Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J513094B, Laura J. Birkmeyer, Judge.
NARES, Acting P. J.
Sonya C. appeals juvenile court orders terminating her parental rights to her son, R.J., and referring him for adoption. She contends the court erred by terminating her parental rights because she showed the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights and adoption of Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). We affirm the orders.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In June 2008 the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned under section 300, subdivision (b) on behalf of then two-year-old R.J., alleging Sonya had been using cocaine and alcohol while R.J. was in her care, she had exposed him to domestic violence and she had left him inadequately attended and supervised.
Sonya has a criminal and child welfare history. She admitted she had been using cocaine and alcohol, and she had not been taking her prescribed medication for depression. She began substance abuse treatment and had supervised visits with R.J., but she was arrested in late July 2008 and admitted drinking wine and using cocaine. R.J.'s father, Billy J., was in custody for possessing cocaine. He has a long criminal history and admitted he and Sonya had domestic violence incidents when they were drinking.
In August the court sustained the petition, removed custody from Sonya and Billy and ordered reunification services. In December R.J. was placed with his maternal aunt (the aunt). At the six-month review hearing in February 2009, the court continued services.
After Sonya was released from custody, she entered an inpatient substance abuse program. By August 2009, she had completed inpatient treatment, was drug free and was having appropriate visits with R.J. On November 17 the court ordered R.J. placed with her.
However, on March 30, 2010, the Agency petitioned again on R.J.'s behalf, alleging Sonya was no longer able to provide adequate care in that she had been drinking and fighting with her adult daughters in R.J.'s presence. R.J. said there was fighting in the house, and Sonya's drinking had made her sick. He told his sister he did not want to go home with Sonya but wanted to stay with the aunt. The court found the allegations of the petition true and ordered R.J. placed with the aunt. The court terminated reunification services, finding there was no substantial probability R.J. could be returned to Sonya's care within the next six months.
The social worker assessed R.J. as adoptable and recommended parental rights be terminated. The aunt wanted to adopt R.J. and there were 14 approved adoptive families interested in adopting a child with his characteristics. The social worker said R.J. was happy and active and meeting all of his developmental milestones. In August 2010 Sonya was discharged from her substance abuse program because she had tested positive for alcohol on several occasions.
At the section 366.26 hearing on October 12, 2010, the social worker testified R.J. had been living with the aunt and had daily contact with his two adult sisters. He said R.J. and Sonya had enjoyable visits together. At the four visits he had observed, R.J. did not show any signs of distress when he separated from Sonya.
After considering the evidence and argument, the court found none of the exceptions to termination of parental rights and adoption applied and that R.J. would greatly benefit from adoption. The court terminated parental rights and ordered adoption as the permanent plan.
DISCUSSION
Sonya contends the court erred by terminating her parental rights because she showed the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights and adoption of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), by visiting R.J. on a consistent basis and maintaining a significant beneficial relationship with him.
I. Legal Principles:
If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a child is adoptable, it becomes the parent's burden to show termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child because a specified statutory exception exists. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 574.) Under the exception found in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), the parent is required to show termination would be detrimental in that "[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." In In re Brandon C. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1534, the court noted "[c]ourts have required more than just 'frequent and loving contact' to establish the requisite benefit for [the] exception." In interpreting the meaning of "benefit" in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), this court stated in Autumn H., at page 575:
"In the context of the dependency scheme prescribed by the Legislature, we interpret the 'benefit from continuing the [parent/child] relationship' exception to mean the 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 reviewing whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding, the appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's order, giving the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in support of the order. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.)
II. Application:
Sonya had consistent visitation and contact with R.J. They had pleasant visits, but she did not fulfill a parental role, and he showed no distress when visits ended. When she was not using drugs or alcohol, she was able to have appropriate interaction with him, but she had not been able to remain drug and alcohol free. During the times R.J. was in her care, she abused drugs and alcohol and exposed him to violence and trauma. He had to be removed from Sonya's care twice in 21 months, and he said he was afraid of living with her.
Sonya's substance abuse had had a negative influence on R.J.'s emotional health. He became quiet and withdrawn when he was around her when she was drinking. R.J.'s adult sisters said Sonya yelled and attacked them in R.J.'s presence. One sister said R.J. had told her he did not want to go home with Sonya but wanted to stay with the aunt. The sisters were concerned for his emotional well-being. One sister said she was afraid that R.J. would become withdrawn and stop talking if he were returned to Sonya. The sister wanted him to be happy and be given the opportunity to flourish away from the strain that Sonya could cause. Sonya did not appear to appreciate the trauma to which she exposed R.J. or be concerned about his emotional health. When he was removed from her the second time, he attempted to hold on to her as the social worker was taking him away, but she did not hold him or even talk to him but appeared unconcerned and continued to watch television, telling the social worker she would just do everything she had done before and get him back.
At the time of the hearing, R.J. was five years old. He was withdrawn and talked very little when he was in Sonya's care, but had thrived in the stability of the aunt's home. The evidence showed the benefits to him of adoption would greatly outweigh any benefit of maintaining the parent-child relationship. As the court stated, when R.J. was exposed to Sonya while she was under the influence of alcohol, "that is a detrimental situation for him causing him anxiety, quietness and basically complete withdrawal...." The court noted R.J. had thrived in a safe, permanent setting. There was no evidence that R.J. would be greatly harmed by termination of parental rights.
Sonya misplaces reliance on In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289. In In re S.B., this court reversed the trial court's finding that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply after concluding the child would be greatly harmed by loss of the significant positive relationship she shared with her father. The father had complied with every aspect of his case plan, frequently visited his daughter and was devoted to her. She loved him and wanted to live with him. (Id. at pp. 294-295.) Sonya did not make such a showing. Further, while factual comparisons between cases provide insight, these comparisons are not dispositive. The determination on appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply. We conclude that on the facts of this case, the court's findings are fully supported.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McDONALD, J., IRION, J.