found to have an IQ of 68 and diagnosed with mild mental retardation.

A May 2008 report described appellant as more compliant with services, and regretting her previous resistance. The children had been difficult to redirect on visits over the last six weeks. Michael was verbally abusive to appellant. When confronted, Michael said he wanted to spend more time with appellant.

In April 2008, a foster family social worker asked for the visits to be broken up so that all of the children would not visit at once. Appellant simply was not able to provide the necessary structure and direction for her children when they visited her at the same time. After 14 months, appellant continued to be overwhelmed, and was unable to provide her children with the necessary structure, discipline, or safety.

Services were continued in a May 2008 permanency hearing. An October 2008 report noted Joanna continued to do well, and the paternal grandmother was willing to adopt. Appellants visits were now generally positive, but remained somewhat chaotic with constant hitting and arguing among the children.

Appellant did not see unsafe behaviors during visits. She participated in games with the children, but still needed much more work in redirecting. Appellant brought soda, candy, and sweets to the visits, causing Michael and Darian to become hyperactive afterwards.

The foster parents reported Michael had made huge improvements, and his behavior was now more manageable. However, he would bite his younger brother when angry and throw tantrums when things did not go his way. His behavior improved when the foster parents switched him to a gluten-free diet. The sugary snacks appellant brought to visits interrupted the diet, and Michael then became hyperactive.

Michaels therapist stated the boy improved dramatically since entering therapy in March 2007. He currently complied with requests from authority figures, and was no longer aggressive or destructive.

Kaneia was separated from her sister Taleshia in June 2008. Kaneia was placed in a new foster home in September 2008, because the former foster parents could not meet her needs. She adjusted well to her new foster home and was making good academic progress at school.

A September 2008 report from the foster agency stated Darian was doing well in his foster home. His gluten-free diet was very effective, but was interrupted by the sugary snacks appellant brought to the visits. Darian appeared to have formed a positive attachment to the foster parents, who seemed interested in adoption.

The juvenile court terminated appellants services in November 2008. An April 2009 report related that Joanna continued to live happily with her paternal grandmother, who remained interested in adoption. Darian and Michael were placed in a new home in March 2009, while Kaneia remained in the same home since September 2008.

Darian and Michael liked their new placement. Michael was performing at grade level, but had begun to act out, requiring numerous warnings and some administrative discipline. He continued to show oppositional behavior to authority figures at school and on visits. He was diagnosed with anxiety disorder as well as ADHD, and wanted to return home to appellant and his siblings. Darian had difficulty in taking direction from authority figures and in expressing himself.

Darian and Michael were placed together in a potential adoptive home outside the county in July 2009.

A social worker observed a March 2009 visit between appellant and her children. The visit was positive overall, but chaotic as it involved the 11 siblings and appellant. While the children enjoyed the visits and would like them to continue, appellant still needed prompting and assistance with redirecting. The foster parents reported the children were difficult after the visits, as they were often extremely active or angry.

The August 2009 selection and implementation report stated the children enjoyed their visits with appellant, and she had acted appropriately. On a May 2009 visit, appellant held Joanna in her lap. She would interact with Michael, Darian, and Kaneia if they came to her, but the children were more interested in playing with their siblings than interacting with appellant.

Darian was described as a very good child and very loveable, who was friendly to all people. He was working with counselors on setting limits with new people, but had met his goals regarding bed-wetting and listening to directives. The counselor planned to discharge him in August 2009.

Michael was seeing a psychiatrist to monitor the psychotropic drug he was taking for his ADHD. He presented as reserved and slow to trust new people. Michaels therapist said he had met the treatment goals of identifying his feelings and dealing with his anger towards appellant. Michael would be discharged from therapy at the end of July 2009.

Kaneia presented as a sweet, helpful, and well-mannered child who wants to please. She said that she had been encouraged by her older siblings to say she did not want to be adopted; DHHS personnel were concerned she might be confused by the prompting of her siblings.

The current foster parents were not interested in adopting Darian and Michael, but the brothers were introduced to a homestudy-approved family. During the preplacement visits, Michael became more aggressive as his ADHD medication wore off. The prospective caregivers said Michael had threatened to kill them when they were asleep. He later confided that he wanted to move with the new caregivers, but his siblings had told him to be bad.

Darian tested limits, ran away and kicked the foster parent at the preplacement visits, and was very angry at times. He later confided that his siblings told him to say he did not want to be adopted.

