Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, No. NJ13072, Blaine K. Bowman, Judge.
IRION, J.
Isabel S. appeals an order terminating her parental rights to her son, Daniel S., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. She contends the beneficial parent/child relationship applies. We affirm the order.
Isabel is sometimes referred to in the record as Maria Isabel F.
Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Daniel S., now 11 years old, was removed from parental custody in March 2005 at age five because of his parents' severe and escalating pattern of domestic violence. His mother, Isabel, was diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder with schizophrenic symptoms. Daniel's father did not participate in the dependency proceedings.
Five-year-old Daniel was severely traumatized as a result of emotional and physical abuse and neglect. Daniel was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, reactive attachment disorder, cognitive disorder, possible bipolar disorder and borderline intellectual functioning. He had a history of fire setting, animal cruelty and verbal and physical aggression. After two unsuccessful foster care placements, Daniel was placed in a residential treatment facility. However, that placement was insufficient to meet his needs and Daniel was moved to a group home in February 2006.
Isabel visited Daniel throughout the 18-month reunification period. The social worker authorized one weekly supervised visit and one weekly unsupervised visit. Isabel attended only the unsupervised visit. Isabel and Daniel played games and talked. She overindulged Daniel with toys and candy. A clinical social worker noted that Isabel was very permissive and her parenting style was a poor match for Daniel's need for structure.
In October 2006, the court terminated Isabel's reunification services, selected Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) for Daniel, continued visitation services and ordered post-permanency therapeutic services for Isabel.
In April 2007, the social worker filed a section 388 petition seeking a supervised visitation order because of Isabel's erratic behavior. Isabel made statements that suggested she was delusional. She said she was going to work at the Pentagon and worried she would be assassinated, and the FBI and members of the press followed her by helicopter. Isabel told Daniel she had an important new job and promised him he could meet the President. She missed scheduled visits and demanded to see Daniel when she did not have an appointment, once at 5 a.m. Isabel denied any need for mental health treatment and said she had not taken any medication in three years.
Isabel's mania had a negative effect on Daniel. After visits with Isabel, Daniel became defiant, yelled, cursed, slammed his door, threw objects and destroyed property.
By December 2007 Daniel's behavior sufficiently stabilized to allow his placement in therapeutic foster care. Daniel liked living with the foster mother and exhibited only minor behavioral problems.
In May 2010, the social worker recommended the court set a section 366.26 hearing. Daniel had lived with his foster mother for two and a half years. She wanted to adopt him and had an approved adoptive home study. Daniel said he loved living in his foster home. He referred to the foster mother as his mother and to her children as his brother and sister. According to the foster mother, Daniel was cooperative and respectful. He responded well to firm, consistent limits.
Daniel continued to have supervised visitation with Isabel two hours twice a month. He enjoyed his visits. Isabel was unable to discipline Daniel. The visitation supervisor often intervened to keep Daniel's behavior from becoming unsafe.
The section 366.26 hearing was held on November 2, 2010. The court admitted the social worker's reports in evidence and heard testimony from Daniel, Isabel and the social worker.
The social worker reported that Daniel was doing well in the foster mother's home. The family referred to him as a family member and he referred to himself in the same manner. Isabel visited Daniel regularly. Isabel's primary goal was to make Daniel happy. The visitation supervisor monitored the visits closely because Isabel lacked the ability to discipline Daniel or set limits. At times, Daniel took advantage of Isabel and treated her disrespectfully.
The social worker acknowledged that Daniel wanted to continue to visit his mother. She had discussed the situation with the foster mother. The foster mother would like to continue Daniel's relationship with Isabel. However, the social worker doubted maintaining Daniel's relationship with Isabel was possible without social services because of Isabel's animosity toward the foster mother. The social worker told Daniel adoption meant he would continue to live with his foster mother and she would be his legal parent. The social worker talked to Daniel about the possibility he would no longer visit with Isabel. In July, Daniel said that would be "okay." In early October, when they discussed the issue again, Daniel wavered.
Daniel testified that he visited Isabel every Tuesday. They played games. He loved her and would like to keep visiting her. Daniel loved his foster mother, too. Daniel acknowledged his therapist talked to him about his foster mother becoming his legal parent. Daniel said that was "okay."
