Opinion
B210850.
4-27-2009
In re S.C., et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.R., Defendant and Appellant.
Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. Raymond G. Fortner, Jr., County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and Frank J. DaVanzo, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Respondent.
Not to be Published in the Official Reports
A mother appeals from a juvenile court order made under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, denying her request to return two children to her custody or for additional reunification services, and an order made under section 366.26 terminating parental rights. We conclude both orders were proper. The mother failed to show that granting her section 388 petition would serve her childrens best interests. She also failed to demonstrate the existence of a statutory exception to termination of parental rights.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
BACKGROUND
This family has been subject of dependency proceedings since May 2001. At that time, appellant M.R.s (mother) eldest two daughters, D.R. (then 12) and B.R. (then 7) (neither of whom is a subject of this appeal), were taken into protective custody. A petition was filed alleging mother failed to protect the children, that one of mothers male friends had abused the girls with a belt, and that another of mothers male friends (O.T.) sexually molested D.R. In August 2002, the dependency court placed the girls with their father, A.R. (who is not a party to this action), ordered monitored visits for mother and terminated jurisdiction.
In May 2003, respondent Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a new petition, alleging that A.R. was arrested for drunk driving, that he had left the girls with mother, and that mother once again failed to protect them from O.T. (who was living with mother) by allowing him unmonitored contact with the girls. More specifically, the sustained petition alleged O.T. used his body to push D.R., who felt sexually threatened by her former molester, against a wall. By the end of September 2004, the juvenile court had terminated reunification services for both parents, and initiated permanent placement services for the girls. Mother appealed, and we affirmed the juvenile courts finding that she had failed to protect D.R. and B.R. from harm, and had no plan to prevent future harm to them. (In re Diane R. (May 19, 2004, B169342) [nonpub. opn.])
Mother maintained her relationship with O.T., which resulted in the birth of S.T., one subject of this appeal, in April 2005. S.T. was detained four days after her birth, as a result of mothers ongoing relationship with O.T.
In September 2005, D.R. ran away during an overnight visit with mother. She remained "awol." In March 2006, DCFS reported that D.R. (then 16) was living somewhere in Mexico with her boyfriend, and was expecting a child. The court terminated jurisdiction over D.R.s case in December 2006.
Mother minimally complied with her case plan, and two girls were returned to her care, B.R. in December 2005, and S.T. in February 2006.
In March 2006, mother gave birth to M.P., the other subject of this appeal. Both mother and child tested positive for methamphetamine. Mother denied any drug abuse, and claimed a doctor in Mexico had prescribed her medication for a hernia. There was no evidence mother had a prescription for any medication she had taken. Mother also denied knowing she was pregnant. She said she had been experiencing stomach pain and weight gain for nine months, and claimed to have come to the United States in early March to obtain a second opinion. Mother claimed her children lived in Mexico, and refused to provide their address to a hospital social worker. She gave false information about her own identity; hospital records identified mother as G.A. (aunt), one of several maternal aunts. Mother told DCFS that M.P.s father was O.T.
The identity of M.P.s father is unknown. No father is identified on the childs birth certificate. Although mother originally said O.T. was M.P.s father, she later claimed the father was someone named J.P.
M.P. was detained. DCFS filed a new petition on March 10, 2006. It alleged M.P. was at substantial risk of harm if left in mothers care because both she and mother had tested positive for drugs at M.P.s birth, and her siblings were already juvenile court dependents due to O.T.s sexual abuse of D.R. Mother failed to appear at the detention hearing. Mothers sister said she had taken mother, B.R. and S.T. to an airport in Tijuana, but did not know where they went. The juvenile court issued protective custody warrants for B.R. and S.T., and a bench warrant for mother. Mother returned from Mexico with B.R. and S.T., and the girls were taken into custody. M.P. and S.T. were placed in the foster home of M.S. B.R. was placed in her former foster home.
In mid-April 2006, mother submitted to an allegation she used methamphetamine before M.P.s birth, which rendered her incapable of providing regular care and supervision to her children. She also admitted knowing she was pregnant, and said she had not obtained prenatal care because she did not want DCFS to know she was pregnant. M.P. was declared a juvenile court dependent. Mother was given monitored visitation, and ordered to participate in a drug rehabilitation program with random testing, individual counseling and joint counseling with the older children, when deemed appropriate.
