legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re Isabel C.

In re Isabel C.
03:31:2013






In re Isabel C












In re Isabel C.























Filed 3/21/13
In re Isabel C. CA2/2











NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO


>










In re ISABEL C., et al.,
Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.


B243985



(Los Angeles
County




LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,



Plaintiff and Respondent,



v.



MELANIE V., et al.,



Defendants and Appellants.




Super. Ct.
No. CK82199)






APPEALS
from an order of the Superior Court
of Los
Angeles County.
Sherri
Sobel, Juvenile Court Referee. Affirmed.

Janette
Freeman Cochran, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant Melanie V.

Suzanne
Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant
Raymundo C.

John
F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Peter
Ferrera, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Respondent.

Appellants
Melanie V. (mother) and Raymundo C. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s
order terminating their parental rights over their children, Isabel (born
January 2008) and Raymond (born May 2010).
Both parents contend the order must be reversed because the juvenile
court abused its discretion by denying their respective Welfare and
Institutions Code section 388href="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] petitions requesting that the children be
returned to their care, or in mother’s case, that additional reunification
services be offered to the family.
Mother further contends the order must be reversed because the parental
exception to terminating parental rights set forth in section 366.26,
subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) applies.

The
juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother’s and father’s
respective section 388 petitions.
Neither parent sustained the burden of establishing a change in
circumstance or that granting their requests was in the children’s best
interest. Substantial evidence supports
the juvenile court’s determination that the parental exception to terminating href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">parental rights did not apply. We therefore affirm the order.

BACKGROUND

Detention and section 300 petition

In May
2010, the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (the
Department) received a referral indicating that mother and newborn Raymond had
both tested positive for methamphetamine.
Raymond was in the hospital’s intensive care unit and was displaying withdrawal
symptoms.

According to the hospital social
worker, mother admitted using methamphetamine for the past 17 years, including
the day she gave birth to Raymond.
Mother also admitted suffering from bipolar disorder but was no longer
seeing a psychiatrist for treatment.

Mother told the Department’s social
worker that she had two children in addition to Raymond -- two-year-old Isabel
and 13-year-old Helena.href="#_ftn2"
name="_ftnref2" title="">[2] Helena’s
maternal uncle had been the child’s legal guardian for approximately 10
years. Isabel was currently being cared
for by a maternal cousin. Mother
identified father as the biological father of both Isabel and Raymond and said
he was currently incarcerated for possession of controlled substances.

Mother
admitted to a long history of methamphetamine use and said she began using
methamphetamine at age 15. She reported
completing six to nine months of an in-patient drug treatment program in
2000. She denied using drugs before
giving birth to Raymond.

The
Department filed a section 300 petition on behalf of Raymond and Isabel on May 11, 2010, alleging the children
were at risk as the result of Raymond’s prenatal exposure to drugs, mother’s
17-year history of substance abuse, and father’s failure to provide and
incarceration for possession of a controlled substance.

At the
detention hearing held on May 11, 2010,
the juvenile court ordered the children detained and accorded monitored visits
to both parents.

Jurisdiction/disposition

In May
2010, the Department reported that Raymond and Isabel were both placed with a
maternal cousin. In an interview with
the Department social worker, mother admitted to a long-standing problem with
substance abuse and acknowledged that her drug use impaired her ability to parent
the children. In a separate interview,
father admitted using methamphetamine before his present incarceration. He also admitted using drugs with mother.

At the May 28, 2010 pretrial hearing, the
juvenile court found father to be Isabel’s presumed father and Raymond’s
biological father. The court accepted
father’s no-contest plea, found both children at risk because of father’s
history of methamphetamine use and failure to provide, and sustained the
portion of an amended section 300 petition pertaining to father.

Mother
waived her trial rights and submitted to the petition at a hearing held on June 29, 2010. The juvenile court sustained the allegations
relating to mother, finding the children to be at risk as the result of
mother’s 17-year history of substance abuse, current methamphetamine use, and
Raymond’s positive toxicology screen and drug withdrawal symptoms. The court noted that mother appeared to be
under the influence during the hearing, and mother admitted she would be unable
to provide a negative test result if she submitted to a drug test that day.

The
juvenile court ordered mother to participate in individual counseling, a
parenting program, and a drug rehabilitation program that included random drug
testing. The court ordered father to
attend drug counseling and parenting classes.
Both parents were accorded monitored visits.