Isabel said she wanted to discipline Daniel but the visitation monitor always stepped in, corrected him and ignored her. She denied she had a mental illness and said she did not need any medication. Isabel said she was extremely close to Daniel.
Noting that the decision was difficult, the juvenile court found that Daniel needed the stability of adoption and terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Isabel contends the court erred when it terminated her parental rights. She argues termination of parental rights is detrimental to Daniel under the beneficial parent-child relationship exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
At a section 366.26 hearing, the court may select one of three permanency plans: adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care. (In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 296-297 (S.B.).) There is a strong preference for adoption over alternative permanency plans. (Id. at p. 297; San Diego County Dept. of Social Services v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 882, 888.) If the court determines the child is likely to be adopted, the burden shifts to the parent to show termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child under one of the exceptions listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1). (In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1343-1345.)
An exception to termination of parental rights exists when "[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)(B)(i).) "Benefit from continuing the relationship" means "the [parent-child] 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." (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 (Autumn H.).) The exception does not require proof the child has a " 'primary attachment' " to the parent or that the parent maintained day-to-day contact with the child. (S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 299; In re Brandon C. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1534-1538.)
Where the parent has continued to regularly visit and contact the child, and the child has maintained or developed a significant, positive, emotional attachment to the parent, "the court balances the strength and quality of the natural parent/child relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer. If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent's rights are not terminated." (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575 .)
Although the decision to terminate parental rights was a difficult one for the juvenile court, our task here is not as complicated. Under the appellate standard of review, if there is substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court's ruling, the reviewing court must affirm the court's rejection of the exceptions to termination of parental rights under section 366.26, subdivision (c). (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576; S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 298.) We determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the court's ruling by reviewing the evidence most favorably to the prevailing party and indulging in all legitimate and reasonable inferences to uphold the court's ruling. (In re Misako R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 538, 545.)
The record shows that Daniel was a special needs child who had no stability and normalcy in his life until he lived with his foster mother and her family. The foster mother provided him with the structure and guidance he needed to do well. At the time of the section 366.26 hearing, Daniel had lived with his foster mother and her family for three years and was integrated into the family. Daniel's therapist said Daniel was well-adjusted in his current foster home.
Although the record shows Daniel had a significant relationship with his mother, there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that it was not a parent/child relationship. The social worker stated Isabel's relationship with Daniel was more like a friend than a parent. Daniel treated his mother as if she were a friend. She could not set boundaries for him. Her focus at visits was on indulging Daniel, who needed stability and structure. During one visit, Daniel told her that she was the child, not him. Further, Isabel had ongoing mental health issues she was unable or unwilling to recognize or treat. When Isabel's mental health deteriorated, her erratic behaviors destabilized Daniel.
Daniel's overriding needs were for highly competent care, structure, consistency and a safe and permanent home. We disagree with Isabel's argument that Daniel's relationship with her was similar to the parent/child relationship in S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 298, in which this court reversed the finding that termination of parental rights would not be detrimental to the child. In that case, despite his own disabilities, the parent was consistently able to place his child's needs ahead of his own needs. (Ibid.) A more appropriate comparison is to In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, in which this court upheld an order terminating the parental rights of a mother who had maintained a significant relationship with her special needs child throughout the lengthy dependency proceedings. (Id. at pp. 219-220.) In that case, as here, the mother could not meet her child's special needs, and the child's special needs for a stable home and a highly competent caregiver outweighed any detriment caused by the termination of parental rights. (Id. at pp. 229-231.)
Similarly, here, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude that Daniel's needs for a high level of competent care, stability, safety and permanency outweighed any benefit he would gain by continuing his relationship with Isabel. Isabel's awareness of Daniel's need for emotional stability was limited. She asserted he was just a slow learner and his problems were caused by his removal from her home. In contrast, the foster mother set firm limits for Daniel, and he responded positively to her consistent care.
We conclude there is substantial evidence to support the finding that the benefit to Daniel of the security and the sense of belonging he had found in his foster family outweighed any benefit Daniel may have received from continuing his relationship with Isabel. (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575; see In re Dakota H., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 229-231.)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McDONALD, Acting P. J., AARON, J.