Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK54294 Robert L. Stevenson, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
M. Elizabeth Handy, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, Kim Nemoy, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
BOREN, P.J.
Elaine A. (Mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights, after the dependency court found that the children are likely to be adopted by their maternal grandmother, who has taken care of them for over four years. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) The order is supported by the record. Accordingly, we affirm.
All further statutory references in this opinion are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The background leading to this appeal is described in detail in our prior opinion, In re J.G., Jr., filed December 13, 2007, B197004 (nonpub.). We begin by quoting the facts from that opinion.
“This appeal concerns Mother’s five children: [J.Jr.] (born in 1997); [D.] (born in 2000); [S.] (born in 2002); [Baby J.] (born in 2003); and [Baby S.] (born in 2006). The family came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in May 2003, when it received a child abuse referral. During interviews, [J.Jr.] and [D.] indicated that they were being battered by their father, Jaime G. (Father). DCFS instituted a voluntary family maintenance plan, and was monitoring the family when [Baby J.] was born in October 2003. During a visit on December 29, 2003, a DCFS social worker observed that Mother was cut and bruised, after being punched in the face and beaten by Father on December 25 and December 27.
“On December 31, 2003, DCFS received another referral regarding the family. Two-month-old [Baby J.] was hospitalized, on a respirator, after suffering full cardiac arrest. [Baby J.]’s injuries were consistent with shaken baby syndrome. He had retinal hemorrhages, skull fractures, and leg and rib fractures that were sustained three weeks earlier. He had no brain activity. An MRI showed that his brain was bleeding; he required brain surgery, a feeding tube, and a tracheotomy. His prognosis was poor.
“[Baby J.]’s doctor told the social worker that Mother seemed unconcerned about [Baby J.]’s critical condition: when informed that [Baby J.] could die or be mentally impaired, Mother was ‘uninterested.’ Mother readily admitted to the social worker that Father beat her and the children. She ‘was afraid that father would physically harm her and the children if she reported that father was responsible for [Baby J.]’s condition.’ Mother lied to medical personnel about [Baby J.]’s injuries. In truth, Father had given [Baby J.] a bath while the infant screamed and cried. Soon afterward, Father told her that [Baby J.] had stopped breathing.
“[S.] was hospitalized for an infected skin rash and malnutrition. Relatives stated that [S.]’s skin has been infected ‘since birth.’ The two boys were placed in foster care. [J.Jr.] informed the DCFS social worker that Father struck him with a belt or shoe on a daily basis, and hit Mother ‘all over her body.’ He saw Father strike [S.] in the stomach when she cried. [D.] similarly stated that Father hit him ‘all over.’
“A dependency petition was filed on January 5, 2004. It alleged physical abuse of the children by Father; Mother’s failure to protect them; and violent altercations between the parents in the presence of the children. The court found a prima facie case for detaining the children. Mother denied the allegations in the petition. She was ordered to participate in domestic violence counseling, parenting, and individual counseling, and was given monitored visitation. Father signed a written statement during his interview with the sheriff’s department, saying it ‘is possible’ that he shook [Baby J.]. Mother and Father were arrested in February 2004 for child cruelty.
“An amended petition was filed on February 6, 2004. The court sustained the allegations of the amended petition in March 2004, finding that Father and Mother engaged in violent altercations in the presence of the children; that Father inflicted severe physical abuse on a child under the age of five; and that Mother gave false and misleading information to medical personnel regarding the child’s injuries. The parental conduct creates a detrimental home environment and places the children at risk of physical and emotional harm, danger or death.
“Mother underwent a psychological evaluation in April 2004. She disclosed a ‘long history of domestic violence’ during childhood, including physical, mental and emotional abuse. Her mother told her, ‘if someone loves you, it’s okay if they hit you.’ Mother adopted the same attitude in her relationship with Father. Mother met Father when she was 14; he began abusing her at 15, hitting her with open and closed fists and kicking her. Father abused [J.Jr.], and after a significant period of abuse, [J.Jr.] became fearful of Father and refused to speak in Father’s presence. Father also abused [D.], who stopped speaking in Father’s presence. Mother described [D.] as ‘emotionally dysfunctional.’ Mother did not bond with [S.] and as a result, [S.] is emotionally disturbed, withdrawn and nonverbal. Mother reported having ‘no relationship’ with [Baby J.], who was largely unfed and neglected. He did not gain weight after his birth, due to Mother’s neglect. Mother did not take [Baby J.] to the hospital because she feared hospital staff would inquire about her bruises and contact DCFS. Mother did not seek medical treatment for [S.]’s skin infection.