Over the next few months mother continued to deny she was using any drugs or seeing O.T. The maternal grandmother and two maternal aunts, however, told DCFS mother continued to take drugs and see O.T. Mothers landlord also said O.T. frequently visited mother. In June 2006, DCFS reported mother had enrolled in individual counseling and a drug rehabilitation program, but that her whereabouts had been unknown for a month. A July 18 progress report by mothers drug rehabilitation facilitator indicated mother was not complying with the guidelines of her recovery program; she had not attended AA or NA meetings, and needed to learn to set boundaries and address unresolved issues. Mother denied knowing she was supposed to attend the meetings. Mother did not begin individual therapy until August 2.
By mid-October 2006, mother was reportedly attending AA and NA meetings, and her drug tests were negative. She visited M.P. and S.T. three hours per week, and saw B.R. on weekends. DCFS reported that S.T. and M.P. had adjusted well to foster care, and appeared to be very happy and attached to M.S.s family. However, M.S. told DCFS that S.T. had exhibited odd behavior since she had come back to her home. S.T. had been returned to mothers custody in February 2006. When she was re-placed with M.S. a month later after her sister, M.P., was born, M.S. "barely recognized" S.T. She had aged considerably in a very short time and her behavior was markedly different. She woke often, cried during the night and was not easily comforted, and she was aggressive when she felt tired or threatened, especially with other children. S.T. had also begun to gag herself by sticking her fingers down her throat, and had become preoccupied with her genitals and self-stimulation.
S.T. was examined, and there was no evidence of sexual abuse. DCFS was somewhat suspect about what M.S. said. There was a significant amount of conflict between M.S. and mother, and a concern M.S. might be too personally involved. For example, DCFS reported that M.S. had taken offense when a meeting facilitator commented that mother shared a bond with the girls. On another occasion, M.S. screamed and swore in front of families in a waiting room, after she arrived from a visit to pick up S.T. and M.P. and learned they were in a family counseling session about which she had not been informed. When the girls emerged, M.S. shouted at B.R. that she would not bring them back, causing B.R. to fear she would not see her sisters again. M.S. was escorted out by the police.
Meanwhile, DCFS reported that mother had begun making progress in therapy, and attending counseling with B.R. on a regular basis. Mother was attending NA and AA meetings, had completed eight months of a substance abuse program, and her drug tests were consistently negative. Mother appeared motivated and willing to work to reunify with her children, with whom her visits went well. Nevertheless, DCFS recommended that reunification services for S.T. be terminated, because she had already received 18 months services, but that such services be continued for M.P. In mid-November 2006, DCFS was still unable to recommend that the girls be returned to mothers custody. However, it did recommend the court permit mother to have unmonitored visitation, including weekend overnight visits.
A contested review hearing was conducted on December 27, 2006. B.R. had been placed in a new foster home in November 2006. DCFS reported that she was doing well in that placement, but still wanted to reunify with her mother and sisters, whom she saw at weekly visits. Mother testified. She denied having said O.T. was M.P.s father, and testified that she had not seen him since nine months before S.T. was born. She contradicted that statement, however, by also testifying she had last seen him in July 2006, and that she had also seen him at the hospital after M.P.s birth (where aunt had taken a photo of him cradling the newborn). Mother testified that she denied knowing she was pregnant because she was afraid when she and M.P. had a positive drug test. She had taken drugs during the last month of her pregnancy, and on the day M.P. was born. Mother said it was not she, but aunt, who gave the hospital the wrong name. But she admitted having failed to correct hospital staff for calling her by her sisters name.
At the conclusion of the hearing the juvenile court observed that mother had invested a great deal of effort to try to convince DCFS she was making progress. However, the court found mothers stories—as to if and when she saw O.T., how often she took methamphetamine and why, and how and when she went to Mexico—riddled with inconsistencies, and noted she was still blaming others for events in her life. In the courts opinion, all mother had learned was "how to be a bad liar." The court found mother in partial compliance with the case plan, but also found the children remained at risk if returned to her care. Mothers reunification services as to S.T. were terminated, and the court scheduled a permanent planning hearing for her. Mothers reunification services for M.P. were not terminated, but the court continued to restrict mother to monitored visitation.