Review proceedings

In
September 2010, the Department reported that mother had failed to appear for
eight scheduled drug tests. Mother had
also failed to consistently attend visits with the children.

Father had
been released from jail in August 2010 but failed to contact the Department and
make his whereabouts known until late September. On September
21, 2010, mother and father telephoned the social worker and said
they planned to enroll in a drug treatment program that day; however, they
subsequently failed to do so. At the September 28, 2010 progress hearing,
the juvenile court found neither parent to be in compliance with court orders.

At the time
of the December 2010 six-month review hearing, neither parent had complied with
any portion of their court ordered drug treatment plans. Mother had missed an additional three
scheduled drug tests, and neither parent had visited regularly with the
children. Mother was again pregnant.

On January 14, 2011, the Department
filed a section 387 petition alleging inappropriate care of the children by the
maternal cousin. At the hearing on the
section 387 petition, the juvenile court found that its prior disposition had not
been effective in protecting the children, sustained the petition, and ordered
the children detained from the maternal cousin and placed in foster care.

A contested
six-month review hearing was held on February
1, 2011. Mother’s counsel
reported that mother had enrolled in a treatment program the previous day. Father’s counsel informed the court that
father was again incarcerated and would not be released until June or
July. The juvenile court found neither
parent to be in compliance with their case plan, terminated href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">reunification services, and scheduled a
section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan for the children.

Mother’s April and
September 2011 section 388 petitions


On April 11, 2011, mother filed a
section 388 petition requesting unmonitored visits leading to return of the
children to her care. In support of her
petition, mother stated she had been living in a shelter since January 31,
2011, attending drug prevention and parenting classes, participating in random
alcohol and drug testing, and testing negative for drugs and alcohol for the
preceding two months. Mother further
stated that she was pregnant and due to give birth in June 2011.

In response
to mother’s section 388 petition, the Department agreed that family
reunification services should be reinstated for mother and the children but
recommended monitored rather than unmonitored visits because mother had only
recently begun a treatment program. On
April 26, 2011, the juvenile court granted mother’s section 388 petition in part
and reinstated family reunification services for her with monitored visitation.

In May
2011, the Department reported that mother continued to attend her treatment
programs and visited consistently with the children. The children remained placed in foster care
and were thriving in their foster parents’ home. Father remained incarcerated.

Mother
filed another section 388 petition on September 1, 2011, seeking return of the
children to her custody or, in the alternative, unmonitored overnight or day
visits. She continued to attend
treatment program sessions and to test negative for drugs and alcohol. The juvenile court set mother’s section 388
petition for a hearing and ordered the Department to prepare a response.

In October
2011, the Department reported that mother had been enrolled in a recovery
program for seven months, had maintained excellent attendance, and had
submitted 20 negative breathalyzer tests and 24 negative random drug
tests. Mother had given birth to another
child, Johnny.

On October
24, 2011, the children’s foster family agency submitted a caregiver information
form to the juvenile court reporting that on several occasions Isabel and
Raymond had returned from visits with mother suffering from bruises and
abrasions. In addition, Isabel
demonstrated sexualized behavior following her visits with mother. Isabel had exhibited similar behavior in
January 2011 when she was removed from the maternal cousin’s care, but the
behavior had abated until visits at mother’s residence began. The foster family agency expressed concern
about mother’s ability to supervise the children and recommended investigating
the source of Isabel’s sexualized behavior.

In a last
minute information for the court filed on October 27, 2011, the Department’s
social workers reiterated the concerns expressed by the foster family
agency. Isabel and Raymond were
returning from the visits with injuries and Isabel was acting out sexually and
behaving in an aggressive manner after the visits. The foster family agency had generated two
special incident reports concerning the children’s injuries, and the Department
had received a child abuse referral regarding Isabel and Raymond.

In an
October 3, 2011 special incident report, the foster family agency stated
that Raymond had sustained an abrasion
on his forehead, redness in his diaper area, and swelling and redness around
his eyes following an October 1, 2011 visit with mother. Isabel had sustained a bruise on her right
hip and marks on her hip and forearm. In
a second incident report generated on October 15, 2011, the foster family
agency reported that Raymond had returned from a visit with mother with a
bruise on his forehead, a superficial cut on his lower lip, and redness on his
genitals.

On October
19, 2011, the Department received a referral on its child abuse hotline that
Raymond had returned from a visit with mother with a red and swollen penis and
that Isabel had redness in her vaginal area.
A subsequent forensic evaluation of the children disclosed no sexual
abuse.