“When DCFS opened a case on the family in 2003, due to the child abuse referral, Mother did not follow recommendations to have family counseling. On December 31, 2003, Father brought [Baby J.] into her room and announced that the baby was not breathing. Mother did not want to disclose that Father had injured [Baby J.] because she was worried about the safety of the other children. Mother felt ‘at peace’ because the children are now in foster care and ‘no longer suffering.’
“Mother informed the psychological evaluator that she abused methamphetamines for 18 years, and used the drug shortly before [Baby J.] was attacked by Father in December 2003. She also abuses alcohol. She has a criminal record for grand theft, assault with a deadly weapon, identity theft, and children endangerment, for which she was in custody. The evaluator described Mother’s situation as ‘all too familiar’: fear of Father caused her to be unable to attend the needs of her children. In addition, Mother suffers from depression and substance abuse, which prevent her from properly caring for the children. Mother’s background disposes her to accept domestic violence. Despite DCFS intervention starting in May 2003, Mother failed to disclose Father’s abuse. Mother cannot reunify unless she addresses her mental illness, her drug addition, and her beliefs about domestic violence. She requires parenting classes, domestic violence classes, and family counseling.
“On May 20, 2004, the court conducted a disposition hearing. It declared the children dependents of the juvenile court. The three older children were placed with their maternal grandmother, Mrs. Martinez. Mother waived reunification services. The court denied services to both parents, and set a permanent placement hearing.
“In a November 2004 status report, DCFS stated that [J.Jr.], [D.] and [S.] were with Mrs. Martinez, who was providing excellent care and supervision, and a safe and stable home environment. [Baby J.] was still hospitalized. He was making significant progress, smiling and showing interest in his environment, but he functions significantly below his age level. None of the children had face-to-face contact with their incarcerated parents, though they spoke to Mother by telephone on two occasions in August 2004. Mrs. Martinez expressed a desire to adopt all of the children, and to have training to handle [Baby J.]’s special needs. Mother wrote a letter to the court expressing her love for the children and her intention to change her life for them. Her expected release date from prison was March 14, 2005. The court ordered permanent placement services and a home study report to determine whether the children could be adopted by Mrs. Martinez.
“In February 2005, DCFS submitted a supplemental report to enable the court to select a permanent plan. Mother wrote a letter indicating that she started anger management classes in November 2004, and was enrolled in substance abuse and parenting classes. The court set the matter for a contested permanent placement hearing.
“An August 2005 report from DCFS disclosed that Mother was staying in contact with Father. In a letter that was intercepted, Mother wrote to Father that they must keep their contacts secret so that the court would give her custody of the children. Mother revealed that she had lied to her attorney by denying having contact with Father. Mother expressed her hope to see Father, describing their relationship as ‘secret lovers.’ She added, ‘my choice [is] to keep you in my life.’ Upon her release from prison, Mother intended to rent a post office box so that she and Father could secretly correspond. Because Mother’s priority was to maintain a relationship with Father, DCFS recommended that her parental rights be terminated because reunification would place the children at risk of physical and emotional harm.
“Mother was released from prison in March 2005. She began visiting the children once a week, for eight hours, at the home of her mother, Mrs. Martinez. Mrs. Martinez was providing excellent care for the older children, whom she wished to adopt. In May 2005, the court ordered DCFS to perform a new adoptive home study.
