Opinion
D052155
4-18-2008
In re ADRIAN C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BEATRIZ C., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Beatriz C. appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights over Adrian C. and Gloria C. She contends the juvenile court erred by declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception to termination (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)). We affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
In January 2006 when Adrian was five years old and Gloria was three years old, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filed dependency petitions because Beatrizs boyfriend physically abused them, and Beatriz failed to protect them. The children were detained in foster homes and Polinsky Childrens Center. In April they were placed with maternal relatives who wish to adopt them. The section 366.26 hearing took place in November 2007.
DISCUSSION
Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) allows termination of parental rights upon clear and convincing evidence of adoptability. An exception exists if "[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).) 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 Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) The existence of this relationship is determined by "[t]he age of the child, the portion of the childs life spent in the parents custody, the positive or negative effect of interaction between parent and child, and the childs particular needs . . . ." (Id. at p. 576.) Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, we conclude that although Beatriz generally maintained regular visitation and contact, substantial evidence supports the finding she failed to meet her burden of showing a beneficial relationship. (Id. at pp. 576-577; In re Cristella C. (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1373.)
At the time of the section 366.26 hearing, Adrian was seven years old and Gloria was four and one-half years old. They had been out of Beatrizs custody for one year 10 months over the course of this case. Even before the dependency petitions were filed, they apparently lived with relatives for an undetermined period. When this case was initiated, the children were dirty and unkempt and had behavioral problems stemming from the abuse and neglect they suffered while in Beatrizs care. According to a psychologist who conducted a bonding study, the children appeared to be comfortable with Beatriz, but Adrians bond with her was "slight" and Glorias bond with her was "minimal." Beatriz loved the children and was affectionate and nurturing with them during her supervised visits, but the children were more strongly attached to their foster parents, with whom they had lived for more than one and one-half years. The foster parents provided the safety, structure, and boundaries they needed and were committed to helping them in every way possible. The childrens behavioral issues were gradually disappearing, and they wanted to stay in their foster home. Meanwhile, Beatriz had made minimal progress in understanding the impact of physical abuse and neglect on the children, and had married another violent man.
The juvenile court did not err by failing to apply section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A).
DISPOSITION
Judgment is affirmed.
We concur:
McCONNELL, P. J.
HUFFMAN, J.
Effective January 1, 2008, the Legislature amended and renumbered 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.