Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Super. Ct. No. SJ11468E William E. Lehnhardt, Judge.
BENKE, Acting P. J.
Robert H., Sr. (Robert Sr.), appeals a juvenile court judgment terminating his paternal rights to his minor son Robert H., Jr. (Robert Jr.), under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Robert Sr. contends the court erred by finding the sibling relationship exception to adoption of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E), did not apply to preclude terminating his parental rights. We affirm the judgment.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
Effective January 1, 2008, the Legislature amended section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1). (Stats. 2006, ch. 838, § 52.) Because the proceedings at issue here occurred before the statutory change, we refer to the earlier version of the statute. The provision is now codified at section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v).
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2005 San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) filed petitions in the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b), on behalf of Robert Jr. and four of his siblings, alleging their maternal grandmother F. H., with whom they lived, exposed them to domestic violence, neglected their dental and medical needs, and used drugs. Robert Jr. is a member of a seven-child sibling group. At the time of removal, Robert Jr. was eight years old, sister A. J. H. was twelve years old, twins M. H. and A. S. H. were nine years old, and A. H. was four years old. Robert Jr.'s infant sister E. H. was already a dependent child. The youngest child in the sibling group, C. H., was born during the dependency proceedings and immediately placed in foster care.
Only Robert Jr. is the subject of this appeal.
Robert Sr. was incarcerated at Corcoran Prison. The Agency recommended no services be provided to him due to the length of his sentence, the nature of his crimes and the lack of relationship between him and his children. The children's mother K. H. was initially offered reunification services, but later the Agency recommended no further services be offered to the mother as she had failed to reunify with E. H. The court declared the children dependents, ordered no reunification services for the parents and set a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing.
The oldest sibling, A. J. H., openly discussed her need to care for her siblings and was described as parentified by school personnel and social workers. The Agency reported the children "possess a strong sense of closeness in which they are very protective of each other and care for one another." The children stated they wanted to be together and were afraid to be apart.
Throughout the course of the children's dependency, they were often placed separately. However, the Agency attempted to place as many of the children together as possible and maintain their sibling relationships through regular visits. Visitation reports indicated the children were affectionate toward each other and eager to participate in sibling visits. The court approved the Agency's request to disseminate the children's likeness to media and adoption events in order to find an adoptive home for the large sibling group.
Five of the children, including Robert Jr., were eventually placed together in a prospective adoptive home. The three older children said they wanted to be adopted by their caregivers. A. J. H. does not want to be adopted and prefers to be in group homes. M. H. was placed in another group home in order to treat some behavior issues.
At a selection and implementation hearing, the prospective adoptive parents testified they intend to adopt the five siblings placed with them and they hoped to adopt M. H. as well when his behavior stabilizes. They told the court all seven children were bonded to each other, they believed those bonds were important and they had every intention of maintaining them. The prospective adoptive parents have remodeled their house to add extra bedrooms for the children, including a room for M. H. when he is placed with them, and space for A. J. H. to enable her to have extended visits. M. H. has had overnight visits with his siblings, and the prospective adoptive parents have maintained sibling visits even after a problem arose with A. J. H.
After considering the evidence and hearing arguments of counsel, the court found Robert Jr. was adoptable and none of the exceptions to adoption under section 366.26, subdivisions (c)(1), applied. The court terminated parental rights and referred Robert Jr. for adoptive placement.
DISCUSSION
Robert Sr. asserts the court erred when it found the sibling relationship exception to adoption did not apply in this case. He contends the record shows the children have a strong, beneficial relationship and terminating that relationship would be detrimental to Robert Jr. Robert Sr. further argues there are no guarantees the current caregivers will adopt M. H. or continue to allow A. J. H. to be part of Robert Jr.'s life.
A
We review the judgment for substantial evidence. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.) If there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court, we uphold those findings. (In re L. Y. L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947 ; In re Brandon C. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1534.) We do not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, reweigh the evidence or resolve evidentiary conflicts. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, consider the record favorably to the juvenile court's order and affirm the order if supported by substantial evidence even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) The appellant has the burden of showing the finding or order is not supported by substantial evidence. (In re L. Y. L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 947; In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
B
The declared goal of dependency law is to protect children who are physically, sexually or emotionally abused, neglected or exploited. (§ 300.) Although the protection must focus on the preservation of the family whenever possible, the child who cannot be returned to his or her parent must be provided a stable, permanent home. (§ 366.25, subd. (a); § 366.26, subd. (b).) "Adoption, where possible, is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 573.) If the court finds a child cannot be returned to his or her parent and is likely to be adopted if parental rights are terminated, it must select adoption as the permanent plan unless it finds termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child under one of five specified exceptions. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)-(E); In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 401.)
The purpose of the sibling relationship exception to terminating parental rights is to preserve long-standing sibling relationships that "serve as anchors for dependent children whose lives are in turmoil." (In re Erik P., supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 404.) In evaluating if the exception applies, the juvenile court must first determine if a significant sibling relationship exists. (In re L. Y. L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 952.) The court considers the nature and extent of the relationship, including whether the child and sibling were raised in the same house, shared significant common experiences or have existing close and strong bonds. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(E).) Once such a relationship is shown, the court must then decide if there is a compelling reason for determining that termination of parental rights would substantially interfere with the sibling relationship to the detriment of the child. (In re L. Y. L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 952.) Finally, "even if a sibling relationship exists that is so strong that its severance would cause the child detriment, the court then weighs the benefit to the child of continuing the sibling relationship against the benefit to the child adoption would provide." (In re L. Y. L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 952-953.)
C
Here, the uncontroverted evidence shows these children have a significant relationship. Because Robert Jr. is placed with four of his siblings, the issue raised by Robert Sr. involves the relationship between Robert Jr. and the two siblings who are not placed in the prospective adoptive home. Robert Jr., M. H. and A. J. H. were raised in the same home and have shared several placements. A. J. H. is one of the most consistent caregivers Robert Jr. has had throughout his life. Robert Jr. and M. H. are only a year apart in age and have a strong brotherly bond.
Robert Jr.'s close and positive relationship with both A. J. H. and M. H. is not a compelling reason to order a permanent plan other than adoption for Robert Jr. The evidence shows Robert Jr.'s prospective adoptive parents are committed to maintaining the sibling relationship and will encourage and facilitate contact between the siblings because they recognize the importance of doing so. Further, they want to adopt M. H. if possible and are willing to welcome A. J. H. into their home for extended visits. Although, as Robert Sr. argues, there are no guarantees sibling contact will continue once Robert Jr. is adopted, this factor is not determinative. Moreover, if parental rights are not terminated and Robert Jr. is not adopted, he runs the risk of a change in placement and possibly losing contact with the four siblings who will be adopted by this family. In fact, Robert Jr.'s current living arrangement is the best of all possibilities because Robert Jr. will be adopted and be able to maintain his sibling relationships. Under the proper legal analysis applicable to section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E), there was no showing termination of parental rights would substantially interfere with the sibling relationship. (In re L. Y. L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 952.)
The evidence fully supports a finding the benefit to Robert Jr. of continuing the sibling relationships was outweighed by the benefits he would realize through adoption. (In re L. Y. L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 952-953.) Robert Jr. wants to be adopted by his prospective adoptive parents, who are committed to providing him with a safe, stable and permanent home. Substantial evidence supports the court's finding the exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E), did not apply to preclude terminating parental rights. (In re L. Y. L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 952.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: NARES, J., McDONALD, J.