Opinion
F073695
01-13-2017
In re J.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. FRESNO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. M.P., Defendant and Appellant.
Mara Carman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. Nos. 14CEJ300193-1, 14CEJ300193-2, 14CEJ300193-3, 14CEJ300193-4, 14CEJ300193-5)
OPINION
THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Gary L. Green, Commissioner. Mara Carman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Daniel Cederborg, County Counsel, and Brent C. Woodward, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Before Hill, P.J., Detjen, J. and Peña, J.
-ooOoo-
M.P. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court's order terminating his parental rights over his sons, J.P.1 (born June 2009) and J.P.2 (born July 2010) (collectively, the boys). Father contends the court erred in declining to apply the sibling relationship exception to termination, which allows the court to maintain parental rights when termination would cause "substantial interference with a child's sibling relationship," taking into account the nature and extent of the relationship. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) Because there is no evidence termination of parental rights would substantially interfere with J.P.1's and J.P.2's relationship with their siblings, we reject Father's contention and affirm the judgment.
In this opinion, certain persons are identified by initials, abbreviated names, and/or by status in accordance with our Supreme Court's policy regarding protective nondisclosure. No disrespect is intended.
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Petition and Reunification Period
In June 2014, J.P.1 and J.P.2, along with their sister, G.P. (born May 2003), and their brothers, N.P. (born April 2005) and E.P. (born June 2007) (collectively, the children) were detained due to the ongoing problems of their mother, K.P. (Mother), with substance abuse and domestic violence. At the time of the children's detention, Father's whereabouts were unknown.
The children were declared dependents of the juvenile court under a petition filed on their behalf by the Fresno County Department of Social Services (the Department) alleging counts under section 300 subdivision (b) (failure to protect) and subdivision (g) (no provision for support). The court ordered the children removed from parental custody and granted Mother reunification services.
The children were initially placed with their maternal grandfather, R.M. (Grandfather), and step-grandmother, K.M. (Step-grandmother), who already had three other minors living with them at the time of the placement. The three other minors in the home were the children's nondependent half-sister, L.C., and two of their maternal aunts.
The children remained with Grandfather and Step-grandmother until April 2015, when the children were placed in foster care. The same month, a supplemental petition for more restrictive placement was filed on the ground that Grandfather and Step-grandmother were no longer willing to have placement of the children.
The Department filed a detention report in support of the supplemental petition. According to the report, the social worker met with Step-grandmother in late December 2014. Step-grandmother complained that having eight children in her home did not allow her to give attention to all of them.
In late January 2015, the social worker and a supervisor met with Grandfather and Step-grandmother. Grandparents both reported that they were unable to keep placement of the children in their home due to their busy schedules, having businesses to run, and three other children in the home.
Around the same time, the children's maternal grandmother, N.K. (Grandmother), informed the social worker that she had been a significant part of the children's lives and wished to provide a home and permanent plan for them. Regarding Grandmother's circumstances, the Department reported:
"Currently, [Grandmother] resides in a travel trailer that she parks on the maternal uncle's property. She has reside[d] in this trailer for several years. She recently became employed at Michaels part-time. She is also attending school. She stated that she will need assistance from the Department for housing in order to get placement of all the children. The Department has agreed to work with [Grandmother]; however, she has to secure the housing herself and demonstrate that she is able to maintain the housing. She has provided homes in the Gilroy area where she wants to rent from $2500 to $2900 a month which she may not be able to maintain on her own and show stability. [¶] The children reported having a good relationship with [Grandmother] and enjoying visit [sic] with her on the weekend."
In mid-February 2015, Step-grandmother informed the Department she and Grandfather were giving two-week's notice on the children's placement. Shortly thereafter, however, they decided to keep the children in the home.
In mid-March 2015, Grandfather and Step-grandmother gave the Department another notice to have the children removed from their care, after which the children were placed in three separate foster homes in April 2015. All the foster parents were supportive of maintaining the children's relationship with one another and with their grandparents.
On June 1, 2015, G.P. was placed back with Grandfather and Step-grandmother. Grandfather and Step-grandmother agreed to take placement of G.P., after her foster home was unable to retain her due to her behavioral problems in light of their impending adoption of a child from a foreign country.
