In re G.L.

Filed 1/12/09 In re G.L. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Christopher J. Sheldon, Judge. Affirmed.

Christy C. Peterson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Joe S. Rank, County Counsel and Sophia H. Choi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Konrad S. Lee, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for minors.

Appellant C.L. (mother) is the mother of Gr.L., a boy born in November 1996, Gl.L, a girl born in August 1998, and their five siblings, two younger boys and three older boys (siblings). Mother appeals from the juvenile courts July 14, 2008, order terminating her parental rights to Gr.L. and Gl.L (children). Mother argues that the court erred when it found that the sibling relationship exception to the presumption for adoption, found in Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v),^[1]did not apply. As discussed below, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the juvenile courts decision declining to apply this exception.

Statement of Facts and Procedure

Detention

On July 10, 2006, the Department of Public Social Services filed a section 300 petition on behalf of six of mothers children, then ages 15, 14, 9 (Gr.L.), 7 (Gl.L.), 6, and 5.^[2][3] The petition contained four allegations: (b-1) mother abuses controlled substances; (b-2) mother failed to enroll the children in therapy to address loss issues regarding their fathers death,^[4](b-3) mother had received voluntary family maintenance services from October 1996 to May 1997 to address substance abuse and general neglect issues, but failed to benefit from the services; and (b-4) mother had received adjudicated family maintenance services from March 2002 to March 2005 to address substance abuse and general neglect issues, but failed to benefit from the services.

At the detention hearing on July 11, 2006, the juvenile court detained the children and placed them with mother.

Jurisdiction

At the jurisdiction hearing on August 1, 2006, the court found the allegations in the section 300 petition to be true and continued the children in mothers care on family maintenance.

Supplemental Petition and Removal

On September 15, 2006, the department filed a section 387 supplemental petition. Mother had admitted to using methamphetamine recently, had failed to cooperate with family preservation court, and had asked to have the children removed from her custody. The children and siblings were placed together in a foster facility. The court ordered the children removed from mothers care and custody. At the jurisdictional hearing on the section 387 petition held on November 21, 2006, the court ordered mother to participate in reunification services.

In November 2006, the children and siblings were temporarily removed from the foster home because of habitability issues. It appears that the children and siblings were returned to the foster home after a week or so. The foster parents expressed interest in adopting the children and siblings if mother could not reunify. However, in a December 26, 2006 interview with the social worker, the three older boys, including Gr.L. agreed that they wanted to be placed with relatives, even if it meant that all six siblings could not be placed together.

Six-Month Review

At the six-month status review hearing held on January 24, 2007, the court continued mothers reunification services for six months.

Twelve-Month Review

In the 12-month status review report filed with the court on June 19, 2007, the social worker reported that Gr.L. had been placed with a non-relative family member, Mr. G., along with his next older brother. Gl.L. was living in a foster home, along with her next younger brother. Both children were reported to be doing well in their placements. The children and siblings continued to have bi-monthly visits together, which the social worker described as consistently strong.

At the contested 12-month review hearing held on August 30, 2007, the juvenile court terminated mothers reunification services. The court ordered legal guardianship as the permanent plan for Gl.L. and permanent placement with a fit and willing relative as the permanent plan for Gr.L. A few days later, the childrens paternal aunt and uncle, the P. family, expressed interest in adopting Gl.L. A few weeks after that, the P. family stated they would also like to adopt Gr.L.

Permanency Planning

On October 3, 2007, the department filed its report in anticipation of Gl.L.s section 366.26 permanent plan hearing. The department recommended Gl.L. remain in her current foster home until the P. family could be certified. Gl.L. had continued her bi-monthly visits with her siblings and other relatives.

On October 29, 2007, the department filed a section 366.26 report regarding both Gr.L. and Gl.L. Gr.L. continued to live with Mr. G. and Gl.L. continued to live with her foster family. Regarding sibling visitation, the department noted that The sibling group is extremely bonded with each other. They have been having bi-monthly visits, and the visits have been healthy and strong. It is in the children [Gr.L.] and [Gl.L.]s best interests to continue to have visits with her siblings, and other extended family members.