“In November 2005, DCFS reported that Mother was five months pregnant and in a new abusive relationship. She briefly visited the Martinez home in October 2005, sporting two black eyes. This was Mother’s only visit with the children in several months. Mother was rearrested on October 22, 2005 for failing a drug test, in violation of her parole. DCFS reported that [J.Jr.] and [D.] were receiving weekly counseling sessions to address behaviors associated with past neglect and domestic violence. [Baby J.] remained in the hospital on tracheal and feeding tubes, and had significant mental and physical delays and disabilities. His family rarely visits him. Mrs. Martinez asked to adopt the children, who were happy in her care and were being provided with all of their needs in a safe, stable, and nurturing home environment.
“In February 2006, DCFS reported that Mother had not been in contact with or seen the children since her arrest in October 2005. She remained incarcerated. Mrs. Martinez had equipped her residence with a wheelchair ramp, special shower and bedroom for [Baby J.], but he was not ready to be discharged from the hospital.
“On February 24, 2006, DCFS filed another dependency petition regarding Mother’s newborn child, [Baby S.]. The petition alleged that Mother was incarcerated and unable to provide the infant with care; that Mother has a history of illicit drug use that renders her incapable of providing regular care and supervision; and that Mother has a criminal conviction for child cruelty, which endangers [Baby S.]’s safety. The petition also alleges that [Baby S.]’s father, Frank H., has a history of convictions for illicit drug use that prevents him from providing regular care for [Baby S.]. Frank H. was arrested for a parole violation while driving without a license in a car that contained methamphetamines and a knife. Mother was in the car with Frank H. at the time of his arrest. The court found a prima facie case for detaining [Baby S.], who was placed with Mrs. Martinez.
“At hearings on March 14 and April 11, 2006, Mother was still incarcerated. Despite receiving a four-year prison term for grand theft auto and drug possession, Frank H. expressed his desire to have custody of [Baby S.]. The petition was adjudicated as to Mother on May 10, 2006, and she submitted on the basis of the DCFS report. The court sustained allegations regarding Mother’s drug use and her failure to reunify with her four other children. Mother was released from prison the same day that the petition was adjudicated.
“On May 18, 2006, DCFS reported that the children were thriving and bonded with Mrs. Martinez, who wished to adopt them. [Baby J.] was still hospitalized. The children had not seen Mother since October 21, 2005. At the disposition hearing, [Baby S.] was declared a dependent of the court. The court terminated Mother’s reunification services as to [Baby S.], finding no substantial probability that any of the children would be returned to Mother’s custody within six months.
“In July 2006, DCFS gave a positive assessment of the Martinez family as a prospective adoptive home. [D.] and [J.Jr.] both expressed a desire to be adopted by the Martinezes. Mother started having daily monitored visits with the children. Mother brought a petition for modification in October 2006, seeking to have the children placed in her care because she visited the children regularly, had ‘learned from her mistakes,’ and was taking court-ordered programs. She had completed an antitheft counseling course.
“In October 2006, DCFS reported that [Baby J.] had recently had his tracheotomy tube removed for the first time. Mother was visiting the children practically every day at the Martinez residence, and was visiting [Baby J.] at the hospital nearly every weekend. She ate dinner with the older children and helped them with their homework. The Martinez family was assessed as an excellent adoptive home for [J.Jr.], [D.] and [S.] The Martinezes did not feel that they could give [Baby J.] the attention and quality of care that he needs at this time.
“In interviews conducted in November 2006, [J.Jr.] told the social worker that he did not want to live with Mother again ‘because I don’t want to end up in the same problem as before.’ [D.] said that he wanted to live with Mother because she ‘cares about him.’ Mrs. Martinez opposed Mother’s effort to reunify with the children. She noted that Mother came to her house regularly, but would log onto the computer and not pay much attention to the children. Also, Mother announced that she had gotten drunk one night. Mr. Martinez also opposed Mother’s reunification because she was not ready to take care of the children, and because Mother was likely to spend all of her time with Frank H. upon his release from prison. Mother has not completed any courses since May 2006, when she was released after 16 months in jail and prison. She attended a few parenting sessions in May and June 2006, then stopped. She participated in three Narc-Anon sessions in September and October 2006. DCFS recommended that the children remain with the Martinezes.
