Opinion
F084998
05-01-2023
In re E.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. v. J.B., Defendant and Appellant. KERN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Elaine Forrester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, and Kelli R. Falk, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Kern County No. JD137844-00 . Louie L. Vega, Judge. (Retired judge of the Kern County Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.)
Elaine Forrester, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, and Kelli R. Falk, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
THE COURT[*]
Appellant J.B. (mother) is the mother of the 12-year-old child, E.B. (the child), who is the subject of a dependency case. Mother challenges the juvenile court's orders issued at a contested Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing that resulted in mother's parental rights being terminated. Mother contends the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception and considering inappropriate factors during its determination on the exception.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 31, 2017, the Kern County Department of Human Services (department) received a referral after mother and her boyfriend were involved in a series of domestic violence incidents. A police report from one of the incidents indicated mother's boyfriend, D.P., hit her multiple times in the presence of the child and her siblings, E.H. and T.P. (collectively "the children"). Mother declined an emergency protective order, and D.P. remained in the home with the children. In the preceding months, a referral for general neglect was substantiated by the department after mother tested positive for methamphetamine. The children's maternal grandmother failed to follow through with plans to establish a legal guardianship after the family's prior contact with the department. The children were placed into protective custody pursuant to a warrant on September 28, 2017.
The department filed an original petition alleging the children were described by section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The petition alleged that the children were at risk of serious physical harm as a result of mother's substance abuse and domestic violence relationship with her boyfriend. At the detention hearing held on October 2, 2017, the juvenile court ordered the children detained from mother, supervised visitation twice per week, and the setting of a combined jurisdiction and disposition hearing for November 29, 2017.
The jurisdiction hearing proceeded on February 5, 2018, after a continuance of the initial hearing. Mother and the child's father, Jerry T. (father), submitted on jurisdiction, and the juvenile court found the allegations in the petition true. The child was placed in a foster home with her older sibling, and her maternal aunt's request for placement was pending approval. The disposition hearing was continued to April 25, 2018, for the department to send notice based upon a claim of unknown Indian ancestry by the father of the child's sibling. The juvenile court granted an additional continuance at the request of the department in order to receive replies for Indian Child Welfare Act purposes.
On June 21, 2018, a contested disposition hearing was set for August 15, 2018, which was almost a full year after the children's initial removal. The children were all placed with their maternal aunt in May 2018. The department's disposition report recommended that the children remain in out-of-home care with family reunification services provided to mother and father.
At the date set for a contested disposition hearing, mother requested placement of the children on the condition that she would move in with the children's maternal aunt. Based upon mother's request, the juvenile court ordered the children removed from mother's custody while simultaneously placing the children with mother on the condition that she live in the home of the maternal aunt. Mother was ordered to participate in family maintenance services, and the court set a review hearing pursuant to section 364 for February 15, 2019. The family maintenance case plan required mother to participate in counseling for domestic violence and a mental health assessment.
The department filed a section 387 petition on August 30, 2018, alleging mother allowed unsupervised contact between the child's siblings and D.P. The petition further alleged that mother failed to attend her mental health assessment and meet the children's needs while living with the maternal aunt for only a few days. At the detention hearing on the supplemental petition, the children were ordered detained from mother, and mother was ordered to have supervised visits twice per week.
The department's jurisdiction report recommended the allegations of the supplemental petition be found true. The juvenile court sustained the section 387 petition on October 31, 2018, and the disposition hearing was continued to January 4, 2019. The disposition report recommended the children be removed from mother's custody and the department provide family reunification services to mother. The children were placed together with their maternal aunt on September 1, 2018. The maternal aunt informed the social worker that mother missed a visit in October 2018 because mother was observed to be under the influence while sitting in a vehicle at her grandmother's home.
The social worker confirmed that the maternal aunt was committed to either legal guardianship or adoption for the children. The child enjoyed living with the maternal aunt and her sisters. She told the social worker that she was going to live with mother after the baby was born because she was going to have a" 'big house for us.'" The child was about to complete therapy, and she showed the social worker yoga poses that she learned in therapy.