At the
October 27, 2011 hearing on mother’s section 388 petition, the juvenile court
ordered that mother be allowed unmonitored day visits with the children for up
to two hours.

Further review
proceedings


In November
2011, the Department reported that mother was in compliance with court
orders. Father had been released from
incarceration but was arrested again for violating his probation after leaving
a treatment program where he had been briefly enrolled.

Raymond was
attached to his foster parents, and was doing well during his visits with
mother. Isabel was also attached to her
foster parents but was experiencing anxiety about her permanency. Isabel’s teacher reported that the child was
touching her vaginal area at school and having extreme crying episodes. Isabel had also regressed in her potty
training.

In January
2012, the Department reiterated its concerns about mother’s care of the
children. Raymond had returned with a
black eye following a November 7, 2011 visit with mother. Isabel returned with a two-inch bruise on her
shin following a December 3, 2011 visit with mother. On December 17, 2011, Isabel returned from a
visit with mother with a rash and raised spots in her diaper area. On December 24, 2011, Isabel returned from a
visit with mother with scratches on her face, and Raymond returned with redness
in his diaper area. On December 31,
2012, Isabel returned with a swollen lip and Raymond returned with scrapes on
his forearm and a two and one-half inch cut that had bled through his shirt
sleeve. The foster family agency noted
that the children’s injuries continued to occur despite multiple efforts to
provide mother with parenting support and assistance.

Mother’s
drug treatment program reported that mother continued to be an active and
involved participant in treatment.
Mother was expected to complete the program on May 9, 2012, and her stay
had been extended in order to provide her with additional support in caring for
the children.

January 2012 section
366.26 hearing


A contested
section 366.26 hearing commenced on January 17, 2012. After various Department reports were
admitted into evidence, the Department’s social worker testified that the
children were at high risk if they were returned to mother’s care. She cited the children’s frequent and
continued injuries during their visits with mother and expressed concern about
mother’s ability to supervise three young children.

Mother’s
parenting instructor testified that she had worked with mother on parenting
skills since October 2011, and that she had seen nothing to cause her concern
about mother’s parenting of infant Johnny.
The instructor further testified that she had observed mother and all
three children together on three occasions and did not have any concerns about
mother’s parenting of the children. She
said she had seen Raymond run and fall during the last visit with mother but
had never seen mother become frustrated with the children.

After
hearing from mother’s parenting instructor, the juvenile court issued a
tentative ruling to return the children to mother’s custody. The court agreed, however, to continue the
matter to allow the children’s attorney to speak with the person who had
monitored the majority of mother’s visits.
The court issued an interim order allowing mother unmonitored visits for
six hours. The court ordered mother not
to monitor father’s visits.

Father’s January 2012
section 388 petition


Father
filed a section 388 petition on January 30, 2012, requesting family
reunification services and unmonitored visitation. He submitted evidence indicating he had
entered a drug treatment program on September 15, 2011. At the January 30, 2012 hearing, the juvenile
court set a future date to consider father’s section 388 petition. The court accorded mother overnight weekend
visits with the children from Friday morning to Sunday evening and ordered the
Department to make unannounced home visits to mother’s residence at least once
a week. The court further ordered the
children’s attorney to send a representative to mother’s residence at least
once before the next court date. The
matter was then continued for four weeks.

The
Department recommended that father’s section 388 petition be denied. The Department noted that father was not
currently participating in random drug testing and that he had no consistent
contact with the children for the past nine months.

In a
February 2012 last minute information for the court, the Department reported on
mother’s visits with the children and her status at the sober living facility. The Department’s social worker had made
several unannounced home visits to mother’s sober living facility and found
mother caring appropriately for the children and the children responding well
to her. The foster family agency had
generated three special incident reports, however, regarding injuries the
children sustained during their overnight visits with mother in February.

The first
incident report, dated February 8, 2012, stated that Isabel had returned from a
weekend visit with mother without receiving medication for her eczema
throughout the weekend. As a result, the
child returned with moderate to severe eczema on her body. Raymond returned from the same visit with
bruises on his leg from his knee to his shin, bruises on his left arm and right
elbow, and redness between his left thumb and index finger.

The second
incident report, dated February 15, 2012, stated that the children were
returned in poor health following a weekend visit with mother. Both children had colds, and the foster mother
had provided verbal instructions regarding various medications the children
were taking. Following the visit with
mother, Raymond developed bronchiolitis and an ear infection. He also returned with a scratch on his face,
a bruise above his eyebrow, bruises on his legs, and fungus in his diaper
area. Isabel returned with bruises on
her back and inner thigh.

