Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. JD225269
BUTZ, J.T.W. (Mother) and R.W. (Father), the parents of 10-year-old A.W., appeal from an order of the Sacramento County juvenile court terminating their parental rights. On appeal, the parents contend the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the sibling relationship exception to termination. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) We shall affirm the judgment.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Prior child welfare history
The parents had a history of prior child welfare referrals dating back to 1995 and had failed to reunify with three other children who were placed in guardianship in 1998.
Originating circumstances
On December 20, 2006, a code enforcement officer went to the parents’ home and discovered dilapidated conditions and a lack of maintenance. He determined that the property manager had been aware of the conditions, but Father never allowed maintenance personnel to fix the home. The officer became concerned about the children, A.W. and 23-month-old G.W., who had diarrhea and were vomiting.
On December 26, 2006, law enforcement and a Sacramento Children’s Protective Services (CPS) social worker went to the home and found it uninhabitable in that it had no heat; no bathroom sink; a ceiling that was cracked, caving in, and leaking; missing windows; a filthy kitchen; and insufficient food. A.W. told the social worker that she did not feel safe in the home in that she often felt cold and hungry. She also said that her stepbrother, R.W. III, had sexually molested her five times the previous July.
Petitions, jurisdiction, and disposition
On December 28, 2006, an original petition was filed alleging that A.W. came within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b), because the home was uninhabitable and Mother failed to protect A.W. from R.W. III by allowing them to have unsupervised contact.
The next day A.W., then age six, and her brother G.W., then age 23 months, were ordered detained.
An amended petition filed in February 2007 added allegations under section 300, subdivision (b), that the parents have a history of domestic violence, some of which A.W. had witnessed; and the parents have long histories of mental illness that they refuse to treat. An allegation of sexual abuse (§ 300, subd. (d)) was added, based on R.W. III’s molestation of A.W.
A second amended petition, filed in April 2007, added an allegation under section 300, subdivision (b) that Mother had a substance abuse problem, as she had tested positive for marijuana in January and February 2007.
The jurisdiction report indicated that a non-relative extended family member, K.H., had been assessed and was approved for placement of the children. The report opined that neither parent was entitled to reunification services due to their failures to reunify with three other children. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10).) Moreover, Father was not entitled to services due to a violent felony conviction. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(12).)
After contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearings in April 2007, the juvenile court found that the allegations of the second amended petition were true. The court adjudged the children dependents and refused reunification services for both parents. (§ 361.5, subd. (b)(10) & (12).) The children were placed in the home of K.H.
Initial section 366.26 hearing
The July 2007 report for the initial section 366.26 hearing recommended that A.W.’s case be continued for six months to further assess her adoptability and that parental rights be terminated in G.W.’s case. The caretaker, K.H., wanted to adopt G.W. but was unwilling to commit to adopt A.W. because of behavior issues (extreme tantrums) that recently had arisen.
An August 2007 addendum report noted “there is no doubt that the children are bonded” to one another. K.H. still had “some reservation” about adopting A.W., whose “behaviors are reportedly continuing,” although there had been “some improvement.”
In late September 2007, an order for psychotropic medication was approved, and A.W. began taking Prozac daily to help stabilize her behaviors.
At a section 366.26 hearing that month, A.W.’s case was continued to January 2008. G.W.’s case was set for a contested hearing.
A January 2008 addendum report noted “significant, but slow, progress” in A.W.’s behavior. The court ordered that A.W. remain with K.H. in a permanent placement with a goal of adoption.
Section 387 petition and subsequent proceedings
In April 2008, A.W. was removed from her placement with K.H. A section 387 petition was filed requesting a change of placement because K.H. no longer was able or willing to care for A.W. due to her challenging behaviors and defiance. The court granted the petition.
A.W. told the social worker that she was glad to be leaving the home and that she would like to visit her brother. A.W. added that she “would not mind” if the social worker found a placement where A.W. and her brother could be together in the future. The new foster placement was close to the K.H. residence and the social worker recommended that A.W. have ongoing liberal contact with her brother, G.W.
In the new foster home, A.W. continued to have behavior problems including impulsivity and aggressiveness toward the foster parent. After a month and a half, the foster parent requested that she be removed. She was moved to a new foster home in June 2008, and a month later she was doing “fairly well” in the home. However, the new foster parent was unwilling to adopt A.W. or become her legal guardian.
A July 2008 postpermanency review report noted that A.W. continued taking Prozac, which helped her concentrate and stabilized her mood swings and aggressive outbursts. She was receiving individual and group therapy to address issues of loss of her parents, separation from her brother, sexual abuse, neglect and abuse.
G.W. had recently been placed in an adoptive home. He and A.W. were having regular contact. His new caretakers favored sibling visitation and were willing to have frequent contact between the siblings, but they were not interested in caring for A.W. At the time, A.W. and G.W. were visiting once a month for an hour. The visits were going well, and G.W.’s caretakers said they were willing to increase the frequency of visitation.
A.W. told the social worker that she had a good relationship with her counselor and that she desired a relationship with her former caretaker, K.H. A.W. “truly likes” her brother and “wants to continue to see [him] on a regular basis even though he most likely will be adopted by another family.”
A January 2009 postpermanency review report noted that A.W. had been placed in an adoptive home in September 2008. She was making great progress and had adjusted nicely to the placement. She stated that she was looking forward to following through with the adoption process. When the social worker asked A.W. to identify the important individuals in her life, she stated that the most important person was her current foster adoptive mother.