Mother maintained regular contact during her twice weekly visits until January 2019 when she missed three visits. The visits were described as being of good quality, and mother was observed to be equally attentive to all the children. She gave birth to her fifth child, T.P., in January 2019, and she admitted to using "spice" two days prior to the birth. Drug tests from the time of the delivery revealed positive results for THC and amphetamines.
At the disposition hearing held on February 13, 2019, the juvenile court ordered the children removed from mother's custody and family reunification services to be provided to mother. Mother was ordered to participate in counseling for domestic violence and substance abuse, complete a mental health assessment, and submit to random drug testing. Her visitation with the children remained twice per week for two hours. A six-month review hearing was scheduled for August 13, 2019.
On May 10, 2019, the children were removed from the maternal aunt's home after it was discovered that two individuals with extensive, violent criminal and gang history were residing in the maternal aunt's home. The child was subsequently placed with her sibling, E.H., in a foster home, however, the care provider requested that the child and E.H. be removed in June 2019. The care provider believed the child picked up defiant behaviors from E.H., and the child got into an altercation with three older girls at a park. The child was placed in a separate foster home from E.H. because the department was unable to secure a home that could take both children. An additional mental health assessment was requested for the child since she was having a difficult time not being placed with family.
The department prepared a report for the six-month review hearing to be held on August 13, 2019, which recommended continued family reunification services for mother. The child had remained placed in a resource family home that was interested in providing a plan of legal guardianship. Mother was compliant with the components and objectives of her case plan except for verifying completion of the mental health assessment. She completed her domestic violence program in April 2019. The department assessed mother's progress as moderate, and mother maintained regular visits with the children. The juvenile court adopted the department's recommendation at the six-month review hearing by continuing mother's family reunification services.
The report prepared for the 12-month review hearing recommended that mother's family reunification services be continued. Mother continued to participate in her substance abuse group counseling sessions, and she missed two random drug tests in September 2019. In August and September 2019, mother missed a total of three visits. The child remained placed in a separate resource family from her siblings. She rated her level of contentment in the home at a level of 10 on a scale from one to 10 (with 10 being the best). The care provider's strict rules were appreciated by the child because she acknowledged her need for it. She had been participating in weekly therapy and taking psychotropic medication for her behaviors. The child reported that she wanted to return home while keeping the care provider, who she referred to as" 'Grandma,'" in her life. On October 31, 2019, the juvenile court continued mother's family reunification services, and it set an 18-month review hearing for February 28, 2020.
On February 22, 2020, the department filed a report for the 18-month review hearing, which recommended that mother's family reunification services be terminated and a section 366.26 hearing be set. A progress report from mother's substance abuse counseling program indicated her involvement was minimal and progress was unsatisfactory. Mother failed to provide verification of her mental health assessment, and reported that her last individual counseling session was in October 2019. Her random drug test results for the review period consisted of nine negative test results and one failure to appear.
Mother initially told the social worker that she was not having contact with D.P. However, she admitted to running into D.P., which eventually led to another pregnancy. The report noted mother engaged with the children during supervised visits, but she had difficulties managing the children's behaviors when they acted out negatively. She also failed to consistently visit with the children. Mother visited only once every other week, and she only visited with the children once in January 2020.
The child remained in her same placement since June 29, 2019, but there were concerns that she was bullying other foster children in the home. Her behavior was improving, and the child had no concerns about her placement. The child expressed her preference to return to her mother's care, and the care provider was committed to provide the child with a long-term placement in foster care. However, the child's next care provider subsequently indicated her openness to a legal guardianship.
In a supplemental report dated February 17, 2021, the social worker provided updates on the family's circumstances. Mother completed her substance abuse counseling in July 2020, but she tested positive for cocaine in November 2020. Her positive test required her to reenroll in substance abuse counseling, which she had not done. The department had not received confirmation that mother either completed her mental health assessment or was participating in mental health services. Mother gave birth to her sixth child in August 2020, and the newborn sibling was removed from mother's custody by the juvenile court.