The family eventually withdrew from adopting the boys because of the mothers health concerns, but DHHS was able to tentatively match them with another family. A social worker described the family as a very good fit and open to sibling contact. In addition, DHHS had received home studies from several other prospective adoptive parents. Since the boys were handsome and had many strengths, DHHS concluded there was a high likelihood they could be adopted together.

While the current foster mother was not interested in adopting Kaneia, several families expressed interest in adoption. The social worker described Kaneia as a beautiful and articulate child. She was sad that she could not be reunified with appellant, but was open to the idea of adoption, and could state what type of family she would like to adopt her. DHHS concluded adoption was in Kaneias best interests.

At a contested hearing, appellant testified to the nature of the childrens close bond with her, and asserted she usually brought healthy snacks to visits. Marvell testified that the children were closely bonded to their other siblings. He told the juvenile court: Its too much pain. Its like nerve wracking just seeing them all gone away. The process was so sad, Marvell could not talk about it.

Appellant argued the parent-child and sibling bond exceptions to adoption applied to all four children, and that Darian, Kaneia, and Michael, were not generally adoptable. The juvenile court followed DHHSs recommendations and terminated appellants parental rights with a permanent plan of adoption.

DISCUSSION

I.

Appellant contends there was insufficient evidence that the children Michael, Darian, and Kaneia were adoptable. We disagree.

At the selection and implementation hearing held pursuant to section 366.26, a juvenile court must make one of four possible alternative permanent plans for a minor child. . . . The permanent plan preferred by the Legislature is adoption. [Citation.] (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1368.) In order for the court to select and implement adoption as the permanent plan, it must find, by clear and convincing evidence, the minor will likely be adopted if parental rights are terminated. (In re Tabatha G. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1164;  366.26, subd. (c)(1).)

We review an order terminating parental rights for substantial evidence. (In re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1154.) On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, we 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. [Citations.] (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.)

Appellant focuses on asserted obstacles to adoption for Michael, Darian, and Kaneia--the childrens serious behavioral and psychological problems, their older ages, their desire to go home, their failed placements, and the lack of committed prospective adoptive parents[.] She argues the factors identified by DHHS as supporting adoptability do not overcome these obstacles, and put the children at risk of becoming legal orphans as they languish in foster care without a parental relationship.

Appellant notes Kaneia was eight years and nine months old when parental rights were terminated in September 2009, and cites In re Salvador M. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1422, where the court observed, without citation to authority, that the child was more than seven years old--an age at which children are generally considered unlikely to be adopted. Even if we assume the appellate courts gratuitous observation regarding adoptability is more than merely anecdotal, Kaneias age was a far from insurmountable barrier to adoption.

Appellant also asserts Kaneia changed foster placement several times because of her behavior. We disagree. The September 2007 report stated that the prior foster parent gave seven-day notice because of the behavior of Kaneia. However, the March 2008 report notes that while Kaneia and Taleshia were placed together in three different homes in the last six months, this was due to the foster parents circumstances rather than the childrens behaviors. Kaneia was moved twice after that, again due to the actions of others. She was moved in June 2008 because of her sisters behavior, and in September 2008 because the foster parent was violating her rights.

The lack of an adoptive home does not preclude a finding that Kaneia was likely to be adopted. The issue of adoptability posed in a section 366.26 hearing focuses on the minor, e.g., whether the minors age, physical condition, and emotional state make it difficult to find a person willing to adopt the minor. [Citations.] Hence, it is not necessary that the minor already be in a potential adoptive home or that there be a proposed adoptive parent waiting in the wings. [Citations.] (In re Sarah M. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1642, 1649.)

Likewise, the prospect that a child may have some continuing behavioral problems also does not foreclose a finding of adoptability. (In re Jennilee T. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 212, 224.) Kaneia was still comparatively young, developmentally and academically on track, was a beautiful and articulate child, and was open to the idea of adoption. Her initial misbehavior, while not entirely absent, had significantly improved by the time parental rights were terminated. Although no prospective adoptive family had been identified, many families had expressed interest and were in the process of being screened.

Appellant argues Darian and Michael are not adoptable because they are a sibling group, both boys have psychological problems, and DHHS was unable to find them an adoptive home. While membership in a sibling group is a potential barrier to adoptability ( 366.26, subd. (c)(3)), this did not prevent DHHS from identifying potential adoptive parents. If the children did not bond with them, several other families submitted adoption home studies to be considered for placement with the boys.