In the
third incident report, dated February 22, 2012, the foster family agency
reported that Raymond had sustained a cut and a large bruise on his right shin,
four small bruises on the inside of his thighs, a cut on the bottom of his
right eye, and a swollen bottom lip during a weekend visit with mother. Isabel returned with bruises on her back,
buttocks, and the back of both thighs, as well as a large red mark on her groin
area.

The
children’s foster parents reported that both Raymond and Isabel were
demonstrating separation anxiety after their visits with mother. Isabel pleaded with her foster mother to stay
home from work, and the children did not want the foster parents to leave their
bedroom. Isabel had a tantrum one
morning before being dropped off at mother’s house, screaming that she did not
want to go. The foster mother further
reported that the children often returned from visits hungry and thirsty. A February 2012 doctor visit revealed that
Raymond’s weight had decreased by a half pound since December 2011, and
Isabel’s weight had decreased by a pound.

On February
21, 2012, the house manager at mother’s sober living facility informed the
Department that mother had been asked to leave the facility. Although the facility had initially agreed to
extend mother’s stay in order to provide her with additional support, mother’s
extension had been terminated because mother had not complied with house rules,
ignored her responsibilities, and was disrespectful of the staff and other
mothers in the home. Mother had been
given three opportunities to modify her behavior and was now being asked to
leave by March 1, 2012. The house
manager further reported that Raymond slipped and fell during a recent visit
because the floor was slippery and the child was not wearing shoes. In response, Mother had called Raymond a
“dumb ass.”

On February 22, 2012, mother
confirmed that she was leaving the sober living home and that she planned to
move to an apartment closer to father.

On April
18, 2012, the juvenile court held a hearing on father’s section 388
petition. The children’s foster mother
testified that the children had often returned hungry and thirsty from their
day visits with mother and sustained a myriad of injuries. The injuries continued when the children
began overnight visits with mother. The
juvenile court admitted into evidence photographs the foster mother had taken
of the children’s injuries.

The foster
mother further testified that Isabel had been doing “inappropriate touching”
since visits with mother began, and that Isabel’s preschool teacher had
reported that the child’s behavior was always different on the days immediately
following the visits. Isabel had
tantrums before nearly every visit with mother, but her tantrums ceased when
weekend/overnight visits with mother stopped at the end of February 2012.

Following
the foster mother’s testimony, the Department’s social worker testified that
mother was not in compliance with the drug testing component of her treatment
plan because she had not drug tested since leaving the sober living
facility. The social worker did not know
where mother was living because mother had not provided a new address. Mother had not called to arrange for any
visits with the children, nor had she spoken to the children by telephone.

The social
worker further testified that she was unaware of any visits between father and
the children, except two visits in March 2011.
She could not recommend unmonitored visits for father because he had not
been tested for drugs since December 2011.

At the
conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court denied father’s section 388
petition, terminated reunification services for both parents, and scheduled a
section 366.26 hearing. The court
ordered therapy services for the children and accorded both parents monitored
visits.

On July 19,
2012, the Department filed a section 300 petition on behalf of Johnny after the
social worker observed a drug pipe and a white granulated substance in mother’s
home. Johnny was initially detained but
subsequently released to both parents.

In August
2012, the Department reported that neither parent had maintained regular
contact with the children since May 2012.
Father’s visits with the children had been sporadic throughout the case,
and he had no visitation for extended periods while he was incarcerated. The children’s foster parents now had an
approved adoption home study, and the Department recommended terminating
parental rights.

Neither
parent appeared at the section 366.26 hearing scheduled for August 15,
2012. At the request of both parents’
counsel, the juvenile court continued the hearing to August 28, 2012.

August 2012 section
388 petitions and section 366.26 hearing


On August
28, 2012, father filed a section 388 petition requesting return of the children
based on his enrollment in a substance abuse treatment program and parenting
course. On the same day, mother also
filed a section 388 petition requesting return of the children or reinstatement
of family reunification services and liberalized visitation.

