Opinion
E070364
12-04-2018
In re E.N. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.J. et al., Defendants and Appellants; K.N. et al., Appellants.
Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.J. Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.N. Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellants. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, Dawn M. Martin, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. William D. Caldwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J269005, J269006 & J269007) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Affirmed. Joseph T. Tavano, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.J. Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.N. Johanna R. Shargel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellants. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, Dawn M. Martin, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. William D. Caldwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Minors.
Defendants and appellants A.J. (mother) and S.N. (father; collectively, parents), and their five older children I.N. (a boy, born Dec. 2001; child1), Sh.N. (a boy, born Sept. 2004; child2), Ka.N. (a girl, born Dec. 2005; child3), Ki.N. (a girl, born Jan. 2007; child4), and Jo.N. (a boy, born Mar. 2011; child5), challenge the court's order denying their request to apply the sibling bond exception to preclude the termination of parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v), as to their three younger siblings, Je.N. (a boy, born April 2013; child6) and A.N. and E.N. (girls, born May 2015; child7 & child8). For the reasons set forth post, we shall affirm the judgment.
Because of the quantity of children in this matter, the similarity in their names, and to assist in understanding family dynamics, we refer to them according to their birth order. No disrespect is intended.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.
Children 1 through 5 are referred to collectively as the older siblings. Children 6 through 8 are referred to collectively as the younger siblings. The eight siblings together are referred to as the children. Children 7 and 8 are referred to as the twins.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PRIOR JUVENILE DEPENDENCY CASE
In October 2013, the children were detained when child2, child5 and child6 were found walking down the street unsupervised; they were going to a local store to get something to eat because they were hungry. Moreover, D.N. was put in the garage for two days as punishment for stealing food. At that time, there were no reports of domestic violence between parents, and no evidence of other kinds of abuse involving the children. Eventually, the children were returned to parents under family maintenance and the cases were dismissed.
D.N. was abused by father, which resulted in D.N.'s death on January 5, 2017. Father has been charged with D.N.'s murder and is currently incarcerated. --------
B. DETENTION
On January 5, 2017, San Bernardino Children and Family Services (CFS) received an immediate referral that father had physically abused D.N. (a boy, age 8) resulting in his death. The children reported that D.N. stole some candy, and father "whooped" him and placed him in father's room as a form of punishment. Child3 said that father told her to hold D.N.'s legs while father beat D.N. in the stomach with his fists. Father also told Child3 to beat D.N. Father left. D.N. became sick, his eyes were closed, complained of not being able to breathe, and had "skittle juice" coming out of his nose and mouth. Child1 attempted to perform CPR on D.N. before father returned home. When father returned, he told D.N. to stop "faking it" and tried splashing water on him. Father then attempted CPR and called 911.
The emergency room reported that all of D.N.'s ribs had been broken and the ribs showed signs of old fractures. D.N. had cigar burns, blunt force trauma to the abdomen, hypothermia, multiple bruising, and was malnourished. Father was arrested for murder.
The children told CFS that they did not want to be placed in mother's care due to mother's emotional and physical abuse, and preferred foster care placement. Child4 stated that in March of 2015, mother held a knife to child2's head and threatened to stab him. Mother had also punched and kicked child2 causing bruising.
Mother told the social worker that she had been out of the home since August 4, 2016, and she had not seen the children in two months. Parents had restraining orders against each other for domestic violence. Some of the children stated that mother verbally threatened them on the phone when she called. Mother stated that father had an anger problem and viewed the children as property; he would spank, punch and slap the children. Child1 attended high school. The other children, however, had not attended school in a very long time, and were left in the home to care for one another.