By mid-April 2007, B.R.s feelings had changed dramatically. She wanted to be adopted by her foster parents, who also wanted to adopt her. B.R. refused to attend therapy with mother, and wanted no further contact with mother or her sisters.
In June, DCFS reported that mother had completed a year-long substance abuse program, but remained concerned because mother was not consistently participating in a 12-step recovery program. In addition, mother attended her individual counseling sessions only about once each month, and her counselor did not believe she was taking therapy seriously. DCFS recommended the juvenile court terminate mothers reunification services, and that the girls remain placed with their respective caregivers. Mother had been under the impression she was not obligated to keep going to NA or AA meetings once she completed a drug rehabilitation program. She was ordered to attend meetings and to get a sponsor.
In mid-August 2007, DCFS reported that mother continued to test clean for drugs. Mother told DCFS she was attending NA and AA meetings, but her signature cards reflected attendance only at AA meetings. Mother also refused to provide DCFS the name of her sponsor or any contact information. Mothers counselor had nothing to report because mother repeatedly canceled her sessions; the counselor intended to close mothers case unless she began following through. By this time, mother had unmonitored visits with S.T. and M.P. The visits were appropriate, although mother and M.S. still had conflicts with one another. DCFS recommended S.T. and M.P. remain with M.S., who wanted to adopt them. B.R. still refused to see her mother or sisters.
At a hearing in mid-August, mother told the court her sponsors name was G.A. However, DCFS soon learned G.A. was mothers roommate, not her AA sponsor. Mother was told to obtain a legitimate sponsor, but said she did not need one. Eventually, mother begrudgingly agreed to find a sponsor, but she told DCFS she refused to "sit down and have coffee with this person ... [and was] not going to be in contact with this person, only by phone." As of early September 2007, mother still had no sponsor.
At a hearing in mid-September 2007, mother testified she had a job and a home for M.P., and that G.A. would care for the child while mother was at work. Mother had completed a parenting class and her drug tests had been negative for one and a half years. She testified she had learned a lot about parenting and had no desire to take drugs. Mother testified she had been attending AA meetings since July 2006. However, she was not able to describe which "step" of recovery she had reached in her 12-step plan. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found mother was in compliance with her case plan, but still had not addressed underlying familial issues which had led to her drug use. The court opined that mother was close, but not yet ready for M.P. to be returned to her care. Reunification services were terminated as to M.P. The juvenile court granted mother overnight visits on the conditions that she continue to attend therapy and AA meetings regularly, obtain a sponsor and have her roommate live-scanned.
By mid December 2007, M.S. had informed DCFS she would not be able to adopt S.T. and M.P. Mother filed a section 388 petition. She claimed she had done everything the juvenile court had ordered her to do (except that her roommate had not live-scanned), had obtained a sponsor, and had long since resolved the problems that led to the juvenile court taking jurisdiction over her children. Mother requested that the court vacate the scheduled permanency planning hearing, reinstate reunification services and give her overnight and weekend visits. The court scheduled a hearing on the petition.
In a status report filed two days after mother submitted her petition, DCFS noted that B.R. remained with her prospective adoptive parents, and that other adoptive parents, with an approved home study, had already been matched with S.T. and M.P. The girls had not yet met their prospective adoptive parents, and were still placed with M.S., who was deeply saddened she could not adopt them. Mother still had unmonitored visitation with the S.T. and M.P. It was difficult for M.S. to get S.T. to go with mother. S.T. often acted out and had tantrums after visits. M.P. too seemed reluctant to go with mother, and had to be pulled away from M.S., or bribed by mothers promises of a treat or toy. Both girls displayed confusion, which DCFS attributed to their young age, and fluctuating contact and uncertain relationship with their mother. DCFS recommended parental rights be terminated.
On January 11, 2008, parental rights were terminated as to B.R., and she was freed for adoption.