A hearing
on father’s and mother’s respective section 388 petitions and a contested
section 366.26 hearing were held on August 28, 2012. Father testified that he had completed a
six-month drug treatment program in February 2012, and was attending twice
weekly narcotics anonymous classes.
Father further testified that he was drug testing as part of a voluntary
agreement with the Department regarding Johnny, and the test results had been
negative. He admitted that he had
visited sporadically with Raymond and Isabel throughout the case and that he
had not seen the children since April.
When asked why he had not visited the children more regularly, father
replied, “I was just busy working and -- I don’t know.”

Mother
testified that she had attended a drug program for 13 months but had been asked
to leave her sober living facility. She
was attending twice weekly narcotics anonymous classes and was drug testing
regularly through the Department. All of
her drug test results had been negative.
Mother further testified she had been visiting “recently” with the
children, but admitted that she had seen them only three times in the last several
months. She had not visited more
consistently because she had been emotionally stressed.

After
hearing argument from counsel, the juvenile court denied both parents’ section
388 petitions. The court found that both
parents’ circumstances were changing rather than changed and that neither
parent had consistently been sober or had a relationship with the
children. The court further found that
it was not in the children’s best interests to return them to their parents’
care.

The court
then proceeded to the section 366.26 hearing, found no exception to terminating
parental rights applied, and terminated both mother’s and father’s parental
rights. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

I. Section 388 petitions

Section 388 provides in relevant part: “Any parent . . . [of] a child who is a
dependent child of the juvenile court . . . may, upon grounds of change of
circumstance or new evidence, petition the court . . . to change, modify, or
set aside any order of court previously made.”
To obtain the requested modification, the parent must demonstrate both a
change of circumstances or new evidence, and that the proposed change is in the
best interests of the child. (§ 388,
subd. (a)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(a) & (e); In re Casey D. (1999)
70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47.) “[T]he change of
circumstances or new evidence must be of such significant nature that it
requires a setting aside or modification of the challenged prior order.” (Ansley
v. Superior Court
(1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 477, 485.)

The parent bears the burden of
proving the requested modification should be granted. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(i); In re
Stephanie M.
(1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.)
A juvenile court’s determination on a petition brought under section 388
is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (Stephanie
M., supra
, at p. 318.)

A.
Mother’s section 388 petition


The juvenile court concluded
that granting mother’s petition to return the children to her care or, in the
alternative, to reinstate reunification services and liberalize her visits, was
not in the children’s best interests.
Factors to be considered in determining what is in the best interests of
a child under section 388 include “(1) the seriousness of the problem which led
to the dependency, and the reason for any continuation of that problem; (2) the
strength of relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent
and caretakers; and (3) the degree to which the problem may be easily removed
or ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has been.” (In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56
Cal.App.4th 519, 532.)

Mother
failed to establish that her substance
abuse problem
-- which led to the children’s removal from her care -- had
been resolved. Mother’s substance abuse
problem was a long-standing one. At the
outset of the case, mother admitted to a 17-year history of methamphetamine use
and to being in and out of drug treatment programs for her entire life. Although mother had completed a 13-month
treatment program, a drug pipe was found in her residence a few months after
she was asked to leave her sober living residence. After she was discharged from her sober
living facility, mother stopped having regular contact with the Department and
failed to consistently test for drug use.
The juvenile court found that the three negative drug tests mother
submitted in support of her section 388 petition -- one in April 2012 and two
taken over the course of a week in August 2012 -- were insufficient to
establish that mother had consistently been sober.

Mother also
failed to establish that granting her petition would be in the children’s best
interests. The record shows that
following unmonitored visits with mother both Isabel and Raymond returned to
their foster home repeatedly suffering from bruises and abrasions. Isabel resisted attending visits with mother
and had tantrums before the visits and behavioral issues after the visits.

The record
discloses no abuse of discretion by the juvenile court in denying mother’s
section 388 petition.

B. Father’s section 388 petition

Father’s
section 388 petition also failed to establish a change in circumstances. Father submitted no evidence to support his
claim that he had completed a six-month treatment program in February 2012. A drug pipe was found in his residence in July
2012. He was incarcerated repeatedly
throughout the case for either possessing illegal substances or violating the
terms of his parole. Much of the
information submitted in support of father’s August 28, 2012 petition was the
same as that submitted in support of a previous section 388 petition filed in
January 2012 and denied by the juvenile court.

Father
failed to maintain any consistent contact with the children during the more
than two-year duration of the case. He
had no contact with them between August and December 2011 and between April and
July 2012. There was no evidence of any
bond between father and the children.

The
juvenile court’s denial of father’s section 388 petition was not an abuse of discretion.