On January 11, 2017, CFS filed section 300 petitions on behalf of the children under subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (f), (i), and (j). At the January 11, 2017, detention hearing, the juvenile court noted that it would be looking to place the children together. The court stated that "[t]hese children have been through a horrific tragedy both just in the grief and loss but also the allegations are nothing less than horrific about what they may have witnessed as well, and they are going to need each other. So the Court has every inclination to put the children together when and where possible." In regards to attending D.N.'s funeral, the court opined that the older siblings should be able to attend, but the younger siblings were too young to understand and their attendance would not be beneficial. The juvenile court found a prima facie showing had been established for the detention.
C. JURISDICTION/DISPOSITION
In the jurisdiction/disposition report dated February 1, 2017, CFS recommended no family reunification services for either parent and to set a section 366.26 hearing date. At the request of the police detectives—because of the criminal investigation and the children attempting to influence each other on "what not to say"—all but two of the children were in separate placements; the twins were placed together.
When interviewed, mother stated that the family did fairly well for a time after the previous dependency case. While father always had a mean streak, things got better and stabilized for some time. Father's punishments of the children, however, increased. He began to withhold food from the children as a form of punishment. Parents continued to fight; the fights became more violent. Mother left the home. She did not believe that father was capable of truly hurting the children.
During interviews, the children reported more detailed accounts of abuse inflicted on them by parents. Child4 and child3 reported that they sometimes had to go to work with father, and they would have to hide in his car the entire time he was at work. Child1 was left at home to care for the other children. The children were suffering from serious emotional damage as a result of the conduct of parents. Both child1 and child2 had difficulty around food for fear it would be taken from them. Therefore, they would eat quickly and would sneak food and hide it in their rooms. Child3 had difficulty sleeping, and she had a difficult time speaking about holding D.N.'s legs down while father beat him. Child4 had difficulty distinguishing truth from lies, and was afraid of father. Child6 had nightmares and night terrors with mood swings. Child5 would talk about father hitting all of them; he told his caregiver that he got hit because he's "a really bad boy." The twins' caregiver reported they had to be taught how to play with toys, and they had a difficult time with socialization. They also turned to each other without seeking adult comfort; they did not expect adults to fulfill their needs.
On January 26, 2017, the social worker was informed that the children could have contact with each other and be placed together. The social worker acknowledged that the dynamics between the children would need to be examined since it appeared that the children were instructed to participate in disciplining each other; child2 and D.N. were identified as being the "bad" siblings.
On January 31, 2017, CFS filed amended section 300 petition adding further allegations of physical abuse by parents.
On March 14, 2017, CFS filed an additional information to the court. In the filing, CFS reported that mother was attending weekly visits with most of the children. The visits were described as very appropriate. CFS also reported that it was "making preparations to have the children placed with one another as much as is appropriate. Due to the complex emotional and medical issues that have arisen with the children, the [social worker] has focused on the most appropriate way to manage these issues, maintain a degree of stability, and still move forward with placing the children with at least one other sibling."
At the March 15, 2016, pretrial settlement conference, the social worker reported that there was a plan to place the children in four separate homes rather than the current seven placements. CFS was still in the process of locating two additional homes to fit the specific needs of four of the children. The children's counsel requested that child1 remain in his current home due to his autism. His caregiver had experience with autistic children, and child1 reported that he liked his placement.
On April 10, 2017, CFS filed a second amended petitions adding further allegations against parents. According to the second amended detention report dated April 10, 2017, the children continued to reside in separate placements with the exception of the twins.
At the April 10, 2017, contested jurisdictional hearing, father's counsel noted that father refused transportation from jail to attend the hearing. The court sustained the amended section 300 petitions. At the contested dispositional hearing the following day, the juvenile court denied reunification services to parents and set the section 366.26 hearing. When the court inquired about the children's placement, the social worker stated that child2 and child3 had been placed together. The social worker noted that having two traumatized children back in the home together was challenging. Child4 was moved to another placement with the expectation that child1 would be placed with her. The social worker, however, noted that it was not an appropriate placement for child1 so CFS was reevaluating. CFS continued to look for a joint placement home for child5 and child6. The twins continued to reside together. The social worker also reported that most of the children had ongoing sibling visits. The children's counsel told the court that she was appreciative of keeping child1 in his school of origin for consistency. She also expressed her desire that child1 remain in the area to continue attending the same school while a home was located where he could be joined by a sibling.