Mother failed to consistently visit with the children during the review period, and she missed numerous visits from November 2020 to January 2021. During supervised visits, mother engaged in conversation with the children and was attentive to each of them. The child attended biweekly therapy, and her therapist intended to decrease sessions to monthly because she was doing well. Mother and the child spoke on the phone throughout the week, and the child still had contact with E.H.
A contested 18-month review hearing was finally held on February 22, 2021, after multiple continuance requests by mother due to her unavailability, appointed counsel being relieved by conflict, and new counsel's appointment. Mother requested that her children be returned to her custody on a plan of family maintenance. The juvenile court followed the department's recommendation by terminating mother's family reunification services and setting a section 366.26 hearing for June 22, 2021.
The department's section 366.26 report recommended a permanent plan of another planned permanent living arrangement for the child due to the absence of a prospective adoptive parent or guardian for the child. Supervised visitation between mother, the child, and her siblings continued, and mother continued to tell the children that they would be returning to her care. The child, at 10 years of age, was happy in her current placement, but she desired to live with mother if she was able to. The child shared her first 13 placements from September 2017 to June 2019 with E.H. Her 15th and current placement began on September 21, 2020, but her care provider was unwilling to provide a plan of legal guardianship at that time.
At the continued section 366.26 hearing held on September 20, 2021, the juvenile court ordered the child to remain placed in foster care with a permanent plan of placement with a fit and willing relative. The parental rights of mother and D.P. were terminated as to three of the child's younger siblings, and a legal guardianship was established for E.H. Supervised visitation between the child and mother was to be weekly for two hours, and the child and her siblings were to visit every other week.
In advance of the child's permanency review hearing pursuant to section 366.3, the child's care provider expressed her commitment to become the child's legal guardian. The child enjoyed living in the care provider's home with other kids her age, and she felt safe in the home. In its report for the review hearing, the department requested another section 366.26 hearing be set to establish a plan of legal guardianship. The child agreed with the plan of legal guardianship with her care provider if she could still have visits with her mother. The juvenile court adopted the department's recommendation at the review hearing, and it set an additional section 366.26 hearing for July 15, 2022.
Mother's counsel filed a section 388 petition, requesting the child be returned to her custody on a plan of family maintenance on April 4, 2022. The petition alleged that mother completed a substance abuse program and was participating in mental health services. It further alleged that her request served the child's best interest because mother could provide a permanent and stable home. A letter from mother's therapist referenced her attendance at 31 sessions since March 25, 2021. Progress reports from mother's outpatient substance abuse program, dated March 2022, discussed a relapse in July 2021. Mother's progress was noted as "Good," and she was discharged from the program with only partial completion. Her random drug tests were "unfavorable" in July, August, and September 2021.
The department recommended that mother's section 388 petition be denied. The juvenile court held an evidentiary hearing on mother's section 388 petition on May 6, 2022, where mother provided testimony about her efforts in mental health and substance abuse counseling. After hearing argument from counsel, the court denied mother's section 388 petition due to a lack of changed circumstances and best interests.
The section 366.26 report, dated July 1, 2022, recommended that the juvenile court terminate mother's parental rights and order a permanent plan of adoption for the child. The child, at 11 years of age, had been placed in her current care provider's home since September 21, 2020. She was on track in her physical development with a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The child attended therapy monthly, and she was prescribed psychotropic medication for her ADHD.
According to the social worker's assessment, mother participated in 161 of 386 possible visits with the child from her initial removal to August 2021. In the past year, mother attended approximately 42 visits after missing 30 visits for lack of visitation coverage and mother's scheduling conflicts. Documentation from mother's visits indicated mother was attentive to the child, and mother and the child shared hugs and kisses when visits ended.
