In re K.C.
Filed 4/3/13 In re K.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re K.C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES,
Petitioner,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
Respondent;
T.M., et al.,
Real
Parties in Interest.
E058000
(Super.Ct.No.
RIJ101771)
OPINION
ORIGINAL
PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary
writ. Jacqueline C. Jackson,
Judge. Petition granted.
Pamela
Walls, County Counsel,
and William A. Jarvis, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner.
No
appearance by Respondent.
No
appearance by Real Parties in Interest.
In this matter we
have reviewed the petition and offered real parties in interest the opportunity
to respond; no response has been filed by any real party. We have determined that resolution of the
matter involves the application of settled principles of law, and that issuance
of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma
v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
At the stage governed
by Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, if a child is adoptable, the
court must terminate the parents’ rights except in sharply limited
situations. The only one relevant here
applies when the “parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with
the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.†(Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd.
(c)(1)(B)(i).) The parent bears the
burden of showing that the exception applies.
(In re Mary G. (2007) 151
Cal.App.4th 184, 207.) More is required
than affectionate or pleasant conduct and visits; there must be a “significant,
positive, emotional attachment.†(
567, 575.) The parent must show that the
child would suffer substantial harm from the termination of the
relationship. (See In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 555.)
It is obvious that
this exception will generally apply in the case of older children and those for
whom the parent has been a primary caretaker for a significant length of time,
neither of which circumstances applies here.
(Cf. In re C.B. (2010) 190
Cal.App.4th 102; In re S.B. (2008)
164 Cal.App.4th 289.) In this case,
therefore, the preference for adoption prevails and it was error for the court
to refuse to terminate the parents’ rights so that the minor could be
positioned for adoption. We therefore
grant the petition.
Let a peremptory
writ of mandate issue, directing the superior court of Riverside
County to vacate its order
continuing the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing for further
proceedings without terminating the parents’ rights, and to enter a new order
terminating parental rights and
approving adoption as the preferred plan for the minor.
Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the
peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with
the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties. No response having been received by
real parties, we deem it appropriate that this order shall be final 10 days
from the date of entry.
The previously ordered stay is lifted.
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RICHLI
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
KING
J.