The boys behavior presented a more troubling, but far from insurmountable, problem. Darian was in weekly therapy and had problems with expressing himself and taking directions from authority. However, he had made considerable progress, and the counselor was planning to discharge him at the end of August 2009. In spite of his initial problems, Darians behavior improved considerably after placement in the last foster parents home. He was described as a very good and loveable child, and friendly to all people. While he tested limits and misbehaved when meeting prospective adoptive parents, he reported that his siblings told him to say he did not want to be adopted.

Michael presents a different situation. He was diagnosed with ADHD and was taking psychotropic medication. While he has a history of misbehavior and hyperactivity, his behavior improved considerably over time and with a change in diet. Michaels therapist concluded the boy had met his treatment goals of identifying feelings and dealing with anger towards his mother, and would be discharged soon.

Michaels behavior towards the prospective adoptive parents--threatening to kill them in their sleep--must be viewed in the context of Michaels young age, and that he had been coached to misbehave by his siblings. Since Michael also said that he wanted to move in with these prospective adoptive parents, the juvenile court reasonably discounted this threat.

While health concerns forced the prospective adoptive family to withdraw, DHHS was able to find a tentative match with another family, and identified other families open to adopting the boys. In addition, both boys had numerous qualities which would make adoption more likely--both were very attractive, Darian was only five years old, very friendly and loveable, while seven-year-old Michael was thoughtful and serious.

The childrens problems are not as severe as in cases where courts held children were not adoptable--In re Amelia S. (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1060 (Amelia S.), In re Asia L. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 498 (Asia L.) and In re Jayson T. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 75 (Jayson T.), disapproved on other grounds in In re Zeth S.(2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 414. Amelia S. involved 10 special needs siblings with various developmental, emotional and physical problems, some of a serious nature, who had been deemed hard to place. (Amelia S., supra, at p. 1063.) In Asia L., the childrens emotional problems were sufficiently severe to require specialized placements, which had not been located. (Asia L., supra, at p. 511.) Jayson T. addressed a sibling group of three children whose adoptive placement fell through after the section 366.26 hearing because two of the children began manifesting symptoms of severe reactive attachment disorder. (Jayson T., supra, at pp. 81-82.) Acknowledging that the case would have been affirmed if new evidence were not considered (id. at p. 79), the appellate court reversed the order terminating parental rights and remanded the matter for an updated review hearing in light of events occurring after the section 366.26 hearing. (Jayson T., supra, at p. 91.)

The obstacles to adoption presented by the children are nowhere near as severe as those presented in Amelia S., Asia L. and Jayson T. The children here have all made psychological and behavioral progress, are comparatively young, possess many appealing characteristics, and several families expressed interest in adopting them. Substantial evidence supports the finding of adoptability for all three children.

II.

Appellant contends the juvenile court erred by failing to find either the beneficial parent-child or sibling relationship exceptions to adoption. We disagree.

At a hearing under section 366.26, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a minor is likely to be adopted, the court must terminate parental rights and order the minor placed for adoption unless the court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental due to one of the statutorily enumerated exceptions. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).)

The parent has the burden of establishing an exception to termination of parental rights. (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 809.) Because a section 366.26 hearing occurs only after the court has repeatedly found the parent unable to meet the childs needs, it is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parents rights will prevail over the Legislatures preference for adoptive placement. (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350.)

The juvenile courts ruling declining to find an exception to adoption must be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576; In re Zachary G., supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 809; In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 827; cf. In re Jasmine D., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1342 [applying abuse of discretion standard].) On review of the sufficiency of the evidence, we 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. [Citations.] (In re Autumn H., supra, p. 576.)

A.

Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), provides an exception to adoption when [t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.

However, a parent may not claim this exception simply by demonstrating 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.) The benefit to the child must promote 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 parents rights are not terminated. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.)

Appellant argues the children were happily living with her, and did not display serious emotional problems until after they were removed. Her argument ignores the considerable danger in which appellant placed the children by subjecting them to the squalor of a household she was incapable of managing.

Appellant also confuses correlation with causation. While removal caused some distress with the children, that is to be expected for any child removed from his or her parent. There is no evidence the childrens more significant emotional problems were caused by their removal. Indeed, the record indicated the childrens and their siblings behavior improved once they were removed from appellants care.

