In re M.B.
Filed 1/29/14 In re M.B. CA4/1
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 M.B., a
Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MARISSA B.,
Defendant and Appellant.
D064562
(Super. Ct. No. SJ12652)
APPEAL
from a judgment of the Superior Court of
San Diego County, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge.
Affirmed.
William
Hook, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas
E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E.
Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Erica R. Cortez, Deputy County
Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Marissa
B. appeals the termination of her parental
rights to her daughter, M.B., contending the court erred by declining to
apply the beneficial relationship exception (Welf. & Inst. Code,
366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In
September 2011, the San Diego County
Agency (the Agency) filed a dependency petition for eight-month-old M.B. The petition alleged M.B. was exposed to
violent confrontations between her father, Ronald S., and Marissa (the parents). Specifically, on September 19, Marissa, while
holding M.B., hit and bit Ronald, while Ronald pushed and tackled Marissa. During the fight, the parents and paternal
relatives pulled on M.B.'s limbs. In
August, the parents had been involved in a violent incident in M.B.'s
presence.
M.B.
was detained in Polinsky Children's Center, then moved to a foster home. In October 2011, the court made a true
finding on the petition, ordered M.B. placed in foster care and ordered
parents. In May 2012, Marissa gave birth
to a baby boy, J.B. In September, J.B.
was detained after Marissa tested positive for marijuana twice. In January 2013, M.B. was moved to a foster
home with J.B. In March, at the 18-month
review hearing, the court terminated reunification services. In May, M.B. was moved to a prospective
adoptive home with J.B. In August, the
court terminated parental rights. At the
time of the hearing, M.B. and J.B remained in the prospective adoptive home and
their foster parents wished to adopt them both.
THE BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIP EXCEPTION
If
a dependent child is adoptable,
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2]
the court must terminate parental rights at the section 366.26 hearing unless
the parent proves the existence of a statutory exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1);
Cal.App.4th 71, 80-81.) An exception
exists if a parent has "maintained regular visitation and contact with the
child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) A beneficial relationship "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.) If terminating parental rights "would
deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the
child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome . . . ." (Ibid.) The existence of a beneficial relationship is
determined by factors such as "[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 (ibid.), we conclude substantial evidence supports the court's
conclusion that although Marissa visited consistently and regularly, she had no
bond with M.B.
When
M.B. was detained, she was suffering from diaper rash and chest
congestion. She was fearful, cried
inconsolably, pulled out her hair and responded to others by kicking and
screaming. At the time of the hearing,
M.B. was two and one-half years old and had been out of Marissa's custody for
nearly two years. M.B. was generally in
good health and shy but cheerful.
Marissa had not learned to put M.B.'s needs above her own.
Except
for a short period, Marissa's visits were supervised. During visits, for the most part, Marissa set
appropriate limits, was affectionate and provided basic care. M.B. was excited to see Marissa and enjoyed
visits, but did not turn to Marissa for support and love and did not ask for
her between visits. M.B. had been living
with the foster parents for more than three months and was "doing
extremely well" in their home. She
was building a relationship with them and turned to them for comfort, love and
the fulfillment of her needs. She called
her foster mother "mama." The
foster parents wished to adopt M.B. M.B.
needed the stability and permanency they offered.
The
court did not err by declining to apply the beneficial relationship
exception.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
AARON, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All further statutory
references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Marissa does not
challenge the adoptability finding.