“The contested modification hearing was conducted in December 2006. The DCFS social worker testified that Mother’s parental rights should be terminated and the Martinez grandparents should adopt the children because Mother has not demonstrated that she can take care of them. The children have been in a stable situation for over two years with the Martinezes, and Mother is not psychologically ready to have her children returned to her. Mother has not done any testing, and it is unclear whether she still has a substance abuse problem. It is also unclear whether Mother has addressed domestic violence issues. The Martinezes will allow Mother to have access to the children after they are adopted. [J.Jr.] informed the social worker that he did not want to be returned to Mother’s care. The social worker does not believe that Mother could protect the children from Father.
“Mother’s counselor testified that Mother was referred for antitheft counseling in June 2006. The goal was to increase Mother’s self-esteem and have her acknowledge her crime, so that she would not re-offend. Mother talks about her children and her drug abuse, and hopes to pull her life together. The counselor felt that the children could be returned to Mother. The counselor was not providing Mother with domestic violence or drug counseling.
“Mother testified that she was incarcerated in county and state custody for children endangerment and for theft. She took parenting classes and a drug program during her incarceration. She also attended parenting classes after she was paroled. She claims to have completed a domestic violence course in 2005. Mother admitted to using methamphetamines in the past; she stated that her last use was in February 2004. She is being tested for drug use as a condition of her parole, and attends Narc-Anon and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Apart from the antitheft counseling, she meets with her pastor and her children’s counselor. She enrolled in community college, and started a new job as an insurance customer service representative in November 2006.
“Mother acknowledged that [Baby J.] is hospitalized and requires extensive care. She admitted that she initially lied about his injuries. She receives training from the hospital staff to take care of [Baby J.]. Mother visits [Baby J.] five times weekly and the other children she sees daily. She feeds, bathes, dresses, encourages, and does homework with them. She communicates with their teachers to see how they are doing in school. Mother feels guilt and remorse that her irresponsible choices in life have hurt others, especially her children. Mother has no intention of resuming her relationship with Father; however, she remains in contact with [Baby S.]’s father, Frank H., who is incarcerated. Mother evaded a question whether she intends to resume her relationship with Frank H. after his release.
“Mother was diagnosed with cervical and thyroid cancer during her incarceration, which has caused her to re-evaluate her life. The children want to live with her, and she hopes for eventual reunification once she has housing and more stability. Mother conceded that [J.Jr.] is afraid to live with her due to the traumatic environment she previously created for him. Mother also conceded that she wrote a letter to Father describing their relationship as ‘secret lovers’ at a time when she was taking parenting and domestic violence classes. Mother called the letter ‘a big lie.’ She is not ready to take care of the children, and only seeks to have reunification services.
“The court found that there are ‘changing circumstances’ but not ‘actually changed circumstances.’ Despite several parenting programs, Mother ‘has really not demonstrated, as far as the court is concerned, that she has really made substantive changes in her core feelings and abilities to properly understand what it takes to be a parent.’ While Mother feels remorse and is ‘trying very hard to be a parent to these children,’ the children have been living with their maternal grandmother for most of their lives, ‘and this is where their home is. This is where they are attached, and these are [ ] the people that would like to try to adopt them.’ The court found that Mother was dishonest with respect to the incident when [Baby J.] was injured and continued to be dishonest about the loving letter she wrote to Father in 2005. Even if the court were to find that Mother has made a showing of changed circumstances, it did not find that modification would be in the best interests of the children. The court denied Mother’s petition.”
Mother pursued an appeal from the trial court’s denial of her petition for a modification (see fn. 2, ante). We affirmed the order because Mother failed to prove changed circumstances, noting that “[i]t is too soon to say that Mother is committed to making permanent changes in her life that would justify reunification services, many years after those services were denied due to Mother’s patent unfitness to parent or protect her children.” We concluded that “The children have enjoyed years of safety and stability in the home of their maternal grandmother, Mrs. Martinez. She has fostered their well-being and they are bonded with her. Given Mother’s long history of substance abuse, and her long-standing acceptance of domestic violence, these are not problems that are easily remedied to ensure the children’s safety in her care. Mother concedes that she is still in transition and does not seek custody, even after the children have spent four years in the dependency system. The primary consideration is ensuring stability and continuity for the children after significant time has passed away from Mother’s custody. [Citation.] Mother has not rebutted the presumption that continued foster care—and likely adoption—is in the best interests of the children.”