In May 2022, the child informed the social worker that she would live with her mother if she could live anywhere she wanted. She wished that she could go home with all of her siblings, but she would stay in her current placement if she could not return to her mother's home. The social worker explained the differences between long-term foster care, guardianship, and adoption. The child indicated she would choose adoption out of the three choices. The social worker indicated that she may not have future visits with her parents because her foster mother would become her legal parent. The child felt she would still get to see her parents, and she also hoped to see her siblings. During a social worker visit in July 2022, the child stated that she loved being in her placement.
The social worker's assessment detailed the child's placement in the department's custody for over four years, and the child was placed with her current care provider for almost two years. The child's current care provider was committed to a permanent plan of adoption, and the child wished to be adopted. There were five other children living in the home from the ages of one to 15 years old. Two of the children were in legal guardianships and three were foster placements. The care provider desired to provide the child with a safe, secure, and stable home, and she had bonded with the child. The child was fully integrated into the care provider's family, and the care provider loved the child as her own. The social worker believed the child looked at the care provider as her own parent and to meet her needs. The care provider expressed her willingness to allow future contact between the child and biological parents as long as the parents remained stable. The social worker's assessment concluded that the benefits of adoption outweighed any detriment the child would experience from the severing of the parent-child relationship.
At the continued section 366.26 hearing held on September 13, 2022, mother's counsel objected to the recommendation to terminate her parental rights. Mother requested that the juvenile court apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption. Her counsel argued that the child spent a significant portion of her life with mother prior to the dependency proceedings and mother maintained regular visits. He highlighted mother's "consistent[]" efforts to reunify and the 11-year-old child's "significant" relationship with mother in urging the court to adopt the exception.
Counsel for father submitted on the department's recommendation, and he requested that the child remain in her current placement. Both counsel for the child and the department argued that mother failed to prove the exception based upon a lack of consistent visitation. In a final comment, mother's counsel added that mother and the care provider had a good relationship and she was hopeful to continue contact after a potential adoption.
After hearing argument from all counsel, the juvenile court discussed mother's claim of the beneficial parent-child relationship exception as follows:
"[T]he child has been out of the home for over four years, and in this particular home placement for the past two years. But at this stage of the proceedings, it is in the best interest of the child that she have a stable home.
She's had multiple home placements, and at her age, she has a family that wants her to join them. She wants to be part of that family, and in her best interest, I'll weigh the objection raised by the mother at this stage. I think the record clearly supports that finding and that the adoptive parents are willing to maintain a relationship with the child is commendable, and I think it serves the benefit of the child and also allows the mother to still be involved. [¶] So the Court is overruling the objection, and based on the report, the evidence that's been presented in writing and arguments made this morning. So that's the basis for the Court's ruling, and I'm prepared now to take the matter under submission."
The juvenile court proceeded to terminate mother's parental rights and order a permanent plan of adoption for the child. Mother filed a timely notice of appeal on September 27, 2022.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court erred when it did not apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption. She argues the court failed to examine the evidence favoring the exception to adoption by engaging in a" 'subtle, case-specific inquiry'" on the issues related to the exception. Mother further asserts that the court rejected the beneficial parent-child relationship exception based upon an improper assumption that the child's care provider would maintain postadoption contact.
A. Legal Principles
At a section 366.26 hearing, when the juvenile court finds by clear and convincing evidence the child is adoptable, it is generally required to terminate parental rights and order the child be placed for adoption unless a statutory exception applies. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) One of the statutory exceptions is the beneficial parent-child relationship exception, which applies when "[t]he court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child" where "[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." (Id., subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
A parent claiming an exception to adoption has the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of evidence that the exception applies. (In re Melvin A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252.) Thus, the parent must prove three elements in order to prevail under the beneficial relationship exception: "(1) regular visitation and contact, and (2) a relationship, the continuation of which would benefit the child such that (3) the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child." (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 631 (Caden C.).)
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.) While a child may derive enjoyment from "pleasant and cordial ... visits" with a parent, that is not the type of benefit contemplated by the statute. (In re Brian R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 904, 924.)
The first element of the beneficial relationship determination asks the "straightforward" question of whether the parent visited consistently, considering the extent permitted by court orders. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.) The focus is on the best interest of the child as opposed to punishing or rewarding parents for good behavior in maintaining contact. (Ibid.)
