Opinion
Page 270d
105 Cal.App.4th 270d ___Cal.Rptr.2d___ In re ERIK P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SAMPHAN P., Defendant and Appellant. H024037 California Court of Appeal, Sixth District January 15, 2003[Modification of opinion (104 Cal.App.4th 395; 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 922) on denial of petition for rehearing.]
This modification requires the movement of text affecting pages 401-405 of the bound volume report.
OPINION
RUSHING, J.
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on December 16, 2002, be modified as follows:
1. On page 5 [104 Cal.App.4th 401, advance report], after the subheading " Section 366.26, subdivision (c) (1) (E) Exception," add as footnote 2 the following footnote. The subheading will read as follows:
Section 366.26, subdivision (c) (1) (E) Exception2
2While the father does not specifically invoke the section 366.26, subdivision (c) (1) (E) exception, he raises the sibling relationship issue, citing sections 361.2 and 362.1, and contends that the juvenile court erred in not considering this relationship prior to terminating parental rights. The issues before the court at a section 366.26 hearing are limited to the questions of whether the child is adoptable and whether there is a statutory exception to adoption. (Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 250, 254 [19 Cal.Rptr.2d 698].) Because we have already determined that the sibling relationship has no bearing on the question of adoptability, we must next determine to what extent the sibling relationship provided a basis to invoke the statutory exception to adoption. There is no other vehicle by which the father can raise the sibling relationship to argue that the juvenile court erred in terminating parental rights.
All following footnotes are to be renumbered accordingly.
There is no change in the judgment.
Page 270e
Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.
Premo, Acting P. J., and Elia, J., concurred.