D. SECTION 366.26 HEARING
In the August 9, 2017, section 366.26 report, CFS requested that the section 366.26 hearing be continued an additional six months in order to stabilize the children's placement and locate concurrent homes for the children. Child3 and child4 were placed together in a foster home; the twins were placed together in another foster home; and the rest of the children were placed in separate foster homes. The court granted a continuance of the hearing to February 8, 2018.
On October 20, 2017, Mother filed a section 388 petition and contended that she completed counseling, a domestic violence treatment program, parenting education, and individual therapy. She asked that the court order the children returned to her care under family maintenance or grant reunification services. On October 24, 2017, the juvenile court denied mother's petition. It found that there was no new evidence or change of circumstances and granting the petition was not in the children's best interest.
In the February 8, 2018, section 366.26 report, CFS recommended that a permanent plan of adoption for the younger siblings be implemented and parental rights be terminated. It was reported that child6 was placed in the same home as the twins on December 11, 2017, where they had been residing since January 6, 2017. The younger siblings had developed an attachment to their prospective adoptive parents; the prospective adoptive parents wanted to adopt the younger siblings. The prospective adoptive parents were committed to ensuring that the children maintained ties with the older siblings. They had adopted before and understood the importance of maintaining sibling ties.
Mother visited with the children regularly and the visits went well. The social worker supervising the visits noted that mother appeared to have a stronger bond and attachment to the older siblings than the younger siblings. Mother, however, made an effort with the younger siblings by coloring and dancing with them.
At the February 8, 2018, hearing, counsel for the children declared a conflict in representing all of the children. The court appointed separate counsel for the younger siblings and older siblings. The court also appointed a guardian ad litem for the children.
On March 16, 2018, the older siblings filed a section 388 petition requesting to participate in the younger siblings' section 366.26 hearing in order to assert the sibling bond exception to termination of parental rights. The petition alleged that the older siblings were heartbroken about the recommendation for adoption of the younger siblings, and the older siblings had hoped to live together again with the younger siblings. They were all raised together and lived together their entire lives until D.N.'s death brought them to the court's attention. Child3 and child4 were like parents to the children, especially after father obtained a restraining order against mother. The younger siblings looked up to the older ones, and child6 especially looked up to child1. The children shared the common experience of suffering extreme neglect and abuse at the hands of parents, the loss of their brother D.N., and the need to take care of each other. The children had been visiting each other weekly and consistently during the dependency case. The older siblings believed the visits went well and they were always happy to see each other. The older siblings loved the younger siblings, and believe that the "little ones" loved them. The older siblings believe the children had forged a strong sibling bond with each other through the hardships and loss they endured together. They believed their bond was not diminished by their separation, and the bond had remained strong through the shared visits. The older siblings had already lost one brother, and if the younger siblings were adopted, they would lose them as well. Since it was unlikely the children would be returned to mother, all they had was each other. On March 19, 2018, the juvenile court ordered a hearing on the older siblings' section 388 petitions.
CFS filed an Additional Information to the Court on March 28, 2018. The social worker informed the court that she had spoken at length with the prospective adoptive parents regarding sibling contact following adoption. The social worker advised the prospective adoptive parents of the benefit of maintaining the children's relationships and informed them that regardless of adoption, the children maintain their status. The prospective adoptive parents had been foster/adoptive parents for numerous years and had adopted several children. They were committed to maintaining the sibling bond and ensuring visitation continued between the children. They were aware of the trauma and loss the children had experienced prior to coming into the care of CFS because they had been the caregivers for the twins since they were detained. The prospective adoptive parents acknowledged that the current situation was a first for them—having older siblings involved—and may be challenging at times because it was highly likely that mother would be involved in the older siblings' lives. The social worker, however, observed the prospective adoptive parents having strong boundaries and opined that they had the experience to handle the situation.
