Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEALS from orders of the Superior Court of San Diego County No. J516610A, Yvonne E. Campos, Judge.
O'ROURKE, J.
Adriana P. and Richard S., Sr., (together the parents) appeal orders terminating their parental rights to their son, Richard S., Jr., (the minor), and referring him for adoption. The parents contend the court erred by finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)B)(i) did not apply in the case to preclude termination of parental rights. We affirm the orders.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On March 29, 2007, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition on the infant minor's behalf, alleging the parents suffered from developmental disabilities that prevented them from providing adequate care for him. Both parents needed assistance in caring for themselves. Also, Adriana suffered from cerebral palsy and used a walker, and Richard had difficulty managing his anger. The court ordered the minor detained. Subsequently, the court found the allegations of the petition true, declared the minor a dependent child of the juvenile court, placed him in foster care and ordered the parents to comply with services.
The parents received in-home services for their disabilities, but service providers had difficulty working with them because Richard resisted services and controlled Adriana. Both parents completed a parenting class; Richard attended therapy and his therapist reported he had made some progress. The psychologist who evaluated Richard said he was unrealistic about his own parenting abilities and in denial about Adriana's limitations. The psychologist said Richard was very immature, had severely impaired judgment, marked impulsivity and little capacity for empathy. The psychologist who evaluated Adriana reported, although Adriana was emotionally attached to the minor and wished to take care of him, her mental incapacity made her unable to care for a child.
After various continuances, the six-month hearing coincided with the 12-month hearing on May 16, 2008. At the hearing, the social worker opined that because of the parents' severe limitations, the minor would be at high risk in their care. However, the court found that despite the challenges the parents faced, they had made substantial progress, ordered that services would continue and set the matter for an 18-month hearing. This court dismissed the minor's appeal from the order continuing services because by the time the court heard the appeal, the date to which services were extended had already passed. (In re Richard S. (Jan. 15, 2009, D053228) [nonpub. opn.].)
Subsequently, the parents continued to receive in-home services to assist them in living independently. Richard attended therapy and Adriana had some therapy. They both had regular visits with the minor.
At the 18-month permanency hearing on December 3, 2008, the court found the parents had been provided reasonable services, but they had made only minimal progress and returning the minor to their custody would cause a substantial risk of detriment to him. It terminated services and set a section 366.26 hearing.
In December 2008 Adriana gave birth to her second child. The infant tested positive for alcohol at birth, the Agency filed a juvenile dependency petition on her behalf, and she was placed in foster care.
The social worker assessed the minor as highly adoptable. He was almost two years old and within the average range of development. His caregivers were committed to adopting him. The social worker reported the parents had visited the minor on a consistent basis. Adriana was not very engaged with him during visits, but Richard appeared loving and attached to him. During some visits, the minor seemed to want to leave. He would hold his hands up to the social worker, say "bye bye," and go to the door. During other visits, when the parents approached him, he appeared agitated, said "no," and rebuffed their attempts to engage him. The social worker assessed their relationships with the minor as that of visitors. He said the minor did not show a significant attachment to either parent and did not appear distressed when visits ended.
At the section 366.26 hearing on May 26, 2009, the social worker testified the minor's caregivers were committed to adopting him, but if they were unable to adopt, there were more than 30 approved adoptive families in San Diego County interested in adopting a child like the minor. Richard testified he visited the minor every week and wanted to visit him more frequently. He did not want him to be adopted.
After considering the evidence and hearing argument from counsel, the court found the minor was likely to be adopted if parental rights were terminated and none of the statutory exceptions to termination of parental rights and adoption were present. It terminated parental rights and referred the matter for adoption.
DISCUSSION
The parents assert the court erred by terminating their parental rights because the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights and adoption of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) applied to prevent termination of parental rights.
Adoption is the permanent plan favored by the Legislature. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573.) If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a child is adoptable, it becomes the parent's burden to show that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child because of a specified statutory exception to termination of parental rights and adoption. (Id. at p. 574.) Under the exception found in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), the parent is required to show termination would be detrimental in that "[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." In In re Brandon C. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1534, the court noted "[c]ourts have required more than just 'frequent and loving contact' to establish the requisite benefit for [the] exception."
In reviewing whether there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding, the appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the court's order, giving the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference and resolving all conflicts in support of the order. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.)
The parents maintained regular visitation and contact with the minor. However, they did not show their relationships with him were so beneficial that it would be detrimental to the minor to terminate their parental rights. By the time of the hearing, the minor had been out of the parents' care for two years. During this time, they had visited consistently and had attempted to comply with their services plans, but they were not able to become effective parents for the minor. The social worker characterized their relationships with him as visitors and said the relationships were not parental in nature. The parents made efforts to care for and play with the minor during visits, but he often rebuffed their attempts and showed he wanted to leave. The parents did not show that continuing their relationships with the minor would outweigh the benefits he would gain by being adopted into a stable, permanent adoptive home.
DISPOSITION
The orders are affirmed.
WE CONCUR: McDONALD, Acting P. J., IRION, J.