By the time of the 12-month review hearing in August 2015, Mother had not completed any of her court-ordered services, visited the children since March 2015, or contacted the Department since May 2015. In consequence, the Department recommended termination of Mother's reunification services.
According to the Department's report for the 12-month review hearing, J.P.1 and J.P.2 remained in the same foster home in Gilroy where they were placed in April 2015. The boys appeared to be adjusting well and their care providers were willing to move towards a more permanent plan of adoption.
Regarding sibling visitation, the 12-month review report stated:
"The children continue to have sibling visitation. [N.P.] and [E.P.] live in close proximity to [J.P.1] and [J.P.2] and are able to visit often when their care providers are able to arrange them. The boys have been able to visit [G.P.] and their sister [L.C.] at their grandfather's home. They last were able to visit together on July 5, 2015. They all reported having a good time. They have a visit scheduled for July 24, 2015 with their siblings and maternal grandmother."
The Department further reported that the children's care providers were all "willing to maintain contact with the children's siblings and extended family." The social worker suggested that Grandmother, Grandfather, and Step-grandmother "participate in mediation through the consortium to discuss future visits" because Grandfather and Step-grandmother had expressed the willingness to provide a more permanent plan of guardianship for G.P.
At the conclusion of the 12-month review hearing on August 24, 2015, the juvenile court terminated reunification services to Mother and set a section 366.26 hearing to select and implement permanent plans for the children.
B. The Permanency Planning Period
The section 366.26 hearing was originally set for a date in December 2015. The hearing was thereafter continued several times to dates in January, February, and March 2016, and was finally conducted on April 18, 2016, with the juvenile court making its rulings on April 25, 2016.
In the section 366.26 report prepared in anticipation of the original hearing date in December 2015, the Department recommended a permanent plan of adoption for J.P.1 and J.P.2 by their prospective adoptive parents with whom the boys had remained since their placement with them on April 10, 2015. The report favorably described the care the boys were receiving and noted the boys had formed a strong, healthy, and positive relationship with the prospective adoptive parents, to whom they looked for comfort, soothing, praise, and safety. The boys had also formed a positive relationship with the prospective adoptive parents' biological children.
Since their placement with the family in April 2015, J.P.1 and J.P.2 had improved significantly in school and in their behaviors. The structured schedule provided by the prospective adoptive parents helped the boys stay on task and understand their daily expectations. The prospective adoptive parents were affectionate with J.P.1 and J.P.2 and the boys appeared comfortable exchanging affection with them. The prospective adoptive parents frequently praised J.P.1 and J.P.2 and acknowledged their achievements in school. They also acknowledged the boys' completion of developmentally appropriate tasks they set for the boys at home, such as independently dressing and cleaning up after themselves.
The prospective adoptive parents stated they loved the boys and wanted them to be part of their lives forever. The Department opined it would be detrimental to J.P.1 and J.P.2 to be removed from the prospective adoptive parents, as the boys were happy, comfortable, and thriving in their home.
Regarding J.P.1's and J.P.2's siblings, the Department recommended a permanent plan of legal guardianship without dependency for G.P., who had been living with Grandfather and Step-grandmother since her return to their home in June 2015. A permanent planned living arrangement was recommended for N.P. and E.P. with their current foster parents with whom they had both lived together since their placement in April 2015. Although N.P.'s and E.P.'s foster parents were not currently willing to provide a permanent plan of adoption or legal guardianship, they were willing to keep N.P. and E.P. in their home and to continue working with them.
Regarding sibling visitation, the section 366.26 report reflected that all three sets of care providers continued to live in Gilroy and that the children had "ongoing visits supervised by the care providers at each other's placements." The children enjoyed each other's company and the visits went well.
Regarding grandparent visitation, the Department reported that the children continued to visit Grandmother at least once a month, when she would take them for the day. The four brothers also continued to visit with Grandfather, with whom their sister was placed, based on Grandfather's availability due to his work schedule.
In an addendum report prepared in mid-January 2016, the Department reported that Father had contacted a Department social worker in late December 2015, and said he had just been informed his children would be "put up for adoption." He claimed he had not known the children had been removed from Mother's care because he had been working out of state. After his initial contact with the Department in December 2015, Father did not follow through with contacting the social worker to inquire into the children's well-being nor did he request visits or return the social worker's phone call.