The second element of the exception asks whether the child would benefit from continuing the relationship. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.) The parent-child relationship "may be shaped by a slew of factors, such as '[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.'" (Ibid., quoting In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) The juvenile court's focus should again be on the child, and it "must remain mindful that rarely do '[p]arent-child relationships' conform to an entirely consistent pattern." (Caden C., at p. 632.)
When considering the third element, courts must determine "how the child would be affected by losing the parental relationship-in effect, what life would be like for the child in an adoptive home without the parent in the child's life." (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 633.) Potential negative effects from severance of the relationship might include "emotional instability and preoccupation leading to acting out, difficulties in school, insomnia, anxiety, or depression." (Ibid.) An adoptive home might provide a new source of stability that alleviates emotional instability and preoccupation leading to those problems, making the loss "not, at least on balance, detrimental." (Ibid.) Under this element, the court is again guided by the child's best interest, but in a "specific way: it decides whether the harm of severing the relationship outweighs 'the security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer.'" (Ibid.)
In Caden C., the Court of Appeal held "that because the parent continued to struggle with substance abuse and mental health issues and because of the risks of foster care and benefits of the potential adoptive home, no reasonable court could find the child's relationship with his parent outweighed the benefits of adoption." (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 625-626.) Rejecting that conclusion, our Supreme Court found "[t]he Court of Appeal did not explain how the parent's struggles related to the specific elements of the statutory exception: the importance of the child's relationship with the parent or the detriment of losing that relationship." (Id. at p. 626.) A parent's struggles with issues that led to dependency were determined to be relevant only to the extent they inform whether the child would "benefit from continuing the relationship and be harmed, on balance, by losing it[.]" (Id. at p. 638.)
B. Standard of Review
Appellate courts review a juvenile court's ruling on the application of the beneficial parent-child relationship exception using a "hybrid" standard. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 641.) The substantial evidence standard applies to the first two elements of regular visitation and existence of a beneficial relationship. (Id. at pp. 639-640.) The juvenile court's decision as to the third element-whether termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child-is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 640.) "Review for abuse of discretion is subtly different, focused not primarily on the evidence but the application of a legal standard. A court abuses its discretion only when '" 'the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination.'" '" (Id. at p. 641.)
The standard of review of a court's determination that a parent did not meet his or her burden to prove an exception to termination of parental rights is "whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law." (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1528, disapproved on other grounds by Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010, fn. 7.) Specifically, the question is "whether the appellant's evidence was (1) 'uncontradicted and unimpeached' and (2) 'of such a character and weight as to leave no room for a judicial determination that it was insufficient to support a finding.'" (In re I.W., at p. 1528.)
C. Analysis
In the present case, the juvenile court determined that mother did not meet her burden of proof as to the application of the beneficial parent-child relationship exception. Mother contends that evidence was presented that would support a finding of the existence of a beneficial parent-child relationship. Both the department and child's counsel disputed mother's claim of maintaining regular visitation and contact with the child throughout the proceedings. In fact, there were periods that mother's visits with the child were sporadic or nonexistent. However, even if we were to accept that mother maintained regular contact with the child, she is unable to establish that the benefits of maintaining the parental relationship outweighed those provided by adoption.
In support of her contention, mother cites to evidence that the child desired to live with mother and had positive interactions with her during visits. Mother claims there was no evidence that mother's relationship with the child had any negative features. Mother's suggestion that there was evidence that would support a finding that such a beneficial relationship existed ignores the fact that it was her burden to prove the exception. (See In re Travis C. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1219, 1225 [" 'The judgment will be upheld if it is supported by substantial evidence, even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the trial court might have reached a different result had it believed [the] other evidence.' "].) The benefits of an adoptive home were of great significance to the child since it had been more than five years since her initial removal in August 2017. The limited relationship mother was able to maintain through supervised visits in the preceding years is not that extraordinary case where preservation of parental rights outweighs the preference for adoption. (In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1166 ["' "it is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent's rights will prevail over the Legislature's preference for adoptive placement"' "].)
