Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. CK73087 Jacqueline H. Lewis, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.)
Kimberly A. Knill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant B.V.
John L. Dodd, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant C.V.
Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Navid Nakhjavani, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ASHMANN-GERST, J.
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of B.V. (mother) and C.V. (father) to their son, J.V. (minor). Mother appeals on the grounds that the juvenile court should have applied the parental relationship exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) of the Welfare and Institutions Code. Father joins in mother’s appeal. We find no error and affirm.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTS
The minor was born in 2001 and detained in May 2008. An investigation revealed the following: Father digitally penetrated the minor’s anus and forced the minor to orally copulate and masturbate the father’s penis. Mother witnessed the minor touching father’s penis on numerous occasions. Father forced the minor to watch pornography and took him to adult video stores. At night, the minor slept with his parents and father was always naked from the waist down. Mother and father had sexual intercourse in the same bed as the minor, and sometimes the minor touched father’s penis during. In the past, mother allowed the minor to touch her vagina. More recently, mother allowed the minor to play with her breasts. The minor was raised in a highly sexualized environment and did not think anything was wrong with his parents’ actions. He claimed to enjoy sexual contact with father. As a result of his family’s sexual dynamics, the minor tried to relate to other people on a sexual basis.
Father was arrested and the criminal court entered an order allowing no contact between father and the minor.
The juvenile court declared the minor a dependent and sustained allegations of sexual abuse and failure to protect. The minor was placed in foster care. Due to highly sexualized behavior, he had to be removed from various foster homes. Mother regularly visited the minor during one hour monitored visits that occurred once or twice a week. In addition, mother spoke to the minor on the telephone, sometimes daily. The minor enjoyed the visits. During the visits, mother sometimes talked about father and said she wanted them to reunite as a family. She showed the minor pictures of father and the family. Mother told a court-appointed special advocate that she did not believe any of the minor’s allegation of sexual abuse.
On November 20, 2009, father entered a plea of no contest to the charge of committing a lewd or lascivious act with a child under 14 years old in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). He was placed on probation for five years and ordered to register as a sex offender. A month later, father confessed to mother that he had sexually abused the minor. Still, mother told a social worker that she wanted the minor to live with her and father.
The minor was placed in a prospective adoptive home. The court-appointed special advocate asked the minor about his foster/adopt parents. The minor offered an enthusiastic thumb up sign. He stated: “I cannot see my dad for 5 years, my mom has decided to live with my dad, although she would like us to be together as a family. So, I will live with (my foster/adopt parents) and be a part of their family and be their son.” The minor began transitioning into the routine of his foster family and making friends in their neighborhood. The foster parents emphasized consistency, setting boundaries and teaching the minor appropriate ways to express anger and frustration.
The juvenile court held a contested permanency hearing in September 2010. Upon taking the bench, the juvenile court stated that it had seen mother and father in the cafeteria holding hands.
Mother was called to the stand. She was asked if she believed that the minor had been forced to orally copulate father’s penis, and whether father had digitally penetrated the minor’s anus. Her answer was no. Mother denied that father slept in nothing but a T-shirt. The Departments’ attorney stated: “I’m going to read a statement... from the report that [the minor] said and I would like to know whether or not you believe [the minor]. [¶] He said that ‘he touched my dad’s “pee pee” until it became powerful and sometimes the water came out from his “pee pee”.’” [¶] Do you believe that [the minor] was touching your husband and having something come out of his ‘pee pee’?” Mother replied: “I do not believe that.” When told that the minor said that he touched father about 90 times, mother said: “I don’t believe it’s going to be that many.” She was asked how many times it was. She stated: “I don’t know. Because my husband protects my kid. Because my son... is growing up and he’s very curious. So my husband tries to teach him too. And myself I’m trying to teach him too.” She was asked about what the minor was being taught. Her response was this: “Teaching him about... touching the private parts of the father and touching my body too.... [¶]... [¶] I told him not to be too bold, to touch the [father’s] private parts and to touch my body.” Mother went on to testify that father is a good parent and that the minor would be safe if he was left alone with father. In addition, mother claimed that the accusations against her family were all lies.
After the close of evidence, mother’s counsel argued that parental rights should not be terminated based on the parental relationship exception. The juvenile court declined to accept her argument. It found that the minor was adoptable and terminated parental rights.
These timely appeals followed.
DISCUSSION
If a child is found adoptable at a permanency hearing, parental rights must be terminated unless a parent establishes one of several statutory exceptions. To establish the parental relationship exception, mother was required to demonstrate: (1) she had regular visitation and contact with the minor and they have a significant, positive emotional attachment; (2) she occupies a parental role in the minor’s life; and (3) severing the parent-child relationship would be detrimental to the minor’s well being such that he would be greatly harmed. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575; In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 466.) An order declining to apply the exception is reviewed for substantial evidence. (In re Megan S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 247, 251.)
Mother maintained regular visitation and contact with the minor, but we perceive little virtue. While it is true that the minor enjoyed his visits with mother, she often discussed father and even showed the minor pictures of father. She told the minor that she wanted her family to live together again. By constantly bringing up the man who committed vile crimes against the minor, and by saying that she wanted them all to be reunited as a family, she chose her relationship with father over the psychological well-being of the minor. Her words tacitly told the minor that she did not believe his allegations of sexual abuse or, even worse, that the sexual abuse perpetrated by father was acceptable and normal. Whether the minor was aware of it, mother infused their relationship with toxicity. Her refusal to accept what was happening in her home threatened to freeze the minor in dysfunction. Based on this record, there is a strong inference that the emotional attachment between mother and the minor is detrimental to him rather than positive.
Our analysis could end here. We note that due to mother’s denial of the sexual abuse suffered by the minor, we cannot possibly conclude that she occupied a parental role in the minor’s life. Instead of helping him heal from his psychological wounds—the role of a true parent—she chose to believe he was lying and continued to express support for father. Moreover, there is no evidence that the minor would be greatly harmed if parental rights were terminated. By all accounts, he was happy to become the son of his prospective adoptive family. Indeed, the minor’s only chance at a normal, happy life is to be free of mother and father.
Having reviewed the entire record, we find that the juvenile court’s order was supported by substantial evidence.
DISPOSITION
The order terminating parental rights is affirmed.
We concur: BOREN, P. J., CHAVEZ, J.