Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. SJ11789B, Garry G. Haehnle, Judge. Affirmed.
O'ROURKE, J.
Lori B. appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights to her son Matthew B. She contends the juvenile court erred by declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)). We affirm.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
In January 2007 Matthew was exposed to domestic violence between Lori and Matthew's father, John B. Lori moved to a shelter, but then returned to John. Lori had a history of suicide attempts. In March she swallowed more than 100 pills in Matthew's presence. She was hospitalized with liver damage. In April the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency filed a dependency petition for four-year-old Matthew based on the above facts. Matthew was detained in Polinsky Children's Center for three weeks, and then was moved to a foster home. He also lived with a relative. In July 2008 he was moved to a prospective adoptive home. The section 366.26 hearing took place in March 2009.
DISCUSSION
If a dependent child is adoptable, the juvenile court must terminate parental rights at the section 366.26 hearing unless the parent proves the existence of a statutory exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 401.) One such exception exists if "[t]he parent[ has] maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) A beneficial relationship is one 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 re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) The existence of this relationship is determined by factors including "[t]he 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." (Id. at p. 576.) Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, as we must, we conclude Lori failed to meet her burden of showing she maintained regular visitation and had a beneficial relationship with Matthew. (Ibid.)
Lori does not contest the juvenile court's finding that Matthew was adoptable.
Lori's visits were supervised. She demonstrated appropriate parenting skills and Matthew enjoyed the visits. At first Lori visited weekly. While sometimes she was late or did not show up, she attended most visits. Matthew became excited before visits, jumping up and down and exclaiming, "I'm going to see mommy." When he saw Lori, he hugged her. When visits ended, he pouted and asked for more time. After visits, he was excited to see his prospective adoptive father.
Starting in August 2008, Lori visited less frequently and her pattern of visits was inconsistent. In part, this was associated with her continued contact with John. Other factors were her disconnected telephone and transportation difficulties. Between August and November 2008, Lori visited Matthew approximately eight times. She was at least 30 minutes late to two of those visits and missed other opportunities to see Matthew. She failed to appear for two scheduled visits, failed to confirm three others, and cancelled two visits. A Thanksgiving visit at the maternal grandmother's home ended early when she and Lori had a verbal confrontation.
Matthew was disappointed when Lori missed visits. After several such disappointments, he displayed less excitement before visits but continued to talk excitedly about his prospective adoptive father after visits. On December 4, 2008, Matthew waited 30 minutes at the visitation site, but Lori never came. He was greatly distressed. The social worker tried unsuccessfully to call Lori, then cancelled further visits. For the rest of the month, no one heard from Lori.
In January 2009 Lori called the social worker and visitation resumed. There was one visit near the end of January and four visits in February. Lori was 15 minutes late to two of the February visits. Despite her two-month absence, Matthew did not ask where she had been.
At the time of the section 366.26 hearing, Matthew was six years old. He had been out of Lori's custody for nearly two years and had lived with his prospective adoptive father for more than seven months. Matthew loved Lori and wanted visits to continue. Their relationship was one of playmates, however. Matthew sometimes called his prospective adoptive father "daddy" and viewed him as someone who met his daily needs. Lori did not understand how her mental health issues affected her parenting abilities. Matthew had been traumatized while in her care and had tendencies toward hyperactive and impulsive behavior. He therefore had a particular need for stability and structure. The prospective adoptive father satisfied these needs and offered safety and consistency. Lori did not.
Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court's determination the beneficial relationship exception did not apply.
DISPOSITION
Judgment affirmed.
WE CONCUR: HALLER, Acting P. J., IRION, J.