CFS filed a response to the section 388 petition on April 16, 2018. CFS requested that the petition be denied and that the section 366.26 hearing proceed as planned—to terminate parental rights and establish a permanent plan of adoption for the younger siblings. CFS noted that the twins were very young when removed; they were nonverbal. The prospective adoptive parents said that the younger siblings did not ask for the older siblings. Child6 did not mention the older siblings and appeared to be focused on his own life. The twins remembered child1 as he was a father figure to them, but they only said his name when it was mentioned by another person. CFS's response again noted that the prospective adoptive parents understood the importance of the younger siblings growing up and knowing the older siblings.
CFS noted that only the younger siblings could be placed together due to the individual needs of the children. There was no available placement for all of the children, and it remained highly unlikely due to the mental health treatment required for some of the older siblings due to the trauma they experienced while in parents' care. CFS sympathized with the children and believed sibling contact should be maintained. However, the younger siblings were "very young to grow up without a solid foundation and need permanency that adoption will provide them."
Father refused to be transported for the April 17, 2018, section 366.26 hearing and was not in attendance. The court granted the older siblings' section 388 petition to participate in the hearing. Mother testified that she visited the children weekly and they were happy to see her. She would visit with the older siblings for an hour and then the younger siblings would come for another hour to visit with all of them. Mother said that the children got along during visits; child1 was "overprotective" and the children went to him for comfort or if they needed anything. She said that child3 was very good at comforting child6, and child2 and child6 were really close. When mother lived in the home, the older siblings would help care for the younger siblings.
Child3 testified that she helped take care of the younger siblings by changing diapers, cleaning them, putting them to sleep, feeding them bottles, rocking them to sleep, and playing with them. During visits, they would also play and feed them, or bring them to mother for comfort. Child4 wanted all of her siblings to live together again. However, if that was not possible, she believed that it was best for them to be adopted and continue having visits. When asked if the younger siblings were adopted and she could not visit them anymore, child4 responded, "It would hurt my feelings if I wouldn't be able to see them. But as long as they are in a stable home and they don't have to continue to move throughout their whole lives, I think that would be best for them."
Child1 testified that he also cared for the younger siblings when they lived together by changing their diapers, cleaning them, and watching television with them. He did not believe it was best for the younger siblings to be adopted especially if he may not be able to see them again. He acknowledged that mother primarily assisted the younger siblings during the visits.
Child2 testified that he also cared for the children when they resided together. He would also play with them during visits. He testified that it was best for his younger siblings to be adopted "because clearly the foster mom, she really loves them and they really love her, and every time they come out of the visits, they call her 'mom.' They get excited. Even though I wouldn't like them to get adopted, it's not what's—what I—what I feel. It's what's best for the twins."
The older siblings' counsel requested that the sibling exception be applied; parents joined in that request. The younger siblings' counsel noted that, although the younger siblings enjoyed their visits, they were young when removed and "have no recollection as the older [siblings] do, and probably thankfully they won't remember the tragedy that occurred in this case." Counsel, therefore, argued that the younger siblings' need for permanency outweighed any other benefit.
The juvenile court made a detailed ruling in this case as follows:
"[T]he law requires the Court . . . to look at it from the eyes of the [younger siblings]. I think it's very clear that the older [siblings] are bonded to the little ones. I think it's clear that the older [siblings] did act in a parental role from the time that the children were born, and, in fact, it's so second nature to them that they continue to do so now.
"The issue again, though, is that the three little ones have been out of that daily contact with their siblings for some 15 months and have been placed together in a concurrent planning home where they're forming new bonds and attachments which is a good thing for them and their future.