We now recount the events that have occurred since the trial court ruled on Mother’s petition for a modification.
In February 2007, DCFS submitted a report in advance of the selection and implementation hearing for one-year-old Baby S. Baby S. has been living since birth with her siblings at the home of their grandmother, Mrs. Martinez, to whom she is closely bonded. The Martinezes have completed all of the adoption home study requirements, are providing Baby S. with a loving home, and have the financial means, skill and interest to parent her. Mother visits Baby S. weekly and on holidays; however, Mother’s visits are “problematic in that the mother has become argumentative with the prospective adoptive parent in front of her child.” DCFS recommended that parental rights be terminated.
In interim review reports regarding J.Jr., D., S. and Baby J., DCFS reiterated that the Martinezes “have completed all of the home study requirements” for adoption. Since her most recent release from prison in May 2006, Mother “has not completed any classes that would show she is serious about getting her children back.” The adoption home study was approved on April 23, 2007. The caseworker opined that the caregivers “are providing excellent care and supervision . . . with a safe and stable home and environment . . . .” The children are happy with their grandparents and “would like to continue to remain with them.” It was hoped that the Martinezes would eventually be able to care for Baby J., who is still in a medical facility.
In an April 2007 status review report, DCFS noted that the three oldest children have been with the Martinezes since May 2004. The fathers of all five children are incarcerated. Mother was visiting the children daily at the Martinez residence, helping with their homework and eating dinner with them. She also visits Baby J. after work and sometimes on weekends. J.Jr. (age 9) and D. (age 7) told the social worker that they wanted to be adopted by the Martinezes. S. (age 4) said she wanted “to live with her grandmother and grandfather forever.” Baby J. (age 3) and Baby S. (age 1) were not able to make statements about their needs. Baby J. is making progress, but remains nonambulatory, nonverbal, incontinent, and is fed by a G-tube. He is diagnosed with cerebral palsy, epilepsy and esophageal disorders.
After many continuances, a contested hearing was conducted on January 17, 2008, to select a permanent plan. At that time, it came to light that the Martinezes had divorced; however, the home study was amended and approved by DCFS to allow Mrs. Martinez to adopt the children as a single applicant.
At the hearing, Mrs. Martinez testified that she wants to adopt all five children. She is willing to receive medical training to take care of Baby J. Mrs. Martinez stated that Mother lives 10 to 15 minutes away and comes to visit the children at Mrs. Martinez’s home “almost every day,” though sometimes she visits Baby J. at his medical facility instead. Mother mostly pays attention to Baby S., and very little attention to the other children. When she has time, Mother likes to accompany Mrs. Martinez to take the children to school. She helps the girls get dressed in the morning. Mother converses with the children’s teachers and pays attention to their education. She helps Mrs. Martinez bathe Baby S. and S. in the evenings and sometimes helps with homework. Mother “is constantly on her cell phone when she comes over [ ] talking to [Baby S.]’s father.” Although the children call Mother “mother or mom,” Mrs. Martinez believes that they look to both her and Mother as their parent. Mrs. Martinez stated that her relationship with Mother is “not too good.”
Mother testified that after her release from custody in May 2006, she moved in with Mrs. Martinez and spent the entire day with the children, attending to all of their needs, interacting with them in their games, and helping with homework. She participates in their schooling, attending field trips, meetings, and back-to-school nights. Mother recognizes that Baby J. has special needs because he cannot speak, walk, or eat without a feeding tube. She has received some training to take care of Baby J. Mother initially visited Baby J. daily; however, she cut back while undergoing cancer treatment, which created an impediment to visiting. Since December 2007, she has resumed work and visits Baby J. Mother is opposed to the termination of her parental rights. The children refer to her as their mother and she wants to provide for all of their emotional and physical needs. She has a mother-child bond with them.
Mother acknowledged that Baby J.’s condition arose “because I failed to protect him” from Father. She also acknowledged that she wrote to Father in 2005, telling him that they had to hide their relationship from others, so Mother could regain custody of the children. Mother professes that her feelings toward Father “have changed. I have no feelings towards him. I only see him as a man that I had children with. As far as ever making anything with him, I don’t think so.” It was stipulated that J.Jr. and D., if called to testify, would state that they wanted to be adopted by Mrs. Martinez.
