In re A.R.
Filed 1/23/14 In re A.R. CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SIX
In re A.R., N.R., and J.W., Persons
Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
2d
Juv. No. B249495
(Super.
Ct. No. J068502, J068503,
J068504)
(
VENTURA COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
TERRY W.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Terry W. appeals from an
April 18, 2013 order
terminating his parental
rights to A. R. (age 16), Nicole R. (age 15), and Jayden W. (age 5) and
freeing the girls for adoption. (Welf.
& Inst. Code, § 366.26.)
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] Appellant contends that the beneficial
parent-child relationship exception precludes the girls' adoption. (§ 366.26,
subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm.
Appellant and Christina
R. are the parents of A., Nicole, and Jayden.
On September 27, 2011, the Ventura police removed
the family from a home that was "yellow tagged" for no working
utilities. A code enforcement officer
reported that appellant and mother "took over" the house after it was
foreclosed upon. The front door was
barricaded shut and the toilet was filled with urine and feces. Pornography and debris were on the floor and
the walls were covered with graffiti depicting sexual images and
children and dirty clothes and empty beer cans were scattered about. No food was in the house other than a moldy
bagel, a half gallon of milk, and two cartons of rotting milk.
Ventura County Human
Services Agency (HSA) filed dependency petitions on October 4, 2011, for failure to protect (§
300, subd. (b)), serious emotional damage
(§ 300, subd.
(c)), and no provision for support (§ 300, subd. (g)). The petitions alleged that appellant and
mother suffered from long term substance abuse and had a significant criminal
history. Mother was in jail and unable
to provide for the children. The
detention report stated that appellant was arrested in June 2011, for being
under the influence of a controlled substance and child endangerment during a
traffic stop. Jayden was in the car
without a car baby seat. A week later,
appellant was arrested for being under the influence of a controlled substance.
The trial court detained
the children and ordered reunification services and supervised visits.
At the April 16, 2013 six-month review hearing,
HSA reported that the mother had missed drug tests, had not enrolled in a
substance abuse treatment program, and appeared to be under the influence of a
controlled substance at a supervised visit.
Appellant was not enrolled in a
missed drug tests, and was still living in the yellow-tagged house.
At the 12-month review
hearing, HSA reported that the mother had been arrested for a drug treatment
violation and was arrested on another occasion for trespassing and resisting
arrest. Mother was not following the
case plan and failed to remain drug free or submit to regular drug
testing.
HSA reported that
appellant was recently arrested for resisting arrest and being under the
influence and was arrested a second time on an outstanding warrant for
possession of a controlled substance and being under the influence of a
controlled substance. Appellant was not
following the case plan, had missed all his drug tests, and had not found
housing.
The
the matter for a permanent plan hearing.
(§ 366.26.) Appellant filed a
petition for extraordinary writ relief which was denied in an unpublished
opinion. (B245431.)
At the contested section
366.26 hearing, the evidence showed that the three girls were living in the
same foster home and adoptable. A. wanted
to be adopted. Nicole did not want to be
separated from her sisters and "wants to be adopted as quickly as possible
if she is unable to return home."
Appellant claimed that termination of parental rights would be
detrimental to five-year-old Jayden but admitted that he was incapable of
caring for the girls.
The trial court found
that the children were adoptable and the parent-child beneficial relationship
exception did not apply. We review for substantial evidence
and determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that
the parent-child was not proven or significant enough to compel a plan other
than adoption. (In re Bailey J.
(2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315.)
Parent-Child Beneficial Relationship
Appellant argues that
the beneficial parent-child relationship exception precludes adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) "Because a parent's claim to such an exemption is evaluated in light of the
Legislature's preference for adoption, it is only in exceptional circumstances
that a court will chose a permanent plan other than adoption.
[Citation.]" (In re Scott B.
(2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 452, 469.) To
establish the beneficial relationship exception, appellant must prove that he
maintained regular visitation and contact with the girls and that benefits of
continuing the parent-child relationship outweigh the benefits of
adoption. (See In re C.F (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 554 [sporadic visitation not enough]; In
re Marcelo B. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 635, 643 ["frequent and
loving contact" not sufficient to establish beneficial parental
relationship].)
Although the regular
contact/visitation prong was satisfied, there is no evidence that
"severing the natural parent-child relationship would deprive the [girls]
of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the [girls]
would be greatly harmed. [Citations.]" (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th
454, 466.) The two older girls, Alyssa and Nicole, stated that they want to be
adopted but do not want to hurt their parents' feelings. The girls requested
that the adoption be completed as quickly as possible and were "hopeful
their parents do not put up any barriers to prevent them from doing
so."
Sixteen-year-old A. wants
a stable and permanent home, something that appellant never provided. It is an on-going concern because A. and
Nicole were subjected to three foster care placements and struggled to find
stability. Five-year-old Jayden has been
out of her parents care for two years, needs a stable adoptive home, and is
bonded to her foster parents. The foster
parents are committed to adopting the girls and reported that they would allow
contact between the parents and the girls if it was in the girls' best
interest.
Appellant made no
showing that severing the parent-child relationship would deprive the girls of
a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be
greatly harmed if parental rights were terminated. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27
Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) The record shows
that appellant failed to progress beyond supervised visits, failed to comply
with the case plan or obtain housing and, in the words of his trial attorney,
"has been on a downward spiral . . . ." The trial court reasonably concluded that
appellant's relationship with the girls does not outweigh the permanency and
stability of an adoptive placement that the girls so badly need. (In re Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 468.) "The reality is that childhood is brief;
it does not 'wait until a parent rehabilitates himself or herself. The nurturing required must be given by
someone, at the time the child needs it, not when the parent is ready to give
it." (In re Debra M. (1987)
189 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1038.)
The judgment (section
366.26 order terminating parental rights) is affirmed..
NOT
TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN,
J.
We concur:
GILBERT,
P.J.
PERREN,
J.
>
Ellen Gay Conroy, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
______________________________
Jack A.
Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant
Leroy
Smith, County Counsel, County of Ventura and Linda /Stevenson, Assistant County Counsel, for
Respondent.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] All statutory
references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
