From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Jayla V.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Mar 14, 2008
No. D051618 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2008)

Opinion


In re JAYLA V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LISA M., Defendant and Appellant. D051618 California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, First Division March 14, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Super. Ct. No. J516005D Carol Isackson, Judge.

NARES, J.

Lisa M. appeals a judgment of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to her minor daughter, Jayla V., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Lisa 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. We affirm the judgment.

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.) The beneficial parent-child relationship exception, formerly section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) is now section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). Because the proceedings at issue here occurred before the statutory change, we refer to the earlier version of the statute.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In February 2006 10-month-old Jayla became a dependent of the juvenile court under section 300, subdivision (b) and was removed from Lisa's custody. The court found Lisa was not able to provide Jayla with adequate care because Lisa suffered from a mental illness and had suicidal tendencies. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) submitted reports indicating Lisa suffered from a long history of severe depression and self-mutilation. She last attempted to commit suicide within days before the Agency filed the aforementioned petition.

During the next six months, Lisa participated in weekly supervised visits with Jayla. She attended therapy once or twice a week but did not submit to a psychological evaluation. Lisa suffered from a substance abuse problem and tested positive for drug use. She admitted she felt suicidal and as a result, was hospitalized for a short period of time. After her release, she remained in a crisis center. At a six-month review hearing, the court continued services because of Lisa's attempts to participate in therapy and other services.

The social worker recommended terminating Lisa's services at the 12-month review hearing. Lisa continued her weekly visits with Jayla but was not enrolled in a treatment program and had not consistently participated in therapy for more than two months. Her psychological evaluation showed she suffered from bipolar disorder and polysubstance dependence. The psychologist believed Lisa would present a moderate to high risk to Jayla because of her current mental state. At the 12-month review hearing, the court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing.

The social worker assessed Jayla as adoptable based on her good health, lack of behavioral problems, pleasant personality, and normal development. Jayla had bonded with her caregivers and the caregivers wanted to adopt Jayla. There were numerous other families interested in adopting a child like Jayla in the event the caregivers became unable to adopt.

Lisa's visits with Jayla initially were consistent. During the 12-month reunification period, Lisa had weekly supervised visits with Jayla. After the court terminated services, Lisa missed her visits with Jayla. When Lisa did visit, Lisa was affectionate toward Jayla and generally the visits went well. However, Jayla separated easily from Lisa and showed no signs of distress. The social worker reiterated that Jayla had bonded with her caregivers and called them "mom" and "dad." In the social worker's opinion, Lisa and Jayla did not have a beneficial parent-child relationship. Jayla had been out of Lisa's care for more than half of her life and Jayla needed the stability and consistency provided by adoption.

Lisa did not testify at the selection and implementation hearing, but the parties stipulated if Lisa were called to testify she would state that she loved Jayla, maintained regular visits and opposed Jayla's adoption. The court found Lisa did not regularly visit Jayla or share a parental bond with Jayla. The court further found Jayla was adoptable and none of the exceptions of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) applied to preclude terminating parental rights. Lisa timely filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

Lisa 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. She asserts she regularly visited Jayla and shared a parental relationship with her.

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 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

During the reunification period of the dependency proceeding, Lisa participated in supervised visits with Jayla on a weekly basis. Once the court terminated services, Lisa discontinued visits. The court determined Lisa did not visit Jayla on a regular basis. Even if Lisa's visitation is considered to be regular, Lisa did not meet her burden of showing her relationship with Jayla was sufficiently beneficial to outweigh the benefits of adoption. Although Lisa was affectionate toward Jayla during visits and the visits they shared were appropriate, Lisa did not occupy a parental role in Jayla's life. Jayla was not adversely affected when visits ended and, instead, she was eager to return to her caregivers, whom she referred to as "mom" and "dad." There was no evidence of a "significant, positive, emotional attachment" from Jayla to Lisa such that terminating the parent-child relationship would result in great detriment to Jayla. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) Rather, the evidence showed Jayla's need for permanence and stability through adoption after spending more than half of her life as a dependent 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.) Jayla, whose needs Lisa could not meet, deserves to have her custody status promptly resolved and her placement made permanent and secure. Substantial evidence supports the court's finding the exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) did not apply to preclude terminating parental rights.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: McConnell, P. J., HUFFMAN, J.


Summaries of

In re Jayla V.

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division
Mar 14, 2008
No. D051618 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2008)
Case details for

In re Jayla V.

Case Details

Full title:SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, Plaintiff and…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

Date published: Mar 14, 2008

Citations

No. D051618 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2008)