In re Grace R
Filed 2/27/08 In re Grace R. CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re GRACE R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. | |
SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROBERT R., Defendant and Appellant. | D051724 (Super. Ct. No. EJ002712) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert R. appeals a judgment terminating his parental rights over Grace R. He contends that the juvenile court erred by declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception to termination ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)).[1] We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In February 2006, when Grace was four and one-half years old, the San Diego CountyHealth and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a dependency petition because Robert had failed to protect her adequately, and also failed to provide her with adequate food, clothing, shelter or medical treatment.[2] Grace was detained in a foster home and then with her maternal aunt, Tammy H., with whom she was later placed. In August 2007 the Agency learned that Tammy had a history of substance abuse, and Tammy tested positive for methamphetamine. Grace was then detained in the home of Pat T., a nonrelative extended family member who was providing most of Grace's care and wished to adopt her. The section 366.26 hearing took place in August, four days after Grace was detained with Pat.
The Court did not Err by Failing to Apply
the Beneficial Relationship Exception
Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) allows termination of parental rights upon clear and convincing evidence of adoptability. An exception exists 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)(A).) A beneficial relationship is one 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 re Autumn H.
(1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) The existence of this relationship is determined by "[t]he 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 . . . ." (Id. at p. 576.) Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the finding that Robert failed to meet his burden of showing that he and Grace shared a beneficial relationship. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 576-577; In re Cristella C. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1373.)
Robert began visiting Grace in April 2006. At first he visited regularly, although he was sometimes late to visits and missed at least one visit. In March 2007 he stopped visiting. Beginning on March 26, the newly assigned social worker tried to contact Robert. She left him five telephone messages, sent him two letters, and contacted his attorney. The visitation center also sent him a letter. In June Tammy told the social worker that Robert had not been in contact with her for a few weeks.
Robert eventually obtained the social worker's telephone number from Tammy. He called the social worker and they arranged visitation. When visits resumed in July 2007, Robert was 15 minutes late to the first visit. While Grace was waiting for him, she twice said, "I don't think that he is going to come." The next visit was cancelled because Robert was 45 minutes late. He did not call Grace on her birthday. At the next visit he did not mention Grace's birthday, although she offered hints. There was one more visit before the section 366.26 hearing. Robert never progressed beyond supervised visitation.
At the time of the section 366.26 hearing, Grace was six years old. She had been out of Robert's custody for one and one-half years over the course of this case. Even before the dependency petition was filed, she was sometimes cared for by others for long periods of time. While Grace seemed happy to see Robert at visits and said that she loved him, she also said that he was mean and she wanted to be adopted. He was unreliable, did not meet her physical or emotional needs, and claimed that he could properly care for her while he was admittedly using illicit drugs. Grace desperately needed stability and security and was comfortable with Pat. Any benefit Grace derived from her relationship with Robert was far outweighed by the benefit she would derive from adoption.
The juvenile court did not err by failing to apply section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A).
DISPOSITION
Judgment affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
McCONNELL, P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.
Publication Courtesy of California lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Escondido Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. Effective January 1, 2008, the Legislature amended and renumbered section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1). (Stats. 2006, ch. 838, 52.) Because the proceedings at issue here occurred before the statutory change, we refer to the earlier version of the statute.
[2] The petition included an allegation that Grace had been left without any provision for support because Robert's whereabouts were not known and her mother was deceased. This allegation was dismissed at the detention hearing.
