Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SJ11517 A-B, Hideo Chino, Judge.
IRION, J.
Sabrina R. appeals judgments terminating her parental rights to her children, Alejandro A. and Alexis A. She contends the juvenile court erred by terminating her parental rights because she proved the beneficial parent-child exception to adoption of Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) applied. We affirm.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
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.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 30, 2005, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) petitioned under section 300, subdivision (b) on behalf of three-year-old Alejandro and one-year-old Alexis, alleging Sabrina used alcohol to excess; the children were dirty and behind in their immunizations; and Sabrina had not complied with a voluntary services plan.
In July 2005 the Agency had received a referral alleging physical abuse by Sabrina. Addressing the referral, Sabrina agreed to a voluntary services contract. Sabrina said she had been diagnosed with depression, but was not taking medication. The social worker reported when she visited the home, Sabrina appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. At the time, the children's father, Daniel A., was incarcerated for domestic violence and possession of firearms.
In November 2005 the court sustained the petitions, declared the children to be dependents of the court, ordered the parents to comply with the requirements of their case plans, ordered liberal supervised visitation and ordered Sabrina to enroll in the Substance Abuse Recovery Management System (SARMS).
The social worker reported the children were placed together in foster care and were having regular supervised visits with their parents. Sabrina enrolled in SARMS and other services and began making progress. At the six-month review hearing in May 2006, the court found the parents had made minimal progress and ordered services be extended for six months.
In October 2006 the social worker reported Sabrina had been arrested for stealing from the maternal grandmother. The maternal grandmother said Sabrina had been using illegal drugs. The parents were visiting the children, but were not participating in other services. In July 2006 Sabrina was terminated from the SARMS program. Alejandro had bad nightmares after visits and hit other children, and Alexis also was reported to be hitting other children.
At the 12-month hearing in January 2007, the court found returning the children to their parents would cause a substantial risk of detriment to them, and there was no possibility of return within the next six months. It terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
The social worker reported the children were adoptable because of their young ages, good development and engaging personalities. She said their behavioral issues could be addressed in therapy. Their caregivers expressed interest in adopting them, and 10 approved adoptive families in San Diego were interested in adopting siblings like Alejandro and Alexis. The social worker described numerous visits the children had with the parents and said the parents engaged with the children, played with them and brought them toys and snacks. The children separated from the parents without crying. She testified it was apparent that the parents loved the children, but opined the relationships they had did not rise to the level of parent-child relationships. In August the social worker reported the visitation center had stopped supervising visits because Sabrina had cancelled several visits and did not appear for others. When Sabrina did not come to the visit scheduled for July 12, 2007, Alejandro told Alexis, "Mom doesn't want to see us anymore."
At the section 366.26 hearing in August 2007, the court considered the evidence and counsels' argument, terminated parental rights and referred the children for adoptive placement.
DISCUSSION
Sabrina contends the court erred in terminating her parental rights because she proved the beneficial parent-child exception to adoption of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) applied in this case.
Adoption is the permanent plan favored by the Legislature. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573.) If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a child is adoptable, it becomes the parents' burden to show termination of parental rights would be detrimental because one of the specified exceptions of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) exists. (Id. at p. 574.) Under the exception in subdivision (c)(1)(A), the parent must show termination would be detrimental in that "[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." In In re Brandon C. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1534, the court noted "[c]ourts have required more than just 'frequent and loving contact' to establish the requisite benefit for [the exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A)]."
In In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th, at pages 575-577, this court found substantial evidence to support an order terminating parental rights. This court stated:
"In the context of the dependency scheme prescribed by the Legislature, we interpret the 'benefit from continuing the [parent/child] relationship' exception to mean the relationship 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." (Id. at p. 575.)
In reviewing whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court's finding, the appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the court's order, giving the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in support of the order. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.)
Even assuming that Sabrina met the first prong of the beneficial parent-child relationship exception by showing she maintained regular visitation and contact, she did not show she had parental relationships with Alejandro and Alexis so beneficial that maintaining them would outweigh the benefit to the children of adoption. Sabrina's visits with the children remained supervised. The social worker opined her relationship with the children was not a parental one, but more like that of another relative or a babysitter. The court was entitled to rely on the social worker's opinion. (See In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1420-1421.) Furthermore, Sabrina did not show that maintaining the relationship would benefit the children more than the stability of an adoptive home. The children had been dependents of the juvenile court for nearly two years and were in need of a permanent adoptive home. Sabrina did not show her relationship with the children would promote their well-being "to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being [they] would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.)
DISPOSITION
The judgments are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., AARON, J.