Appellant asserts the record shows her strong bond with the children. She notes Michael, Kaneia, and Darian expressed their desire to live with her. In addition, appellant consistently visited the children throughout the lengthy dependency. The children enjoyed their visits and expressed affection towards her. Darian appeared bonded to appellant, and tried to play near her. While Michael was defiant and angry with appellant on some of the visits, appellant points out that he still wanted to live with her.

Appellant, ignoring the disarray and inappropriate snacks she brought, claims the bonds displayed during her visits are sufficient to establish the parent-child exception to adoption. In support of her contention, she cites In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, which held a parent is not required to show a primary attachment to the child or a parental relationship with the child; instead, it was necessary only to show that the child formed a strong emotional attachment to a parent, who filled the primary caregiver role for a period of the childs life, and that attachment was sustained through regular visitation and remained substantial and positive, even in the absence of day-to-day contact. (See id. at pp. 296-301.)

S.B. is readily distinguishable. When S.B. was removed from [her fathers] care, [her father] immediately recognized that his drug use was untenable, started services, maintained his sobriety, sought medical and psychological services, and maintained consistent and regular visitation with S.B. He complied with every aspect of his case plan. (In re S.B.,supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 298.) The same cannot be said of appellants compliance with her case plan here. Moreover, appellants ability to maintain consistent visitation alone is insufficient evidence of a beneficial relationship outweighing the stability and permanency afforded by a prospective adoptive parent.

Appellant also identifies a January 2009 reassessment stating Michael wants to live with appellant and acts out in anger towards everyone. However, Michael was addressing anger towards his mother in therapy, and had met that goal by the August 2009 selection and implementation report.

The children and appellant emotionally cared for each other, but the relationship was a mixed blessing for the children. Appellant was not compliant with services. At the visits, she lacked the ability to structure, organize, and control unsafe behavior of the children, often resulting in chaos. Appellant was incapable of managing all 11 children together, and appellants inappropriate snacks sabotaged the foster parents efforts to modify Darian and Michaels behavior through diet.

In sum, a history of regular contact is not sufficient evidence the child would be greatly harmed by severing her relationship with appellant. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) On the record before it, the juvenile court was entitled to conclude that only adoption, as the preferred disposition, would promote the best interests of the children. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts rejection of the beneficial parent-child relationship exception.

B.

Appellant urges application of the exception to adoption that applies when termination of parental rights will result in a substantial interference with a childs sibling relationship . . . . ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) In evaluating whether this exception applies, the court tak[es] into consideration the nature and extent of the [sibling] 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 childs best interest, including the childs long-term emotional interest, as compared to the benefit of legal permanence through adoption. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).)

[E]ven if adoption would interfere with a strong sibling relationship, the court must nevertheless weigh the benefit to the child of continuing the sibling relationship against the benefit the child would receive by gaining a permanent home through adoption. [Citation.] (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 61.)

The siblings enjoyed playing with each other on their chaotic visits, but there is no evidence the children were substantially harmed by separation. The January 2009 reassessment for Michael indicated he had witnessed violence between the siblings at home and has experienced some abuse from his siblings. The siblings also encouraged Michael to misbehave in front of the prospective adoptive parents, and instructed Kaneia and Darian to resist adoption.

If the court determines terminating parental rights would substantially interfere with the sibling relationship, the court is then directed to weigh the childs best interest in continuing that sibling relationship against the benefit the child would receive by the permanency of adoption. [Citation.] (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 952.) The childrens relationship with their siblings is neither so strong nor so beneficial as to deprive them of the considerable benefits in stability and permanence from adoption. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts finding that the beneficial sibling relationship exception to adoption did not apply.

DISPOSITION

The order of the juvenile court terminating appellants parental rights is affirmed.

CANTIL-SAKAUYE , J.

We concur:

NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.

RAYE , J.

Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.

Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line attorney.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

[1] This case involves a mother with 11 children, all of whom have the same last name. Notwithstanding the Reporter of Decisions recommendation to use first and last initials in dependency cases (see In re Carlos T. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 795, 798, fn. 1; In re Edward S. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 387, 392, fn. 1), we shall use first names and last initials for the sake of clarity.

[2] Hereafter, undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

[3] Seven children, Marvell, Calin, Nicolas, Jerrecka, Javon, Markayla, and Taleshia, are not parties to this appeal.