That same day, DCFS informed the court mother planned to move to Bakersfield and refused to disclose her address to DCFS unless her daughters were returned to her care. Mother had missed six visits in December; the girls maternal grandmother had passed away and mother had been busy with funeral arrangements. Mother requested that her visits be reduced from twice to once per week.
DCFS submitted its response to mothers section 388 petition on February 21, 2008. It noted mother had thrice failed to provide urine specimens between late September 2007 and mid-February 2008. DCFS also reported mother had been untruthful and uncooperative with DCFS, in that she had failed to provide information about her attendance at AA meetings, or the name of and contact information for her sponsor. She had also been inconsistent in visiting the children. Mothers therapist said mother was not progressing in therapy, but merely showed up for sessions. Both girls exhibited varying degrees of reluctance when it came to visits with mother. S.T.s aversion to the visits was more pronounced. She sometimes refused to see mother at all, and continued experiencing behavioral problems after visits.
In mid-March, 2008, DCFS filed an ex parte application requesting that the court order individual therapy for S.T. and M.P. Mother had been having unmonitored visitation with both girls. However, neither girl wanted to see or talk about mother. S.T. had begun hiding in the foster care agencys playroom when mother came to pick her up. She would scream and cry out to M.S. as mother drove away. DCFS recommended that the girls participate in play therapy to help them work through their confusion and help them transition to their adoptive home. DCFS said mothers visits were too traumatic for the girls, and should be terminated. The girls attorney agreed and filed a petition requesting that mothers visitation be terminated because she refused to provide urine specimens or contact information for her sponsor, the girls were confused about their relationship with mother, and S.T. refused to see mother. The court acknowledged that S.T. did not want to go with mother and no one knew why. It ordered that mothers visitation be monitored in a therapeutic setting, until the situation was assessed.
In late April 2008, both girls underwent psychological assessments. As a result of those assessments, it was recommended that mothers visits with both girls be monitored and reduced. The change was required for M.P. in order to help mediate her behavioral reactions, her response to being away from M.S., and her anxiety. The change was required for S.T. due her extreme behavioral reactions after visits with mother, and persistent symptoms consistent with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
In May 2008, DCFS reported that a second maternal aunt had expressed an interest in obtaining custody of the girls. The aunt was single, unemployed and had four children of her own. She had no established relationship with her nieces, and had no ongoing contact with them, and had never expressed an interest in caring for, the girls since their detention. Although a new adoptive family had been located, that placement and the girls visits with their prospective adoptive parents was put on hold so DCFS could investigate the potential relative placement. DCFS questioned the aunts motives, as well as her willingness to protect the girls from mother or other unsuitable relatives. It believed mother had put her up to the task. When the aunt was interviewed by DCFS, she told the social worker it might be better for the girls to be adopted by someone else. By June, the juvenile court had determined DCFS need not pursue a placement with the aunt—whose interference had, by then caused the girls to lose a potential adoptive placement—or any relative.
Mother withdrew her section 388 petition in mid-May 2008.
In mid-June, the court observed that the case had been pending for three years with respect to S.T., and two years for M.P., and that the childrens need for stability argued in favor of finding them a permanent adoptive home. Shortly thereafter, the girls were placed with new prospective adoptive parents and a contested section 366.26 hearing was set for mid-September 2008.
In its report for the section 366.26 hearing, DCFS reported that the girls were comfortable in their new home and had quickly adapted to it. The prospective adoptive parents were patiently and sensitively meeting the childrens emotional needs, and the children looked to them for comfort and guidance. Both girls were participating in play therapy. S.T.s therapist noted that she had exhibited positive changes overall, and was more confident and better able to turn to her caregivers for comfort. The loss to S.T. of the relationship with her former foster mother, M.S., was very significant, but she was learning to adjust and to express her feelings. S.T. never mentioned mother during her therapy sessions. M.P.s therapist reported she had formed a strong attachment to her prospective adoptive father, to whom she readily looked for comfort, support and encouragement. Mother visited the girls for two hours, once a week. The girls were reluctant to go to the visits which, in their therapists opinions, had a negative impact on them. S.T., in particular, suffered after visits with mother. For example, she screamed for two days after one visit during which mother, without permission to do so, allowed S.T. to talk to her former foster mother on the phone. S.T.s therapist said mothers visits threatened the childs sense of stability.