The January 2016 addendum report further reflected that the boys' prospective adoptive mother contacted the social worker on January 7, 2016, and advised her that J.P.1 had undergone a mental health assessment that day, which the prospective adoptive parents had sought because J.P.1 had been exhibiting some concerning behaviors, including urinating on J.P.2 in November 2015, and thought J.P.1 might need mental health services. The prospective adoptive mother explained they had been able to add the boys on to their health insurance, which enabled them to expedite J.P.1's mental health assessment.
The mental health assessment was conducted by Dr. Carol Johnson-Schroetlin, PSYD, who the prospective adoptive mother reported would begin providing individual counseling services to J.P.1 because he displayed symptoms of anger and sadness. J.P.1, who continued to wet his bed at night, expressed that he missed Grandfather and his brothers. The prospective adoptive mother told the social worker that she and her husband would do whatever it took to help J.P.1, and that she planned to ask for pictures from the grandparents, as well as the two older brothers, so that she could place them in J.P.1's room.
The prospective adoptive parents continued to support visits between J.P.1 and his siblings and grandparents. The boys had visits with their siblings at least two times per month, and the four brothers also attended the same school and saw each other every day. The prospective adoptive parents also planned to put J.P.1 in sports or other activities and reported that J.P.1 continued to receive help for academics during his afterschool program two times per week.
On February 5, 2016, an investigator with the Juvenile Division of Fresno Child Advocates (i.e., the office of the children's counsel) filed a report concerning his telephone interview of the prospective adoptive father to discuss the prospective adoptive parents' ability to meet the boys' needs. Among other things, the prospective adoptive father talked to the investigator about the family's plans to move the following month and how they planned to maintain the boys' sibling relationships after the move:
Though not specifically mentioned by the parties' briefing on appeal, the investigator's February 5, 2016, report summarizing the prospective adoptive father's statements was among the many reports on which the Department submitted its case at the section 366.26 hearing and is part of the record on appeal.
"PAP [prospective adoptive parent] stated he and his family currently resides in Gilroy, CA, and plan to move to Morgan Hill, CA, at the end of 03/2016. PAP stated his new residence is located approximately 15 minutes from Gilroy, CA .... PAP stated he does not wish to disrupt minors and siblings' bond and will keep minors in their same school the rest of the school year. After school is over for this year, PAP stated he will continue to allow minors to have visit with siblings as they do now, which is basically once monthly. PAP stated maternal grandmother (MGM) ... will generally pick minors up once monthly for an 8-hour unsupervised visit. PAP stated MGM will have minors' siblings with her and all share the visits together.... [¶] PAP stated he and his spouse have an amicable relationship with MGM and stated he believes it is important to have a good and open relationship with MGM, as long as it is in the best interest of minors. PAP stated this is one of the reasons he and spouse agreed to consortium for children post adoption contact agreement."
In an addendum report prepared in February 2016, the Department summarized a letter that J.P.1's therapist, Johnson-Schroetlin, had provided to the social worker that month regarding J.P.1's mental health status. Johnson-Schroetlin reported her preliminary diagnosis for J.P.1 was "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Enuresis and Encopresis." She explained that J.P.1 had "symptomology of depression and generalized anxiety" and had expressed to her that he had been suffering from "significant stress and anxiety due to: interruptions in placement, interruptions in sibling visitation, and fear and insecurity regarding visitation with his biological parents and grandparents." Johnson-Schroetlin concluded it was "very important that [J.P.1] be provided with a consistent, predicable, supportive and loving environment in which he can continue to heal and work through the past trauma, neglect, and conflict he has experienced in his young life." She recommended that J.P.1 receive "regular, cognitive behavioral therapy in order to assist him with his psychological issues and concerns."
The February 2016 addendum report also had a section summarizing its assessment of relatives seeking placement. In this section, the Department reported that on February 10, 2016, Grandfather, who had recently separated from Step-grandmother, told the social worker that he was in the process of relocating to a new residence and that, once he settled in, he would look into taking placement of the boys' older brothers, N.P. and E.P., for whom he was willing to provide a permanent plan of legal guardianship once they were placed with them.
