Opinion
F076442
06-04-2018
In re ANDY V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JESSICA H., Defendant and Appellant.
Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Merced, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 16JP00057A)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Donald. J. Proietti, Judge. Roni Keller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Merced, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Franson, J.
-ooOoo-
Jessica H. is the mother of three-year-old Andy V. On October 17, 2107, the juvenile court terminated her parental rights as to Andy (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26) and she appealed. After reviewing the juvenile court record, Jessica's court-appointed counsel informed this court she could find no arguable issues to raise on Jessica's behalf. This court granted Jessica leave to personally file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).)
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. --------
Jessica submitted a letter in which she describes the efforts she made to resolve the problems necessitating Andy's removal and to resume custody of him. She does not allege the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights.
We conclude Jessica failed to address the termination proceedings or set forth a good cause showing that any arguable issue of reversible error arose from the termination hearing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 844.) Consequently, we dismiss the appeal.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY
In June 2016, the Merced County Human Services Agency (agency) responded to a call from a woman stating Jessica left then 17-month-old Andy in her care for the night while she went out with friends. Jessica failed to return the next morning at the agreed upon time. The investigating social worker found Jessica at a motel. Jessica said she was homeless, depressed, and did not have any way to care for Andy. She walked back into the motel bedroom, got into bed, and pulled the covers over her body. The following evening, Jessica went to the woman's house at night and banged on the door, yelling that she was depressed, had taken 30 sleeping pills, and wanted to see Andy. The social worker took Andy into protective custody. Jessica admitted she was unable to care for Andy and was addicted to methamphetamine. Andy's father was incarcerated.
In July 2016, the juvenile court adjudged Andy a dependent child, elevated the father to presumed father status, and ordered reunification services for him. The court denied Jessica reunification services because her whereabouts at that time were unknown. However, she contacted the agency in early August and explained she had been residing in an inpatient substance abuse program in Los Angeles since June 11 and wanted the court to provide her reunification services. The court ordered the agency to provide her services.
In its report for the six-month review hearing, the agency recommended the juvenile court terminate reunification services for Jessica and the father. It reported that Andy was placed with a nonrelated extended family member in Merced County in August 2016. Mother visited Andy once during the reporting period, on December 8, 2016. Afterward, she stated she did not want to visit at the visitation center and declined any subsequent visits. She also declined to voluntarily relinquish Andy for adoption, but stated she could not afford to support herself and could not "do anything for him." Andy's father wanted Andy to be adopted by his caretakers stating, "They are taking really good care of him."
The court appointed special advocate filed a report recommending Andy remain in his placement. She reported that Andy's foster mother was also his godmother and that he was doing very well in her home. He was well cared for and treated like one of the family. He was very happy and loving towards his foster mother and she was interested in adopting him.
In April 2017, following a contested six-month review hearing, the juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing for August 10, 2017. Neither parent filed an extraordinary writ petition challenging the juvenile court's ruling.
On May 15, 2017, social worker Bert Navarro supervised a monthly visit between Jessica and Andy. Andy was shy when he saw his mother and hid behind Navarro. Jessica took Andy and gave him a hug and kiss. Andy maintained a distance from Jessica for the first 15 minutes, but then warmed up to her and played with her on the floor. At the end of the visit, he separated from her with no difficulty. At their visit in June, Andy initially turned his face from Jessica and refused to talk to her but sat on her lap as she read him a story. He opened up and began to talk to her after she gave him some bubbles. Jessica was able to engage him in pretending to cook a burger using a play kitchen stove. Andy appeared comfortable as he engaged with Jessica in play.
In its report for the section 366.26 hearing, the agency recommended the juvenile court terminate parental rights and designate the foster parents as the prospective adoptive parents. Jessica opposed the agency's recommendation. She stated that she was sober and stable and going back to school. She wanted to resume custody of Andy and believed the court should provide her family maintenance services or reinstate reunification services.
The juvenile court conducted the section 366.26 hearing as a contested matter on October 17, 2017. Jessica testified she returned to Merced County in August 2017, and in September entered a nine-month recovery program. She claimed over a month of sobriety. She visited Andy monthly for the prior six to seven months. She said Andy was a little distant with her but warmed up. He recognized her as his mother and asked her to take him home with her after their visit two months before. He knew she was "mommy" and referred to his caretakers as "Tio" and "Tia," Spanish for "uncle" and "aunt." Asked whether Andy maintained a close proximity to her during visits, Jessica said that he did and recounted how he laid on top of her for 20 minutes under a blanket while she held him. She believed it would be beneficial to Andy if she continued to be present in his life. If Andy were placed with her, she had a place to stay that was "CPS certified."
Following Jessica's testimony, her attorney asked the juvenile court to apply the beneficial relationship exception to adoption and preserve her parental rights. The court found the exception did not apply and Andy was likely to be adopted. The court terminated parental rights and designated Andy's foster parents as his prospective adoptive parents.
DISCUSSION
At a termination hearing, the juvenile court's focus is on whether it is likely the child will be adopted and if so, order termination of parental rights. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) If, as in this case, the child is likely to be adopted, the juvenile court must terminate parental rights unless the parent proves there is a compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child under any of the circumstances listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B) (exceptions to adoption).
Jessica's trial attorney argued the exception found in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), i.e., the beneficial relationship exception, applied in her case. The beneficial relationship exception applies where the evidence supports "a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child [because] ... [¶] ... [the parent] maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) " 'To trigger the application of the parental relationship exception, the parent must show the parent-child relationship is sufficiently strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination.' [Citation.] A beneficial relationship 'is one that "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 re Marcelo B. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 635, 643.)
The juvenile court found Jessica failed to meet her burden of proving the existence of a beneficial parent-child relationship and Jessica does not contend the court erred in so ruling. Rather, she updates this court on her recovery, career, and employment status as well as her relationship with Andy. She seeks Andy's return to her custody and another chance to be his mother.
We conclude Jessica failed to set forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error exists and dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.