The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the children are adoptable, and J.Jr. and D. want to be adopted. The court found that Mother has never been “straight with the court” and lacks credibility, noting that “I don’t believe most of what you have said. You have lied to the court before.” It was unclear how much Mother really visited, because her testimony was inconsistent. In any event, visitation was not enough. The court could not find that termination would be detrimental to the children. Mrs. Martinez has provided the children with daily nurturing for four years. The court terminated the parental rights of Mother, Father, and Frank H.
DISCUSSION
Mother appeals from the termination of her parental rights. On appeal, we determine if there is any substantial evidence to support the conclusions of the juvenile court. All conflicts are resolved in favor of the prevailing party and all legitimate inferences are drawn to uphold the lower court’s ruling. (In re Josue G. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 725, 732; In re Brison C. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1378-1379.) We cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. (In re Jamie R. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 766, 774.)
Mother does not challenge the termination of her rights as to Baby J.
At the selection and implementation hearing, the court must select adoption as the permanent plan and terminate parental rights if it finds that the child is likely to be adopted. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 49; In re Jamie R., supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at p. 773.) Adoption is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature. (In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 826; In re Ronell A. (1995) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1368.) The court’s termination of reunification services is a sufficient basis for the termination of parental rights. (In re Celine R., supra,31 Cal.4th at p. 53.) However, a parent may avoid termination of parental rights by showing that the children would be “greatly harmed” if the parent/child relationship was severed. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.)
Mother does not dispute that the children are likely to be adopted.
Mother argues that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the children because she has “maintained regular visitation and contact with the child[ren] and the child[ren] would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Mother carries the burden of showing that the statutory exception applies, and that termination would be detrimental to the children. (In re Derek W., supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 826; In re Melvin A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252.)
1. Regular Visitation And Contact
During the four years between the children’s removal from Mother’s custody and the termination of Mother’s parental rights, Mother’s visitation was inconsistent, in part because she was incarcerated for a considerable period. Mother was arrested in February 2004 for child cruelty and was released in March 2005. During the next six months, Mother began a new abusive relationship with Frank H. and became pregnant with Baby S. She rarely visited the children during this period. Mother was rearrested in October 2005 after failing a drug test in violation of her parole. In February 2006, DCFS reported that Mother was still incarcerated and had not seen the children since her arrest four months earlier. Mother was released in May 2006. At that point, Mother began having daily visits with the children, but according to Mrs. Martinez, she did not pay much attention to the children, choosing to spend time on the computer or talk on her cell phone with Frank H.
Since her most recent release from incarceration in 2006, Mother has been diligent in her visitation. At the time of the hearing in January 2008, this amounted to one year eight months of consistent visitation during four years of protective custody. Unfortunately, as we stated in our prior opinion, “Mother’s recent efforts to parent her children arrive years after she neglected and failed to nourish her children, after she allowed Father to abuse and terrorize the children, after a long history of drug abuse and criminality, and after she served two stints in prison totaling 16 months.”
2. Benefit To The Children
Even if Mother’s visitation and contacts are sufficiently regular, she must still establish that the children would benefit from continuing the relationship. The trial court determined that the children’s relationship with Mother is not so substantial that the children would be greatly harmed if it were severed. Mother carries the burden of proving that her children would be “greatly” harmed by termination of parental rights. (In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-854; In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 466-468.)
Mother did not receive reunification services as to the four older children, and her reunification services were promptly terminated as to Baby S. When a parent does not receive reunification services, his or her interest in the care, custody and companionship of the child is no longer of overriding concern. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317.) The focus instead shifts to the child’s need for permanency and stability. (Ibid.; In re Aaliyah (2006)136 Cal.App.4th 437, 448.) “The balance between the parent’s and the child’s rights shifts after the child has been removed from the parent’s home for a substantial time, owing to abuse or neglect by the parent, and the parent has failed to correct the problems which led to the removal.” (In re Baby Boy L. (1994)24 Cal.App.4th 596, 609.)