Mother filed new section 388 petitions on September 17, 2008, requesting that the girls be returned to her custody, or that reunification services and unmonitored visitation be reinstated. She alleged she had maintained her sobriety, attended therapy sessions to address parenting concerns and other issues, consistently visited her children, attended 12-step meetings regularly and had obtained a sponsor.
A combined hearing was conducted on September 18, 2008 on mothers petition and to select the girls permanent plans. (§ 366.26.) Mother testified she visited the girls weekly. During visits she and her daughters engaged in activities, such as drawing, cutting, painting and dancing. She said S.T. ran to her at the outset of the visits, and hugged and kissed her and told mother she missed her. At the end of the visits, neither girl cried, but each was reluctant to leave. Mother opposed the girls adoption because she loved her children, they had a wonderful relationship, and the girls loved her as their mother and were closer to her now than when they were removed from M.S.s home. She believed they should be returned to her care because she had undergone many changes.
At the conclusion of the hearing the juvenile court denied mothers section 388 petition. It found, by clear and convincing evidence that the girls were adoptable, and that mother failed to establish the beneficial relationship exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Parental rights were terminated.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying her section 388 petition, and that it erred when it found she failed to establish the "beneficial contacts" exception to termination of parental rights. Neither contention has merit.
The juvenile court did not err in denying mothers section 388 petition
Mother maintains the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying the operative section 388 petition, which requested return of the girls to her custody, or the reinstatement of services and unmonitored liberalized visitation. Section 388, subdivision (a) permits a parent to petition to modify or change a prior order "upon grounds of change of circumstance or new evidence." The petition must allege why the requested change is "in the best interest of the dependent child." (§ 388, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(e).) "The parent bears the burden of showing both a change of circumstance exists and that the proposed change is in the childs best interests." (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47.) The petition is addressed to the courts discretion, and its ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of a clear abuse of discretion. (In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415-416.) "The denial of a section 388 petition rarely merits reversal." (In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 685-686.)
The juvenile court terminated mothers reunification services as to S.T. in December 2006, and as to M.P. in September 2007. Mother filed the section 388 petitions in September 2008, 21 months after her reunification services for S.T. were terminated, a year after services for M.P. had concluded, and one day before the hearing was conducted to select the girls permanent plans. The only circumstances Mother identified as having changed during those extensive time periods was her participation in a second substance abuse program and individual counseling, attendance at 12-step meetings with a sponsor, and submission to random drug tests. Mother claimed that the proposed modification would serve her daughters best interest because she was "committed to maintaining [her] sobriety and [she had] been visiting [the girls] consistently." We agree with the juvenile court that, in light of the circumstances which led to the childrens initial and continued detention, mothers showing was insufficient to justify granting the petition.
At the hearing on the petition, mother testified that, when they arrived for visits, the girls ran to give her hugs and kisses, and were sad and reluctant to leave when the visits were over. She described her relationship with S.T. as "joyful," and said she "love[s her] kids," and knows they "love [her] . . . as a mother," and that they "cry for [her]" and would miss her if they could not see her.
It is an understatement to say the juvenile court was unpersuaded by mothers claim of a close bond with her youngest daughters. Given the equivocal, self-serving and often contradictory statements mother made throughout these proceedings, the record amply supports the courts conclusion that mother was not credible and that, "unfortunately, . . . at almost every instance when [she] had the opportunity to be forthcoming and to be truthful and to be up front, she has failed to do so." In short, the court did not find credible mothers account of her bond with her children, or their desire to spend time with her. The record supports a conclusion that mothers contact with the girls was, at best neutral and, at worst and more likely, a detriment to her daughters well-being. In therapy, S.T. acknowledged her former foster parent, but not mother, as a central figure in her life. That fact is not surprising. By the time the petitions were heard, three-and-a-half-year-old S.T. had been a dependent of the juvenile court for all but one month of that time, and two-and-a-half-year-old M.P. had been in the system her entire life. As mother conceded, it was M.S. who had cared for S.T. and M.P. since they were born. Mother has been a part of her daughters lives. Unfortunately, her imprint on those lives has not been positive, or even merely neutral. In February 2008, both girls told DCFS they did not want to see or visit mother, just as their sister B.R. had done before them. A month later, S.T. was hiding to avoid seeing her mother, and had to be carried to the elevator as she screamed that she did not want to go with mother. Indeed, mothers visits had such a traumatic impact on her young daughters, their attorney was forced to ask the court to put them in therapy, and to terminate all visitation. The court refused to go that far, but it did limit the contact to a monitored, therapeutic setting.
