Opinion
2d Juv. No. B236438
02-14-2012
In the Matter of ANGEL G., A Minor.. HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MICHELLE R., Defendant and Appellant.
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Leroy Smith, County Counsel, County of Ventura, Thomas W. Temple, Deputy County Counsel, for 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule
(Super. Ct. No. J067790)
(Ventura County)
Michelle R. appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights and establishing adoption as the permanent plan for her two year old son, Angel G. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) Appellant contends that the order is not supported by the evidence and the parental benefit exception to adoption applies. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Factual and Procedural History
In April 2010, appellant left three-month-old Angel in the care of Angel's maternal grandmother who was a drug addict and abusive parent. Ventura County Human Services Agency (HSA) detained Angel on April 6, 2010, and filed a petition stating that appellant and Angel's father were abusing drugs and unable to protect and support the infant. (§ 300, subds. (b) & (g)). Father was on juvenile probation for grant theft auto and awaiting deportation. Appellant, a teenager, suffered from substance abuse problems and told HSA that she "is not ready to be a parent." Angel was placed with a foster family after appellant's maternal aunt stated that she was no longer willing to care for the infant.
On September 2, 2010, appellant, then 17 years old, was detained and placed in foster care following an altercation with Angel's maternal grandmother. Appellant went AWOL on September 28, 2010, returned on September 30, 2010, and absconded in October and December 2010. On December 9, 2010, appellant told the case worker that she was not ready to be a mother and wanted Angel to be adopted.
On January 3, 2011, HSA filed a section 388 petition to terminate reunification services because appellant was no longer interested in reunification services, had relapsed and was taking drugs with Angel's father. Appellant wanted Angel to be adopted. HSA reported that appellant "knows the baby's foster parents and knows that they love him and are providing him a good home. She has previously said that if she is not able to parent Angel [], she wants him to be adopted by them."
The trial court terminated reunification services at the 12-month review hearing and set the matter for a permanent placement hearing. At the August 25, 2011 section 366.26 hearing, HSA reported that Angel was adoptable, that the foster parents wanted to adopt, and that severing the ties between the foster parents and Angel would be detrimental to the child. The report stated that "the parents have not shown the ability to take care of their own needs such as housing and drug and alcohol issues, much less meet the needs of a child with medical problems."
Appellant submitted on the section 366.26 report.
Discussion
On review, we examine the record in a light most favorable to the findings and conclusions of the trial court and determine whether there is substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that supports the judgment. (In re Savannah M. (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1387, 1393; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.)
It is uncontroverted that appellant is unable to care for or support Angel and is no longer interested in reunification services. Appellant made no progress in dealing with her drug addiction, is not ready to be a mother, and wants Angel to be adopted. Angel has lived most of his life with his foster family who have bonded with him and are addressing Angel's special medical and developmental needs.
Appellant makes no showing that the order terminating parent rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan is not supported by the evidence. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)
Parental Relationship Exception
Appellant contends that the beneficial parental relationship exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) applies but waived the argument by failing to assert it at trial. (In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 403.) Waiver, aside, there is no evidence that appellant's relationship with Angel advanced beyond supervised visits. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.)
HSA reported that visits upset Angel and "the relationship between the child and parents is like that [of] a child and a baby sitter." Angel played with appellant during visitation, "but when he was hungry, he went to the foster parents to be fed." The case worker reported: "The child does not get upset when the visit is over but will waive goodbye and go with the community worker happily. The parents are not who the child goes to for soothing and comfort or when he has a need."
Substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that Angel is adoptable and deserves a stable home. (See e.g., In re C. F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 555.) Appellant's relationship with Angel bears no resemblance to the consistent, daily nurturing that marks a parental relationship. (In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 827.) "The reality is that childhood is brief; it does not wait until a parent rehabilitates himself or herself. The nurturing required must be given by someone, at the time the child needs it, not when the parent is ready to give it." (In re Debra M. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1032, 1038.)
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
YEGAN, J. We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
PERREN, J.
Tari L. Cody, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant.
Leroy Smith, County Counsel, County of Ventura, Thomas W. Temple, Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.