According to the January 2016 addendum report, Grandfather informed the social worker that Step-grandmother had moved out of the house and filed divorce papers that month. Grandfather expressed that he remained willing to take care of G.P., and G.P. told the social worker she was happy with Grandfather and wanted to live with him. Step-grandmother told the social worker she no longer wanted to become G.P.'s guardian but would remain involved in her life by doing activities with her. --------
Grandfather also told the social worker he believed J.P.1 and J.P.2 were in "a good placement with the prospective adoptive parents." Grandfather reported he had "a good relationship with the prospective adoptive parents and knows that they love [J.P.1] and [J.P.2]."
An assessment of the boys' sibling relationships was also contained in the February 2016 addendum report. According to the assessment, the children had all resided in the same home together prior to their removal from Mother in June 2014. Since their placement change in April 2015, the children had been consistently visiting with each other. They had been able to attend visits with their maternal grandparents for the day and sometimes had sleepovers. The boys' prospective adoptive parents would also have the boys' older brothers over to their house sometimes so they could spend time together. In addition, it was reported that the families "completed mediation through Consortium for Children" and "the care providers agreed on maintaining ongoing sibling contact."
The sibling assessment concluded that "[a]lthough there appears to be a sibling relationship, the Department continues to recommend adoption for the children, [J.P.1] and [J.P.2]." The assessment explained:
"The benefit of adoption outweighs the sibling relationship for [J.P.1] and [J.P.2]. [J.P.1] and [J.P.2] have been placed with the prospective adoptive parents since April 10, 2015. Since their placement, they have been doing well and thriving. [J.P.1] and [J.P.2] refer to the prospective adoptive parents as 'mom' and 'dad' and have developed a strong, positive and secure relationship with them. [J.P.1] and [J.P.2] [have] become a part of the prospective adoptive parents' family and appear happy and comfortable. The prospective adoptive parents have been meeting all of [J.P.1's] and [J.P.2's] needs and continue to advocate for the children. The prospective adoptive parents continue be open to maintaining sibling contact after adoption is finalized. The prospective adoptive parents understand the importance of sibling relationship and will continue to have siblings visit."
In the concluding assessment/evaluation section of the February 2016 addendum report, the Department opined that its original placement recommendations remained the most appropriate for all the children. The Department observed that the boys' prospective adoptive parents remained committed to a permanent plan of adoption for them and were taking the necessary steps to ensure their needs were being met. Grandfather continued to be committed to providing a permanent plan for legal guardianship without dependency for G.P., and also planned to take placement of N.P. and E.P. once Grandfather moved into his new residence, which would occur within the next month or two. And although they were not ready to commit to a permanent plan, N.P.'s and E.P.'s care providers were willing to keep them in their home and to continue to meet their needs.
The concluding assessment/evaluation also contained the following observation regarding the care providers' support of sibling visitation:
"The care providers for the children have a good working relationship. They communicate to plan sibling visits and also visitations with the grandparents as they understand that it is important for the children. The care providers will continue with the sibling visits even after adoption and legal guardianship is granted. The siblings have reported feeling fine that they are not together because they still get to see each other."
C. The Section 366.26 Hearing
On April 18, 2016, social worker Bo Yang, who was assigned to this case in September 2015, testified that she remembered that, in January 2016, J.P.1's prospective adoptive mother requested pictures of J.P.1's siblings and grandparents to put up in his room. The prospective adoptive mother expressed hope that, since J.P.1 missed them, it would help to see their pictures.
In Yang's opinion, the benefits of adoption for J.P.1 outweighed any interference with the sibling relationship because he had been doing better since his placement in his current home with care providers who were willing to adopt him and meet all his daily needs. When J.P.1 was initially placed there in April 2015, he had exhibited a number of behavioral problems, including tantrums and writing on walls. J.P.1 had been doing better over time with the help and support of his prospective adoptive parents. Yang confirmed J.P.2 did not have as many behavioral problems as J.P.1, and that J.P.1 tended to be more verbally expressive of his feelings, while J.P.2 tended to be more quiet.