The department filed a status review report on December 8, 2007. The department recommended that Gr.L.s permanent plan be changed from adoption to legal guardianship. The two children had moved into the home of the P. family on November 7, 2007. Gl.L. was doing well in the placement and she was looking forward to adoption. Gr.L., on the other hand, had been acting out and stated he was not happy with the P. family. The P.s decided that they did not want to adopt Gr.L, but would pursue legal guardianship for him. Gr.L. stated that he would like to return to his previous placement, family friend Mr. G. Gr.L. moved back in with Mr. G. on December 13, 2008. On January 14, 2008, the court found that legal guardianship was the appropriate permanent plan for Gr.L. and that adoption was the appropriate legal plan for Gl.L.

On February 27, 2008, the department filed an addendum report. The department requested that Gr.L.s status be upgraded to the permanent plan of adoption with Mr. G.

On March 27, 2008, mother filed a section 388 petition asking the court to change its January 14, 2008, order setting a section 366.26 hearing for the two children. Mother asked that all of her children be returned to her on family maintenance, or that the court reinstate reunification services. Mother stated that she was attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings, had a source of income, and had the support of family members. After a hearing on April 24, 2008, the court denied the motion.

On June 12, 2008, the department filed a report in anticipation of the childrens section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing on July 14, 2008. The report described an incident in March 2008 during a meeting between the social worker, Gr.L., and Mr. G to discuss his attitudes and behaviors, and also solutions to certain difficulties he is going through at the moment. Gr.L. reportedly went ballistic at the mention of possibly changing his name. The report mentioned that the adoption social worker was concerned about Gl.L.s behaviors and that Ms. P. was also concerned about Gl.L. Gl.L. began seeing a therapist, and by June 2008, Ms. P. stated that Gl.L. was doing fantastic. Attached to the report was the preliminary assessment of Gl.L.s prospective adoptive parents, the P.s.

On July 7, 2008, the department filed an addendum report. The department recommended the court terminate mothers parental rights to Gr.L. and proceed with a permanent plan of adoption for him. Attached to the addendum report was the preliminary assessment of Gr.L.s prospective adoptive parent, Mr. G.

At the selection and implementation hearing held on July 14, 2008, mother argued that the sibling relationship exception applied and asked the court to consider legal guardianship. Minors counsel stated that if we go through with the termination and adoption, we need a strong contract that says these children will see each other on a regular basis. At the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court found it likely that the children would be adopted and terminated mothers parental rights. This appeal followed.

Discussion

Mother argues that the juvenile court erred in not applying the sibling relationship exception to the presumption for adoption.

Pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), if the court finds a child is clearly adoptable the court must choose adoption as the childs permanent plan and terminate parental rights, unless one of the exceptions set forth in subdivision (c)(1)(B) applies. The fifth of these exceptions is the sibling relationship exception. ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) The sibling relationship exception applies if placing the child for adoption would result in a substantial interference with a childs sibling relationship, taking into consideration the nature and extent of the 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. (Ibid.)

In determining whether the sibling relationship exception applies, the juvenile court should first consider the nature and extent of the sibling relationship, including whether the siblings were (1) raised in the same household; (2) share significant common experiences; and (3) have existing close and strong bonds. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 951-952 (In re L.Y.L.); 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) If the court finds that placing the child for adoption would substantially interfere with the childs sibling relationship, the court must then weigh the benefit to the child of continuing the sibling relationship against the benefits of being adopted. (In re L.Y.L., supra, at pp. 952-953; In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 54-55 [ultimate question in applying sibling relationship exception is whether adoption would be detrimental to the adoptive child].) The courts findings will be upheld on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. (In re L.Y.L, supra, at p. 947.)

Strength of Sibling Bonds

Here, the children were raised in the same household with each other and their siblings, possibly for as long as the first nine (Gr.L.) and seven (Gl.L.) years of their lives. However, the record indicates that the children were the subject of a previous dependency case, from March 2002 to March or April 2005, and that they were placed outside of the care and custody of their parents for a portion or all of that three-year period. No information appears in this record as to whether the children were placed together with their siblings during that previous dependency case, or how long the children were outside of their parents care. In any case, the children were living in the same household as four of their five siblings for at least the 17 months prior to the current removal. Even after being placed in foster care in September 2007 and being moved around to various placements, the children lived with one or more siblings for a significant amount of time. The children and four of their five siblings were placed in the same foster home for the first few months after being removed from mother. After leaving the first foster home in January 2007, Gr.L. lived with his next older brother in the home of Mr. G., until the next oldest brother changed placements in September or October 2007. After leaving the first foster home, Gl.L. at first lived in a foster placement with her next younger brother before he was moved to a group home and she later went to live with the P. family, initially along with Gr.L. Thus, the children were raised in the same household together, and later with at least one of their siblings for a substantial part of this dependency case.