Even frequent and loving contact between parent and child is not sufficient to establish the requisite benefit to the child if Mother does not occupy a parental role and is unable to take custody. (In re Teneka W. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 721, 728; In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1418-1419; In re Andrea R. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1108-1109.) Mother has not demonstrated any significant rehabilitation that would allow her to assume a central role in her children’s lives. Mother has a lengthy history of drug abuse (18 years of methamphetamine usage) and child neglect; repeated incarcerations; failure to protect the children from severe physical and emotional abuse by Father; and an apparent determination to maintain romantic relationships with abusive criminals like Father and Frank H. As described in our prior opinion in this case, “At the disposition hearing in May 2004, Mother waived her right to reunification services, an admission of her unfitness as a parent, and the case was immediately referred for permanency planning. Since this dependency proceeding began in January 2004, Mother has been incarcerated twiceon felony charges. During her incarcerations, Mother took parenting classes and a drug abuse program; however, she was at the same time writing love letters to Father, who beat her and abused the children.
“Despite having an opportunity to learn from her mistakes, Mother began a new, abusive relationship upon her release from custody in March 2005. When she visited the children in October 2005, after an absence of several months, she had two black eyes. Mother was rearrested in October 2005, after failing a drug test while on parole. Mother was re-released from custody in May 2006. At that point, the children had last seen Mother, briefly, in October 2005, and they were bonded with their grandmother, Mrs. Martinez.”
“Interaction between natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child.” (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) Apart from that interaction, we must consider “the many variables which affect a parent/child bond. The age of the child, the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, the ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child’s particular needs are some of the variables which logically affect a parent/child bond.” (Id. at p. 576.)
During the four years following their removal from Mother’s care, the children have enjoyed safety and stability with their maternal grandmother, Mrs. Martinez. Only the two oldest children, J.Jr. and D., remember their lives with Mother, before DCFS took them into protective custody. That period of their young lives was sufficiently traumatic that despite Mother’s recent efforts to develop a relationship with them, neither J.Jr. nor D. wish to return to Mother’s care: it was stipulated that they want to be adopted by Mrs. Martinez. Further, as we noted in the prior opinion, “[Baby S.] was born while Mother was incarcerated, and she has never lived in Mother’s custody. [Baby J.] spent only two brutal months in Mother’s custody following his birth, during which time he was unfed by Mother, and sustained leg and rib fractures before nearly being killed by Father. [S.] has spent most of her life with Mrs. Martinez, not Mother. Mother did not feed [S.] properly or obtain medical attention for the child’s infected skin rash. Only [J.Jr.] and [D.] spent any significant time in Mother’s custody before the dependency proceeding began, and J.Jr. is unwilling to reunify with Mother. Both boys were abused by Father, and were terrified to speak in his presence. Mother admitted her awareness of Father’s child abuse, but allowed it to continue.”
Mother is someone that the children enjoy seeing, but she is not the nurturing parental figure that Mrs. Martinez became over four years. J.Jr. and D. recognize that they can have a stable childhood if they are adopted by Mrs. Martinez. S. similarly wants to stay in the Martinez household “forever.” This contradicts Mother’s sentiment that—for her older children—their previous life in Mother’s household “comprised a very strong, firm sense of family for them.” If anything, the children recall life with Mother as violent, unstable and abusive, and they have no desire to return to that life, regardless of the amount of time Mother has spent with them recently. If the children had confidence in Mother’s ability to parent, they would be opposed to adoption.
The last time that D. expressed a desire to live with Mother was in 2006.
The trial court’s order terminating parental rights is supported by substantial evidence and must be upheld. Mother presented no evidence at all that the children would suffer a detriment if parental rights were terminated. Balancing Mother’s friendly relationship with the children against the security of a permanent home, it is clear that the legislative preference for adoption applies here. After all of these years of dependency jurisdiction, adoption will provide the children with permanency, stability and security. Continued foster care or a legal guardianship is not equivalent to the stability of a permanent home. (See In re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1156; Jones T. v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 240, 249-251.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: DOI TODD, J., ASHMANN-GERST, J.