II. Termination of parental rights

Section
366.26, subdivision (c)(1), provides for the termination of parental rights if
family reunification services have been terminated and the juvenile court finds
by clear and convincing evidence that the child is likely to be adopted. Once reunification services have been
terminated, “‘[f]amily preservation ceases to be of overriding
concern . . . the focus shifts from the parent’s interest in
reunification to the child’s interest in permanency and stability. [Citations.]’” (In re
Richard C.
(1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1195.) “Adoption, where possible, is the permanent
plan preferred by the Legislature.
[Citation.]” (>In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th
567, 573 (Autumn H.).) Although the statutory preference is in favor
of adoption, section 366.26 lists certain exceptions that may preclude
termination of parental rights, if the juvenile court finds “a compelling
reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).) The exception relevant to the instant case
provides as follows: “The 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 parent
bears the burden of proving that this exception applies. (In re
L. Y. L.
(2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 952-954.) “[T]he exception does not permit a parent who
has failed to reunify with an adoptable child to derail an adoption merely by
showing the child would derive some benefit from continuing a relationship
maintained during periods of visitation with the parent.” (In re
Jasmine D.
(2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1348.)

For the
exception to apply, the parent must have maintained regular visitation with the
child, and the juvenile court must determine that the parent/child 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 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.” (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) A parent must establish more than merely some
benefit to the child by continuing the parent child/relationship. That relationship must be “a substantial,
positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed” if the
relationship were severed. (>Ibid.) To overcome the benefits associated with a
stable, adoptive family, the parent seeking to continue a relationship with the
child must prove that severing the relationship will cause not merely some
harm, but great harm to the
child. (In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 853.) Factors that the juvenile court should
consider when determining the applicability of the exception include “[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 . . . .” (Autumn
H., supra
, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.)

The
juvenile court’s ruling on whether an exception applies to terminating parental
rights pursuant to section 366.26 is reviewed under the substantial evidence
standard. (In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425;> Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p.
576.) Under this standard, an appellate
court must affirm the juvenile court’s order if there is evidence that is
reasonable, credible, and of solid value to support the order (>In re Christina A. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d
1073, 1080), and the evidence must be considered “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.]”
(Autumn H., at p. 576.)

There is
ample support in the record for the juvenile court’s determination that the
parental exception to terminating mother’s parental rights did not apply. Mother failed to meet her burden of
establishing regular visitation with the children. Her visits were sporadic throughout the more
than two-year duration of the case.
Mother failed to visit consistently during the first six months of
family reunification services. Although
the consistency of mother’s visits improved during her stay at a sober living
facility, she failed to maintain contact with the children after her discharge
from that facility, and her visits again became sporadic. At the contested 366.26 hearing on August 28,
2012, mother admitted she had visited with the children only three times during
the past several months.

There was
scant evidence of a parent/child bond that would cause the children harm if
severed or that would outweigh the benefits of a stable and permanent adoptive
home. Rather, there was evidence that
Isabel had tantrums before visits with mother and behavioral problems after the
visits and that her tantrums stopped when the visits with mother ceased.

The
children’s prospective adoptive parents were able and willing to care for them,
had an approved home study, and were willing to adopt both children. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile
court’s determination that the children’s need for stability outweighed any
benefit they would derive from continuing a parent/child relationship with
mother.

DISPOSITION

The order denying mother’s and father’s respective
section 388 petitions and terminating the parental rights of both parents is
affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL REPORTS
.





____________________________,
J.

CHAVEZ



We concur:







____________________________, P.
J.

BOREN







____________________________, J.

ASHMANN-GERST





id=ftn1>

href="#_ftnref1"
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All
further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

id=ftn2>

href="#_ftnref2"
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Helena
was not a subject of the juvenile court proceedings in this case.








Description Appellants Melanie V. (mother) and Raymundo C. (father) appeal from the juvenile court’s order terminating their parental rights over their children, Isabel (born January 2008) and Raymond (born May 2010). Both parents contend the order must be reversed because the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying their respective Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] petitions requesting that the children be returned to their care, or in mother’s case, that additional reunification services be offered to the family. Mother further contends the order must be reversed because the parental exception to terminating parental rights set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) applies.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother’s and father’s respective section 388 petitions. Neither parent sustained the burden of establishing a change in circumstance or that granting their requests was in the children’s best interest. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that the parental exception to terminating parental rights did not apply. We therefore affirm the order.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale