Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J513505A/B, Laura J. Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed.
Dianne H. appeals orders terminating her parental rights to her daughters
Destini H. and E.H. She contends the juvenile court's finding that E.H. is adoptable is not supported by substantial evidence, and the court erred by not applying the sibling relationship exception to termination of parental rights and adoption. We affirm the orders.
O'ROURKE, J.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Destini and E.H. first became dependents of the juvenile court in 2000 based on domestic violence, Dianne's methamphetamine use and her living with a registered sex offender. Dianne participated in reunification services, and after 18 months of services, the court returned the children in April 2002. In July 2003 it terminated jurisdiction.
In 2006 Dianne entered into a voluntary contract with the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) because of allegations she was neglecting and abusing the children. In 2007 she was detained in a psychiatric hospital and the children were taken into protective custody. On March 9, 2007, the Agency petitioned on the children's behalf and they were again declared dependents of the juvenile court. Destini and E.H. were first placed together in the same foster home, but because they did not follow house rules and lied and stole from the foster parents, they were moved to a group home.
The psychologist who evaluated Destini said she was oppositional and extremely guarded. The psychologist said both girls lacked social skills and had limited abilities to have healthy and positive relationships. She diagnosed both girls with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.
Subsequently, both girls were placed in a high level of treatment foster care with the Trinity Foster Family Agency. Destini was diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder; E.H. was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder and depression. After treatment in a family-based setting, Destini made significant progress.
At the 18-month permanency planning hearing on September 24, 2008, the court continued the children as dependents in foster care. It found the parents had not made substantive progress in services and terminated reunification services.
Destini continued to improve. She formed strong attachments to her foster parents and wanted to be adopted by them. In December 2008 E.H. moved into the same foster home with Destini. At first, E.H.'s negative behavior threatened to influence Destini's progress, and the foster parents believed E.H. would have to be moved to a different home. However, she then started to make progress. The foster parents initially were interested in adopting only Destini, but when E.H.'s attitude and behavior began to improve, they decided they wanted to adopt her also.
For the adoption assessment, the social worker reported Destini and E.H. had appropriate development and were healthy. E.H. had some academic difficulty and behavior problems at home and at school, but she was improving. Destini and E.H. said they wanted to be adopted by their foster parents. They said they liked living with them and the security of staying in one place. The foster parents had cared for Destini for more than two years and for E.H. for more than seven months. Destini had made great strides in their home, and she and the foster parents shared a strong bond. E.H. appeared to be following the same pattern. She had only once briefly wavered in her desire to be adopted. The foster parents had an approved adoptive home study and had had special training to help them care for children with extra challenges. They wanted to adopt both girls. They were committed to keeping Destini and E.H. in touch with their two siblings, who also were in a safe, nurturing adoptive home.
In addition to the foster family, there was one family in San Diego who would consider adopting two children with Destini's and E.H.'s characteristics and 12 out-of-county families who would consider adopting two children like them. Additional families were interested in adopting one girl like Destini or E.H.
The Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) reported E.H. was thriving in the foster home and wanted the foster parents to adopt her.
At the section 366.26 hearing, counsel stipulated that if Dianne were to testify she would say she loved her daughters and did not want them to be adopted. The court found Destini and E.H. were likely to be adopted if parental rights were terminated. It said the foster parents had shown they were committed to Destini and E.H., the girls wanted to be adopted, and there were other families willing to adopt girls with their characteristics. The court found none of the statutory exceptions to termination of parental rights and adoption were present, and the girls' relationships to their siblings did not outweigh the benefits of adoption. It terminated parental rights, identified adoption as the permanent plan and referred the matter to the Agency for adoption.
DISCUSSION
I
Dianne contends substantial evidence does not support the court's finding E.H. is likely to be adopted. She argues E.H. is neither generally nor specifically adoptable and claims her desire to be adopted was not unequivocal.
Before a court frees a child for adoption it must determine by clear and convincing evidence that the child is likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); In re Jennilee T. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 212, 223.) "In resolving this issue, the court focuses on the child—whether his age, physical condition and emotional state make it difficult to find a person willing to adopt him." (In re David H. (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 368, 378.) Whether there is a prospective adoptive family is a factor for the court to consider, but is not determinative by itself. (Ibid.) "On appeal, we review the factual basis for the trial court's finding of adoptability and termination of parental rights for substantial evidence." (In re Josue G. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 725, 732.) The appellant bears the burden to show that the evidence is insufficient to support the court's findings. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
Substantial evidence supports the finding E.H. was specifically and generally adoptable. She is healthy, energetic and has appropriate development. Although she has had behavior problems, at the time of the hearing her behavior was stabilizing. Her foster parents, with whom she had lived for more than seven months, said they had seen her improve at home and at school. They wanted to adopt her and she expressed the desire that they do so. The foster parents had special certification to deal with children with extra challenges and had been working successfully with E.H. In addition, one local family and 12 out-of-county families were interested in adopting two children with Destini's and E.H.'s characteristics.
Dianne's argument that E.H. might easily change her mind and that the foster parents' commitment to her had not stood the test of time is without merit. As the court stated, the foster parents had shown they were committed to the girls. Their bond with E.H. had strengthened over time, and, although there was one occasion when she appeared unsure about adoption, her desire to be adopted had continued to increase. The CASA said E.H. wanted the foster family to adopt her and appeared very confident in this decision. Substantial evidence supports the court's finding E.H. is adoptable.
II
Dianne asserts the court erred by not applying the sibling relationship exception to termination of parental rights and adoption. She argues Destini and E.H. share a significant bond with each other and with their siblings and the benefits of continuing the sibling relationship outweigh the benefits of adoption.
Adoption is the permanent plan favored by the Legislature. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573.) If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a child is adoptable, it becomes the parent's burden to show that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child because of a specified statutory exception to termination of parental rights and adoption. (Id. at p. 574.)
Under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v), if the court finds the child will be adopted within a reasonable time, adoption must be ordered " 'unless the court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination [of parental rights] would be detrimental to the child' because '[t]here would be substantial interference with a child's sibling relationship....' [Citation.]" (In re Daniel H. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 804, 811.) The purpose of this exception is to preserve long-standing sibling relationships that serve as "anchors for dependent children whose lives are in turmoil." (In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 404.) The sibling relationship exception contains "strong language creating a heavy burden for the party opposing adoption." (In re Daniel H., supra, at p. 813.) Factors for the court to consider include the nature and extent of the sibling relationship, whether the siblings were raised in the same home, whether they share a close bond and whether continued contact is in the child's best interests, as compared to the benefits of adoption. (Ibid.) The court considers the best interests of the adoptive child, not the best interests of other siblings. (Ibid.)
The court did not err by not applying the sibling relationship exception in this case. Destini and E.H. were attached to their foster parents and the foster parents wanted to adopt them. The girls had become used to living apart from their other siblings and were not distressed by being separated from them. The other siblings were in a safe adoptive home also. There was no possibility that all four siblings would be adopted together. The court's decision the sibling exception did not apply is well supported.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P.J., McINTYRE, J.