When asked if she had any concern about the possible disruption of the boys' bond with their siblings if they were adopted, Yang said no. She explained: "They have been living with the care providers for a year. During that year, they do continue to have sibling contact with the other siblings, and the care providers are in support of maintaining the sibling connection and relationship." Grandmother was one of the relatives who facilitated sibling visits and those visits occurred on average once a month.
In her testimony, Grandmother confirmed that she facilitated sibling visits by having all the children visit together with her once a month. Grandmother believed the visits had benefits for J.P.1 and J.P.2 based on her observations that the children played very well together, were always very happy to see each other, and gave each other hugs when they got together. The children were sad when the visits ended and often said they did not want to go home.
Grandmother further testified that she went to the boys' school once a week and would have lunch with the boys individually. Sometimes when they were out on the playground, Grandmother would see J.P.1 and E.P. run up and give each other hugs after spotting each other.
Grandmother also testified regarding a recent incident where the four brothers were playing together at the playground and J.P.1 was "very sad." According to Grandmother's testimony, E.P. and N.P. both turned to her and said, "Grandma, [J.P.1] is saying that we're not going to be brothers pretty soon." When Grandmother asked J.P.1 why he would say that, J.P.1 sat down by her and would not answer her. Grandmother then said, "It's just all very confusing for you, isn't it honey?" J.P.1 said yes, crawled up onto Grandmother's lap, and "sat there for about 15 minutes crying."
Grandmother, who had been involved in the boys' lives ever since they were born, opined that it would be detrimental to them if their relationship with their siblings were severed. Grandmother believed it would be particularly difficult for J.P.1 because he was very bonded to his family. Grandmother testified "[J.P.2] may be okay, but [J.P.1] will not" and "will be very angry."
D. The Juvenile Court's Ruling
At the conclusion of the section 366.26 hearing on April 25, 2016, the juvenile court found the boys' adoptable and ordered termination of parental rights. In ruling, the court declined to apply the sibling relationship exception to termination, explaining:
"The other issue that was raised was interference with the sibling relationship. A key consideration is the best interest of the children to be adopted, not their siblings. There was some evidence that [J.P.1] and [J.P.2] are upset by the idea of adoption. There's some evidence of bedwetting and crying. However, the Court finds that these are temporary detriments, which are outweighed by adoption's long-term benefits of stability and permanency. [J.P.1] and [J.P.2] have bonded with their adoptive parents, and there's no evidence to suggest that that bond will not continue.
"The purpose of the sibling relationship existence exception is to preserve long-standing relationships. In other words, the children are to remain anchors for one another during times of turmoil. There is no psychological study to address this issue. [J.P.1] and [J.P.2] will continue to serve as each other's anchors even if separated from their siblings. There is also evidence that [Grandmother] has maintained visits among the siblings. There was no evidence that that will discontinue and or that [J.P.1's] and [J.P.2's] care providers will discontinue sibling contact. As a result, the Court will not prevent the adoption of [J.P.1] and [J.P.2]."
DISCUSSION
Father contends that the juvenile court erred in terminating his parental rights because it should have applied the sibling relationship exception to termination under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v). We disagree.
A. Applicable Legal Principles
"At a section 366.26 hearing the court is charged with determining a permanent plan of care for the child." (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 50.) Depending on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court is required to order one of several alternatives, including adoption, relative or non-relative legal guardianship, or long-term foster care. (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(1)-(7).) "Adoption, where possible, is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature." (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573 (Autumn H.); In re D.M. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 283, 289 (D.M.).) "'"Only if adoption is not possible, or if there are countervailing circumstances, or if it is not in the child's best interests are other, less permanent plans, such as guardianship or long-term foster care considered."'" (D.M., at p. 290.)
Adoption necessarily involves terminating the biological parents' parental rights. (See Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 574; D.M., supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 290.) After the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that a child is likely to be adopted, the burden shifts to the party opposing adoption to show that terminating parental rights would be detrimental to the child under one of the exceptions listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B). (See In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 553.) One of those exceptions is the so-called "sibling relationship" exception, codified in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v). This provision establishes an exception to terminating parental rights when the termination would result in "substantial interference with a child's sibling relationship, taking into consideration the nature and extent of the relationship, including, but not limited to, whether the child was raised with a sibling in the same home, whether the child shared significant common experiences or has existing close and strong bonds with a sibling, and whether ongoing contact is in the child's best interest, including the child's long-term emotional interest, as compared to the benefit of legal permanence through adoption." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v); see In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 998.)
