Opinion
H047395
04-14-2020
In re A.L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.F. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. No. 16JU00370)
Three-year-old A.L.'s mother and father appeal an order terminating their parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for A.L. They contend the juvenile court erred by not applying the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption. After carefully reviewing the record, we are satisfied the decision was not an abuse of discretion. We will therefore affirm the order.
I. BACKGROUND
This dependency proceeding was initiated in November 2016 after A.L.'s father was arrested for driving under the influence and child endangerment (he drove with a blood alcohol content above .15 percent with A.L, then seven months old, and her mother in the car). The family had been struggling with homelessness and lived in a rented bedroom so crowded with aluminum cans, empty cereal boxes, and other items that A.L. had no room to crawl. A.L.'s mother had a history of mental health issues, including problems with hoarding behavior. She was receiving social security disability benefits for cognitive impairment and a public health nurse expressed concern about her ability to live independently. The mother also had a significant juvenile dependency history: three children had been previously removed from her care because of abuse or neglect, and her parental rights as to all three were ultimately terminated.
The Santa Cruz County Department of Human Services filed a dependency petition alleging A.L. was at risk of harm because of her parents' failure to provide adequate care. The juvenile court sustained the petition and ordered family maintenance services for the parents. A.L. was allowed to remain in their care. But authorities continued to receive reports that A.L. was being neglected. She was seen being driven from preschool in the front seat of a car without proper safety restraints. She arrived at school unbathed and dressed inappropriately for the weather. Her teeth were visibly decaying, yet her parents did not take her to a dentist. She had been diagnosed with anemia. And she was now without adequate shelter, living in a car with her mother. Based on the new reports of neglect, the Department filed a supplemental dependency petition requesting that A.L. be removed from her parents' care.
The juvenile court sustained the supplemental petition and A.L., by then two years old, was placed in foster care. Six months of reunification services were ordered for her father, but no services for her mother (who had previously failed to reunify with her three other children and had failed to fully engage in the services offered to her in this case). Visitation with A.L. was to occur at least three times per week with her father and at least once a month with her mother.
Those visits evidenced a familial bond and loving relationship between A.L. and her parents. She called them "[m]ommy" and "daddy," and showed obvious affection toward them throughout. They brought A.L. food, and played with and talked to her appropriately. A.L.'s mother continued to breastfeed her at nearly every visit. At the end of the initial sessions, A.L. was upset about being separated from her parents. But that reaction diminished over time. After living with her foster family for several months, she stopped being visibly distressed when visits ended and even began to resist going to some visits.
As the father's six-month reunification period neared an end, he was not in compliance with several components of his case plan. He had missed 58 out of 70 scheduled drug and alcohol tests. He attended just over half of his therapy appointments. His attendance at visits with A.L. was declining (due in part to a brief period of incarceration). And he did not go to most of A.L.'s medical appointments. The assigned social worker reported that "the risk of future neglect or abuse to [A.L.] while in her father's care is very high. [He] has had minimal participation in his case plan and little progress has been made toward changing his behavior." The juvenile court did not extend reunification services and scheduled a hearing to select a permanent plan for A.L.
A.L., meanwhile, was doing well with her foster family, a married couple and their eight-year-old daughter. She had been living with them for almost a year. In that time, her dental health had much improved and her anemia had resolved. A.L. was, overall, healthy and thriving. She had bonded with her foster parents (who very much wanted to adopt her) and their daughter. The assigned social worker opined that A.L. appeared to have a "sweet visiting relationship" with her natural parents but, on balance, the permanency, emotional stability, and sense of belonging she got from her foster family greatly outweighed any benefit to her from the relationship with her parents.
At the hearing regarding termination of parental rights, A.L.'s mother and father testified. The father described his visits with A.L. and said he missed her and wished she could come home, or that there could be an outcome that would allow him to see her. The mother testified she did not want a permanent plan of adoption because A.L. was "better with her parents."
After considering the social worker reports and the testimony at the hearing, the juvenile court expressly acknowledged the parents' love for A.L. but found it was in the child's best interests to be adopted. The court terminated the parental rights of the mother and father, and selected adoption as the permanent plan for A.L.
II. DISCUSSION
When efforts to reunify a dependent child with her parents are unsuccessful, the juvenile court must make orders that provide the child with a stable, permanent home. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (b) (further statutory references are to this code).) The Legislature has determined the way to best promote stability when reunification has not occurred is to terminate the parental rights of the natural parents so the child can be adopted. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.) Adoption is the statutorily preferred outcome. (§ 366.36, subd. (b)(1).) Indeed, a juvenile court can order a permanent plan other than adoption only in particular situations, which are listed in the statute. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).)
The parents here contend one of those statutory exceptions to adoption—the beneficial parental relationship—applies. That exception requires a finding that the parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child, and the child would benefit from continuing the parental relationship. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) The juvenile court found that both parents maintained regular visitation and contact with A.L. But it declined to apply the beneficial relationship exception because it found that any benefit to A.L. from continuing the parental relationship was not enough to justify denying her the permanence and stability she would get from adoption. We review such a finding for abuse of discretion. (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) That deferential standard does not involve the exercise of our independent judgment but rather dictates that we affirm the decision unless it is clearly outside of what the applicable rules allow.
In a case like this one, where a child is adoptable and reunification has failed, the law requires adoption in all but the most extraordinary circumstances. (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350.) The termination of reunification services is effectively a determination that a child's interests require she not be returned to parental care. The focus of the proceeding then shifts from family reunification to the child's interest in permanence and stability. (In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1163.) Adoption is considered the child's best chance at stability by providing a full emotional commitment from a responsible caretaker. (In re Celine R, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 53.) To avoid the presumptive outcome of adoption, a parent must show that the parental relationship promotes the child's well-being "to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents." (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.)
The parents dispute the propriety of adoption in this case by pointing to their many positive visits with A.L., during which they played and interacted with her lovingly and appropriately and she showed affection toward them. The mother emphasizes the bond she and A.L. shared through breastfeeding (although A.L.'s doctor noted excessive breastfeeding was exacerbating her anemia, which indicates that aspect of the relationship was not entirely beneficial).
We find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court's conclusion that the benefit to A.L. from a continued parental relationship does not outweigh the benefit she will gain in her new adoptive home, as it is well supported by the record. By the time of the court's decision, A.L. had been in the care of her foster parents for about a third of her life. She was thriving and had bonded with her foster family, and her health was much improved. The foster family provided a safe, stable, and caring home environment. The foster parents expressed their desire to adopt A.L., and the assigned social worker and A.L.'s court-appointed special advocate both recommended that outcome.
It is clear to us, as it was to the juvenile court, that A.L. has an attachment to her parents and her parents very much love her. Severing that kind of relationship is a heart-wrenching decision with significant emotional impact on the parents. But the paramount concern in dependency proceedings is the child's best interests. (In re Nicole S. (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 91, 105.) The question is not merely whether a parent-child bond exists, but whether A.L.'s relationship with her parents remains so significant and compelling that preserving it outweighs the great benefits to her from adoption. (In re Anthony B. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 389, 396.) We conclude it was not an abuse of discretion for the juvenile court to favor adoption over the loving relationship between the parents and young A.L, which was also unfortunately marked by neglect.
III. DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
/s/_________
Grover, J.
WE CONCUR:
/s/_________
Greenwood, P. J. /s/_________
Bamattre-Manoukian, J.