The children also share significant common experiences with each other and their siblings, and have existing close and strong bonds. When deciding to leave the first foster placement where they were all together, in favor of being placed mostly with family and a family friend, the three oldest boys, including Gr.L., worked out between them which sibling would go where. This indicates strong bonds in that the older siblings made important decisions as a group as to what would be best for each of them, and for their younger siblings. It also showed how important family was to the older boys, including Gr.L. On the other hand, the three older boys, including Gr.L. understood that the move would result in the children being separated from each other, and that the younger children would not at that time be placed with family.

The children and the siblings received monthly or bi-monthly visits for most of the dependency, which the department described as consistently . . . strong. In February 2007, soon after leaving the foster home where the siblings were all placed together, Gl.L. told the social worker that she wanted to see her brothers and that not seeing them made her sad. On a subsequent visit with the social worker in March 2007, Gl.L. did not mention her brothers. However, in April 2007, Gl.L. asked the social worker again for a visit with her brothers, and the foster mother stated that Gl.L. asked about her brothers often. Gr.L. spent a lot of time with his next oldest brother while they were both living with Mr. G., and they both saw the oldest dependent brother quite often because he was living with a paternal aunt. At a May 2007 visit at a fast food restaurant, the children and their siblings appeared happy as they smiled and giggled with each other. [Gl.L. was] especially excited and hugged everyone. At a visit in June 2007, Gl.L. yelled her youngest brothers name in excitement and hugged him. After the visit ended, Gl.L. kept asking to be placed with her youngest brother. The department stated in Gl.L.s initial section 366.26 report that the sibling group is extremely bonded with each other and that it was in Gl.L.s best interest to continue visiting with her brothers.

Substantial Interference with Sibling Relationships

Under the factors set forth in In re L.Y.L., the children are well bonded to each other and to their siblings. We must then determine whether placing the children for adoption would substantially interfere with their sibling relationships. With regard to Gr.L., it appears that the adoption would not do so. This is because Mr. G. is a long-time family friend, a former teacher of the oldest, non-dependent sibling, and is familiar with all of the children. In fact, at the time this dependency case began, Mr. G. had allowed mother to move into his home with her children temporarily until she could find another place. Mr. G. has consistently stated that he wants for Gr.L. to maintain contact with his biological relatives, and throughout the dependency has acted consistently with that sentiment, as when he arranged for the children and their siblings to be together over the holidays in 2006. Mother has the burden her to show that placing Gr.L. for adoption with Mr. G. would substantially interfere with his sibling relationships, and she has not done so here.

As for Gl.L., the case is a somewhat closer one, but we agree with the trial court that mother did not establish that the adoption would substantially interfere with Gl.L.s sibling relationships. The P. family acknowledged the importance of maintaining contact with Gl.L.s other biological relatives. As mother points out, the P. family lives in San Diego, a significant distance from Riverside County, where a majority of the siblings live. Mother also points out that the P. family is related to the childrens father, and the relationship between the paternal family and the maternal family was strained because the paternal family blamed mother for the fathers suicide. However, we agree with the department that, although this may motivate the P. family to discourage visits with Gl.L.s mother, it would not appear to discourage visits with Gl.L.s siblings, as the father was the father of all of the siblings.

Benefits of Adoption

Because we determine that mother has not carried her burden to establish that adoption would substantially interfere with the childrens sibling relationships, we need not weigh the detriment from such interference against the benefits of adoption.

Disposition

The juvenile courts ruling terminating mothers parental rights and freeing the children for adoption is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

RAMIREZ

P.J.

We concur:

McKINSTER

J.

MILLER

J.

Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.

Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line Lawyers.

San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com

^[1]All section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.

^[2]Mothers oldest child, then age 17, was living with his paternal grandmother at the time and was not part of this dependency case.

^[3]Only Gr.L. and Gl.L are the subjects of this appeal. The siblings will be discussed only as necessary to address the issue on appeal.

^[4]The children s father committed suicide in May 2006 while the family was living in Mexico, but while mother was spending time in the United States. At least several of the children were in the home at the time he hanged himself there, and two of the children found him and cut him down.