Opinion
D042412.
11-25-2003
In re HUNTER K., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ANN S., Defendant and Appellant.
Ann S. appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights to her son, Hunter K., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Ann contends the court erred in terminating her parental rights because she established she had a beneficial relationship with Hunter within the meaning of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A). We affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In December 2001, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) removed four-year-old Hunter, who is autistic, from Anns custody and filed a section 300 petition on his behalf because Anns alcoholism rendered her unable to care for him. In January 2002, the court made a true finding on the petition, ordered reunification services, and placed Hunter with his maternal grandmother. At the December 12-month review hearing, the court terminated reunification services and scheduled a section 366.26 hearing because Ann had made minimal progress in alleviating the causes that led to the dependency.
At the June 2003 section 366.26 hearing, the court found Hunter was adoptable. Finding none of the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) exceptions applied, the court terminated parental rights.
DISCUSSION
Ann argues the court erred when it terminated her parental rights because she had a beneficial relationship with Hunter within the meaning of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A).
A
The issue of sufficiency of the evidence in dependency cases is governed by the same rules that apply to other appeals. If there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the juvenile court, we uphold those findings. (In re Brandon C. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1534.) We do not evaluate the credibility of witnesses, reweigh the evidence, or resolve evidentiary conflicts. Rather, we draw all reasonable inferences in support of the findings, consider the record most favorably to the juvenile courts order and affirm the order if it is supported by substantial evidence, even if other evidence supports a contrary conclusion. (In re Baby Boy L. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 596, 610.) The appellant has the burden of showing the finding or order is not supported by substantial evidence. (In re Geoffrey G. (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 412, 420.)
B
"Adoption, where possible, is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature." (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 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 would be detrimental to the child under one of five specified exceptions. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) applies 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."
Because the court concluded Ann regularly visited Hunter, we need not address Anns argument that she met that prong of the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) exception and examine only whether she demonstrated she had a beneficial relationship with the child. 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 parents rights are not terminated." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.)
To meet the burden of proof for this statutory exception, the parent must show more than frequent and loving contact or pleasant visits with the children. (In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 827.) "Interaction between natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child. . . . The relationship arises from day-to-day interaction, companionship and shared experiences." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) The parent must show he or she occupies a parental role in the childs life, resulting in a significant, positive emotional attachment between child and parent. (Ibid.; In re Elizabeth M. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.)
Although the social worker believed Hunter had a relationship with Ann, to succeed on appeal, Ann must demonstrate the court erred in determining that the benefit Hunter gained from that relationship was outweighed by the benefits he gained from adoption. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) Ann has a severe alcohol problem. She began drinking in 1984. She admitted she drank until she passed out and that alcohol was her "medication." At the time the Agency removed Hunter from her custody, her blood-alcohol level was .23 percent. Between June and December 2002, Hunters grandmother refused to allow Ann to enter her home on multiple occasions because Ann was intoxicated. One social worker believed Ann was drunk during several telephone conversations because Anns speech was notably slurred.
Ann refused to participate in any of the treatment options provided to her by the social worker. The social worker believed she was unwilling to treat her chronic alcoholism and had not demonstrated an ability to remain sober for a long period of time despite her participation in several treatment programs. Although Ann asserts the social worker was factually mistaken about her treatment of her alcoholism, we infer the court found the social worker to be credible, a determination we do not reweigh. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52-53.)
Ann also has panic attacks, chronic mild depression, and a personality disorder. Shortly after Hunters removal, she was admitted to the hospital after attempting suicide by taking alcohol and pills. A psychologist who evaluated her in April 2002 believed she was psychologically immature. She had extremely low self-esteem, a distorted self-image, and severely impaired interpersonal relationships. The psychologist doubted Ann was sober and was concerned about her past treatment failures. He believed she had a low capacity to tolerate any stress and one source of her chronic alcoholism was her ongoing attempts to self medicate the overwhelming feelings that "plague[d]" her.
Additionally, Ann typically became involved with men who had significant mental illness and substance abuse issues. Anns boyfriend at the time of Hunters removal had a history of alcohol abuse. She was still involved with him in June 2003. Hunters father was also an alcoholic. Because Ann had chronic untreated alcohol problems, mental health issues, and became involved with men who had mental illness and substance abuse issues, the court could correctly conclude Hunter benefited more from being adopted than he did from maintaining a relationship with Ann.
Further, the social worker believed the relationship Hunter had with Ann did not outweigh the benefit he would gain from adoption. She also believed Anns lack of sobriety and contact with Hunter in the 18 months preceding the section 366.26 hearing impacted what she knew about Hunter and how she interacted with him. Ann introduced no contrary evidence.
Moreover, because Hunter is severely autistic, he is particularly vulnerable and needs stable, constant, and reliable care, which he received from his grandmother. Although his prognosis for long-term improvement is poor, he has made some progress since being placed with his grandmother. He could dress himself, brush his teeth, and follow simple and clear commands. He was beginning to use sign language and communicate with pictures. His grandmother was devoted to his well-being and advocated on his behalf. Given Hunters special needs and his grandmothers ability to take care of him, the court could properly conclude it was more beneficial for him to be adopted than to maintain a legal relationship with Ann. Substantial evidence supports the courts finding that the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) exception did not apply.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McCONNELL, P. J., NARES, J. --------------- Notes: All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.