While section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(D) requires the juvenile court to" 'state its reasons in writing or on the record'" in concluding that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child, the juvenile court is not required to recite specific findings when it concludes that terminating parental rights would not be detrimental to the child. (In re A.L. (2022) 73 Cal.App.5th 1131, 1156.) Although a juvenile court's statement of its findings or an explanation of the reasons for its decision may be helpful in conducting appellate review, it is not a legal requirement. (Ibid.) Thus, the juvenile court did not err in failing to further analyze the benefits of the parent-child relationship and adoption.
Next, we will address mother's claim that the juvenile court improperly relied on the care provider's willingness to allow postadoption contact when it declined to apply the exception to adoption. A similar claim was considered in the case of In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102, which involved nine- and 10-year-old children" 'of an age where they are intellectually and emotionally aware of whom their parents are.'" (C.B., at pp. 125-126.) The juvenile court had implicitly found the existence of a "substantial, positive emotional parent-child attachment despite the lack of day-to-day contact." (Id. at p. 126.) However, it stated" '[t]here is no evidence that that [loving] connection [between mother and the children] would be severed if the Court were to terminate parental rights. The Court cannot see that terminating parental rights would "greatly harm" the children ...." (Id. at p. 127.) Based in part on this belief, the juvenile court ultimately proceeded to terminate parental rights. (Ibid.)
The Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court erred by injecting an improper factor into the weighing process and concluded as follows,
"[I]f a juvenile court determines that a parent has 'maintained regular visitation and contact' (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)), that there is a 'substantial, positive emotional attachment' between child and parent benefitting the child [citation], and that the benefit from continuing that parent-child relationship in a tenuous placement 'promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh' the benefit that child would gain from the stability and permanency of adoption [citation], then the parent-child relationship exception is established. In those circumstances, the court cannot nevertheless terminate parental rights based upon an unenforceable expectation that the prospective adoptive parents will voluntarily permit future contact between the child and a biological parent, even if substantial evidence supports that expectation." (C.B., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 128.)
Here, unlike the case of C.B., we do not believe that the juvenile court ordered termination of parental rights on the expectation that there would be ongoing contact between mother and the child. The court never found that mother maintained regular visitation and contact or that there was a substantial, positive relationship between mother and the child. Furthermore, it made no express statement that there would be no severance of the parent-child relationship based on an agreement for postadoption contact. Nothing about the court's ruling indicated it had found sufficient evidence to support the existence of a beneficial parent-child relationship and then declined to apply the exception based on an unenforceable promise of future visitation.
The juvenile court made its commendation of the care provider's willingness to maintain a relationship between the child and mother only after it completed its discussion of the child's need for a stable adoptive home. We must draw all reasonable inferences in support of the juvenile court's order (In re Megan S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 247, 251), and a reasonable inference from the record is that the court was merely commending the child's care provider as a digression during its weighty decision to terminate mother's parental rights. The court's comment regarding possible future contact was made on the heels of statements by mother's counsel that mother hoped to continue contact with the child postadoption. From the context of the court's statements, it appeared to be expressing a positive note that mother might still be allowed to maintain contact in order to soften the blow of its forthcoming orders. The totality of the court's statements at the hearing makes clear that it decided to terminate mother's parental rights because she failed to meet her burden of proving the beneficial parent-child relationship exception.
In sum, the evidence in the record weighed in favor of the preferred permanency option of adoption. Given the fact that the child spent almost half of her life in foster care by the age of 11, expressed her agreement with the plan of adoption, and was bonded to her care provider, we find the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion. Under these circumstances, the court's ruling is entitled to a presumption of correctness, and remand is unwarranted. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 640.) Therefore, the juvenile court did not err in declining to apply the beneficial parent-child relationship exception, and its orders terminating mother's parental rights were proper.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's orders are affirmed. --------- Notes: [*] Before Pena, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and Snauffer, J.