A.W. continued to have regular contact with her brother, G.W. G.W.’s caretakers said that he enjoyed the contact, but he had some emotional problems afterwards because A.W.’s comments about their parents upset him. It took him a day or two to settle down after the contacts. A.W.’s caretaker said the contact was “very beneficial” to her and that she “misses her brother.” She “truly likes” her brother and “wants to continue to see her brother on a regular basis.” Although A.W. misses her brother, she is “very happy they have both found families that are stable and permanent for them.”
The social worker believed it was appropriate to maintain the sibling contact, as long as it benefited both children. She also believed the sibling relationship “has no impact on planning for legal permanence.”
The children’s last face-to-face contact was in December 2008, when they visited and exchanged Christmas gifts. A.W.’s caretaker described the contact as “‘wonderful’” and noted no issues regarding A.W.’s behavior or emotions in regard to contact with her brother. However, A.W. “was sad following the last visit because she misses” her brother. The caretaker “calmed [A.W.’s] fears” by assuring her that she would continue to see her brother regularly and have telephone contact.
The report opined that adoption was likely, because A.W. had been in the home for about four months and was doing well. A.W. was “eager and excited” to be adopted.
At a postpermanency review hearing on January 8, 2009, the court set the case for a new section 366.26 hearing.
The report for the section 366.26 hearing indicated that A.W. was doing very well in her prospective adoptive placement. She was in good health, developing normally, very articulate, and well coordinated; moreover, her behaviors had improved. She was doing well in school and had many friends there. She identified her current caretaker as the most important person in her life.
A.W. had maintained weekly telephone contact with her brother for at least six months. A.W. would speak often about her brother and enjoyed their telephone conversations. The foster parent had been trained on the importance of sibling contact and was willing to maintain the sibling connection.
At the section 366.26 hearing in May 2009, A.W. testified that she wanted to remain in her foster home and to be adopted by her foster parent. She confirmed that she talked to her brother every Tuesday and that she enjoyed doing so. She also planned to visit him the next month. A.W. believed that she would continue to see G.W. after adoption.
The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that A.W. was likely to be adopted. The parents had not met their burden with respect to the sibling relationship exception to termination of parental rights. The court noted that A.W. “has continual contact with [G.W.] and would likely and convincingly from the evidence... continue to have that relationship.” Termination of parental rights was ordered.
DISCUSSION
The parents contend A.W. would benefit more from the maintenance of her sibling bond than from adoption into her new family. Put differently, the detriment she would suffer from severing the sibling bond outweighs the benefit of a new adoptive home. We are not persuaded.
The sibling relationship exception to adoption applies if “[t]here would be substantial interference with a child’s 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 child’s best interest, including the child’s long-term emotional interest, as compared to the benefit of legal permanence through adoption.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).)
A parent appealing the termination of parental rights has standing to raise this exception. (In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 402; see In re Asia L. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 498, 514-515.) On appeal, we uphold a juvenile court’s ruling declining to find an exception to termination of parental rights if supported by substantial evidence. (In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 809.)
To show a “substantial interference” with a sibling relationship, the parent must show that severance of the relationship would be detrimental to the child. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 952 .) The existence of a relationship alone is not enough; rather, it must be “‘sufficiently significant’” to cause detriment on termination. (In re Jacob S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1011, 1017, disapproved on other grounds in In re S.B. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 529, 537, fn. 5.)
A.W. is five years older than her sibling G.W. They lived together from his birth in January 2005 until April 2008. Although they may have shared some common experiences while living together, the juvenile court could deduce that their perceptions were likely to have been significantly different. The fact of three years of co-residency did not, by itself, compel a finding that the sibling bond was so significant that termination of parental rights would be detrimental. (In re Jacob S., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 1017.)
The parents counter that “[t]wo siblings do not need to be close in age to share experiences or to develop a bond with one another.” In their view, “it is the sharing of the experience that is significant to the sibling relationship, not each child’s perception of the event based on the child’s age.”
While the juvenile court was free to draw the conclusions the parents now suggest, it was not compelled to do so. Because the parents’ arguments simply “‘tend to establish a factual context which, had it been credited by the trial court, might have led to a different decision,’” their arguments are facially meritless in light of the standard of review in this court. (In re Charmice G. (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 659, 664; see Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 762; In re Jason L. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1206, 1214.)
There was further evidence that the sibling bond was not particularly significant. When the siblings were separated, the then eight-year-old A.W. said that she was glad to be leaving the foster home they had shared but “would not mind” if the social worker found a placement she and her brother could share in the future. There was no evidence that A.W. found the separation to be traumatic. Nor did she indicate that residing with her brother was imperative to her. Instead, she simply said she would not mind if they were placed together.
Later, at age nine, A.W. stated that she “misses her brother and is very happy they have both found families that are stable and permanent for them.” And whenever A.W. was asked to name the individuals who were important in her life, she named either the current or a previous caretaker. The court could deduce from these statements that, even though continued contact with G.W. was very beneficial for A.W., she regarded her stable and permanent family environment as even more beneficial.
The parents contend termination of their parental rights would substantially interfere with the relationship the siblings share. The argument is speculative on this record.
The evidence was that the siblings have had weekly telephone contact the entire time A.W. has been in her current placement. A.W.’s caretaker maintains an ongoing relationship with G.W.’s caretakers. There is no reason to believe any of the caretakers would seek to disrupt the sibling relationship.
The parents raise the possibility that G.W.’s adoptive parents could terminate sibling contact after A.W. is adopted. In their view, this is less likely to occur if A.W. is in guardianship and the court and DHHS remain available to encourage sibling contact. However, on this record such an outcome is entirely speculative. The parents have not shown any basis to deny A.W. the benefits of an adoptive home.
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order terminating parental rights) is affirmed.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P. J., HULL, J.