Assuming, for purposes of discussion, that mother established sufficiently changed circumstances, she nevertheless failed to establish the modification she requested would serve her daughters best interest. In In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, the court identified three non-exhaustive factors to consider when assessing a childs best interests under section 388: "(1) the seriousness of the problem which led to the dependency, and the reason for any continuation of that problem; (2) the strength of relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent and caretakers; and (3) the degree to which the problem may be easily removed or ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has been." (Id. at p. 532; italics omitted.)
The immediate problem leading to the childrens detention appears to have been addressed. Commendably, mother appears to have remained drug free. However, mother had and continues to have problems being truthful, putting her childrens interests first or taking responsibility for events in her life. Mother completed at least one parenting program, and participated in joint and individual therapy sessions to learn to address issues in her life and become a better parent. But, after 30 months, the juvenile court was still not convinced she was prepared to parent. The record contains no evidence of a significant attachment between mother and S.T. or M.P. The dearth of evidence is not surprising inasmuch as both girls have been out of mothers care for all of their short lives. Mother maintains that her consistent visits, and her biological connection with S.T. and M.P., demonstrate it is in the girls best interest to be in her care. However, as In re Kimberly F. instructs, we must evaluate the strength of the bond between the children and their parents, as well as their bond with the caretakers. The record reflects the girls wanted nothing to do with mother. It also reflects that, even though the placement is relatively new, the girls are happy and adjusting well to life with their prospective adoptive parents, with whom they have formed positive emotional attachments. The prospective adoptive parents are committed to adopting both siblings, and to providing them a stable, nurturing environment. Because reunification services had long-since been terminated for this family, the courts focus at the time the section 388 petition was heard was properly and squarely on the girls need for permanency and stability. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) The girls are placed with a caring and supportive couple who wanted to adopt them. They are happy, healthy and receiving outstanding care. Mother has failed to demonstrate removing them from this stable, nurturing environment would serve the childrens interests. We find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile courts denial of the section 388 petition.
The juvenile court did not err in terminating parental rights.
Mother maintains the juvenile court erred in finding inapplicable the "beneficial relationship" exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). That subdivision affords an exception to termination of parental rights if a parent has maintained regular visitation and contact with her child, and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship. 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 such a relationship is determined by considering "`[t]he age of the child, the portion of the childs life spent in the parents custody, the "positive" or "negative" effect of interaction between parent and child, and the childs particular needs." (In re Amber M., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 689.) We review a ruling that the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) exception does not apply under the substantial evidence standard. (In re Christopher L. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1333.)
The record reflects that, at least in the latter phases of this action, mother maintained regular visitation with the girls. But it contains scant, if any, evidence of the existence of the kind of relationship section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) is meant to preserve. To establish the beneficial relationship exception, a parent must do more than demonstrate frequent contact, an emotional bond with the child, or that the parent and child find the visits pleasant. (In re Andrea R. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1108-1109.) A parent seeking to establish this exception must show she occupies "a parental role" in her childs life. In other words, 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., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.)
Mother did not demonstrate her relationship with S.T. and M.P. rose or even began to approach this "parental" level. There is no evidence to support a conclusion the girls would be greatly harmed if their relationship with mother was severed, especially when any marginal benefit they may have received from that relationship are weighed against the stability and permanency adoption will provide. All the evidence which demonstrates the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petitions also provides substantial support for its conclusion that "mere biology does not a mother make," Mothers showing fell far short of that necessary to establish the applicability of the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) exception to termination of parental rights.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court orders of September 18, 2008, denying the section 388 petitions and terminating parental rights, are affirmed.
We concur:
MALLANO, P.J.
ROTHSCHILD, J.