In evaluating the applicability of the sibling-relationship exception, the juvenile court "is directed first to determine whether terminating parental rights would substantially interfere with the sibling relationship." (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 951-952; see In re Daisy D. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 287, 293 ["The exception ... applies only when adoption would result in 'substantial interference with a child's sibling relationship.'"].) "If the court determines terminating parental rights would substantially interfere with the sibling relationship, the court is then directed to weigh the child's best interest in continuing that sibling relationship against the benefit the child would receive by the permanency of adoption." (In re L.Y.L., at p. 952, italics added.) "The sibling relationship exception 'permits the trial court to consider possible detriment to the child being considered for adoption, but not a sibling of that child.'" (D.M., supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 291.)
We review a juvenile court's determination as to whether terminating parental rights would substantially interfere with a sibling relationship under the substantial evidence standard. But we review the court's weighing of competing interests under the abuse-of-discretion standard. (See In re Anthony B. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 389, 395; In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315.)
B. Analysis
A recitation of the facts clearly illustrates why the juvenile court's refusal to apply the sibling relationship exception was correct. A threshold requirement of the statute is a finding that termination of parental rights would cause "substantial interference with a child's sibling relationship," taking into account the nature and extent of the relationship. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v), italics added.) There was no evidence of prospective cessation or disruption of the sibling relationship upon termination of parental rights. Indeed, there is evidence that the prospective adoptive parents of J.P.1 and J.P.2 have consistently supported the boys' relationship with their siblings and intend to continue supporting that relationship after they adopt the boys. The boys' prospective adoptive parents, along with their siblings' other care providers, reportedly worked well together to arrange visits among the children throughout the pendency of the proceedings below. They also participated in mediation and agreed to maintain ongoing sibling contact under the auspices of the "Consortium for Children."
The record discloses no evidence that would provide reason to believe any of the care providers, including the boys' prospective adoptive parents, would fail to honor their agreement to maintain sibling contact and discontinue their well-established practice of facilitating regular visits between the boys and their siblings upon termination of Father's parental rights. (See, e.g., In re Jacob S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1011, 1019 [prospective adoptive parents were open to maintaining ties between the minors and their siblings, had done so in the past, and no evidence they intended to stop], disapproved on another ground in In re S.B. (2009) 46 Cal.4th 529, 537, fn. 5; In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 405 [insufficient evidence adoption would interfere substantially with sibling relationship in light of evidence the caretakers had arranged visitation between the minors and intended to continue the sibling relationship]; In re Megan S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 247, 252 [no substantial interference with sibling relationship where intention was to place child in adoptive home allowing sibling contact].) We conclude this case is analogous to the cited cases based on the prospective adoptive parents' well-documented commitment to maintaining the boys' relationship with their siblings and because, in the Department's words, "there is very little evidence in the record that termination of parental rights will cause any interference with the children's relationships with their siblings, let alone 'substantial interference.'"
Father maintains in his reply brief that the juvenile court erred in assuming sibling contact would continue after parental rights were terminated because such assumption was based not on evidence but on speculation. This is so, according to Father, because the prospective adoptive parents' willingness to maintain sibling contact was "conditioned on other factors" that could potentially change in the future "such as continuing to get along with caretakers of the siblings and that they would be moving and would not be in as close proximity to the foster parents of the older boys." Contrary to Father's suggestion, however, a finding that sibling contact was guaranteed to continue indefinitely in the future was not required.
Instead, the burden was on Father to present evidence establishing termination of parental rights would substantially interfere with the boys' relationship with their siblings. Father did not present any evidence of such interference; however, there is substantial evidence supporting the court's implicit finding that termination would not substantially interfere with the sibling relationship. However, even if termination of parental rights would interfere with the relationship shared by the boys and their siblings, we conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in its weighing of the benefits of continuing the sibling relationship against the benefits of a permanent home for J.P.1 and J.P.2 through adoption. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 61.) The juvenile court's determination is simply not beyond the bounds of reason. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318-319.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment (order terminating parental rights) is affirmed.