Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Ct. No. SJ11236 Ernest Borunda, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Diego Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
IRION, J.
Patricia D. appeals a judgment of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to her minor son Eddie R. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Patricia challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) did not apply to preclude terminating her parental rights.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In October 2006 five-year-old Eddie became a dependent of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b) and was removed from parental custody based on findings that Patricia's mental illness prevented her from providing Eddie with regular care. The court placed Eddie in foster care and ordered reunification services for Patricia.
During the next six months, Patricia participated in therapy and although she was motivated to comply with her case plan, she remained challenged by her mental illness. During visits, Patricia was affectionate toward Eddie, but also tended to ignore him and failed to address his out of control behavior. She appeared to be speaking to "internal stimuli." In the social worker's opinion, Eddie would be at risk if returned to Patricia's care because she denied being mentally ill and was noncompliant with her medication. The court continued Eddie as a dependent in out-of-home care and ordered six more months of services for Patricia.
According to a report prepared for the 12-month review hearing, Patricia's mental health had stabilized because she was taking her medication. However, the social worker remained concerned about Patricia's ability to safely parent Eddie. During one visit, Patricia interacted appropriately with Eddie but during other visits she ignored him and appeared to be listening to internal stimuli. The court terminated Patricia's services and set a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing.
Eddie was assessed as adoptable because of his age and overall good health. His adult sister wanted to adopt him and there were five other families interested in adopting a child with Eddie's characteristics. In the social worker's opinion, Patricia and Eddie did not have a beneficial parent-child relationship that outweighed the benefits of adoption for Eddie.
At a contested selection and implementation hearing the court found Eddie was adoptable and none of the circumstances of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) applied to preclude terminating parental rights. Finding adoption was in Eddie's best interest, the court terminated Patricia's parental rights.
DISCUSSION
A
We review the judgment for substantial evidence. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576.) If, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court, we uphold those findings. We do not consider the credibility of witnesses, attempt to resolve conflicts in the evidence or evaluate the weight of the evidence. Instead, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, view the record favorably to the juvenile court's order, and affirm the order even if there is substantial evidence supporting a contrary finding. (In re Baby Boy L. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 596, 610.) The parent has the burden of showing there is no evidence of a sufficiently substantial nature to support the finding or order. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.)
"Adoption, where possible, is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 573.) If the court finds a child cannot be returned to his or her parent and is likely to be adopted if parental rights are terminated, it must select adoption as the permanent plan unless it finds termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child under one of six specified exceptions. (§ 366. 26, subd. (c)(1)(A)-(F); In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 401.)
Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) provides an exception to the adoption preference if termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child because "[t]he parents . . . have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." We have interpreted the phrase "benefit from continuing the relationship" to refer to a parent-child relationship 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 other words, 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." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575; accord, In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 811.)
To meet the burden of proof for this statutory exception, the parent must show more than frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits. (In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 827.) The parent "must show that he or she occupies a 'parental role' in the child's life," resulting in a "significant, positive, emotional attachment" from child to parent. (Ibid.; In re Elizabeth M. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.)
B
Although Patricia regularly visited Eddie, she did not meet her burden of showing their relationship was sufficiently beneficial to outweigh the benefits of adoption for him. Patricia's mental illness prevents her from providing appropriate care for Eddie or having a parental role in Eddie's life. Patricia was often inattentive to Eddie during visits and was unable to engage him or redirect his behavior. There was no evidence of a "significant, positive, emotional attachment" from Eddie to Patricia such that terminating the parent-child relationship would result in great detriment to Eddie. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) Rather, the evidence showed Eddie's need for permanence and stability through adoption outweighed any interest in preserving parental ties.
Where, as here, the biological parent does not fulfill a parental role, "the child should be given every opportunity to bond with an individual who will assume the role of a parent." (In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 854.) Substantial evidence supports the court's finding the exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) did not apply to preclude terminating Patricia's parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR McCONNELL, P. J., HALLER, J.