"I will note that as to the older [siblings] to the younger [siblings], I think that bond is significant. But the law and what I am required to do is to look at it from the [younger siblings'] perspective and to determine whether severing the sibling bond would be detrimental such that it outweighs the permanency that would be afforded to them by adoption. And what that means is I would have to find that severing that sibling bond outweighs 15 years of permanency for them. [¶] . . . [¶]
"I will note I considered specific cases, In re Jacob S., as well as In re Valerie A., and I will note that those cases do direct that the Court can also consider that in weighing the benefits versus any detriment, whether it's likely that there would be continued contact, and I do find that that is likely based on the information in the reports and the statements by the prospective de facto petitioner from the children.
"But despite whether or not that contact was continued, form the eyes of the little children, I can't find that the bond is that significant that severing it would be detrimental to them such that it outweighs the right to have a permanent home for the next remainder of their childhood, and for that reason I find that there is insufficient evidence to apply the sibling bond exception."
After the juvenile court announced its ruling, there was a break and the court noted that the older siblings had a "heartbreaking and devastating breakdown." Three of the older siblings left the courtroom and they could be heard "sobbing in the hallway which is heartbreaking for everyone in the courtroom." Thereafter, the trial court terminated parental rights as to the younger siblings, and granted their prospective adoptive parents de facto standing.
DISCUSSION
A. THE JUVENILE COURT PROPERLY FOUND THAT THE BENEFICIAL EXCEPTION TO ADOPTION DID NOT APPLY
Mother, father, and the older siblings contend that the juvenile court erred in refusing to apply the sibling beneficial relationship exception under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v). They all join in each others' arguments as well. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the sibling beneficial relationship did not apply.
1. APPLICABLE LAW
At a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing, the juvenile court determines a permanent plan of care for a dependent child. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 50.) Permanent plans include adoption, guardianship, and long-term foster care. (In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 296.) Adoption involves terminating the legal rights of the child's natural parents, but guardianship and long-term foster care leave parental rights intact. (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 574.) " 'Guardianship, while a more stable placement than foster care, is not irrevocable and thus falls short of the secure and permanent future the Legislature had in mind for the dependent child.' " (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53.) Adoption, where possible, is the preferred permanent plan. (Autumn H., at p. 573.)
"Adoption must be selected as the permanent plan for an adoptable child and parental rights terminated unless the court finds 'a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child due to one or more of the following circumstances: [[¶] . . . [¶]] (v) There would be substantial interference with a child's sibling relationship . . . .' (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).) '[T]he burden is on the party seeking to establish the existence of one of the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) exceptions to produce that evidence.' " (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314.)
"The sibling relationship exception applies where the juvenile court finds that 'substantial interference with a child's sibling relationship' is a 'compelling reason' to conclude that adoption would be detrimental to the child. In making this determination, the court should take 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).)" (In re Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1317.) The mere existence of a sibling relationship is not enough to apply the exception; the relationship must be "sufficiently significant" to cause detriment upon its termination; otherwise, there is "no substantial interference" with the sibling relationship. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 952.)
2. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Appellate courts have traditionally applied either the substantial evidence test or the abuse of discretion test in considering challenges to juvenile court determinations of whether one or more of the statutory exceptions to adoption preference applies. (In re Scott B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 452, 469.) There is little, if any, practical difference between the two. (Ibid.) As explained in In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 " ' [E]valuating the factual basis for an exercise of discretion is similar to analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence for the ruling. . . . Broad deference must be shown to the trial judge. The reviewing court should interfere only " 'if [it] find[s] that . . . no judge could reasonably have made the order that he did.' " ' "
More recently, courts have applied a composite standard of review, recognizing that the determination whether an adoption exception applies entails both factual and discretionary determinations. (Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1314-1315 [substantial evidence standard applies to court's factual determination whether a beneficial relationship exists, and abuse of discretion standard applies to court's discretionary determination whether there is a compelling reason to apply the exception]; accord, In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622; In re J.D. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 530-531.)
3. ANALYSIS
In this case, the record shows why the sibling bond exception does not apply. As provided ante, although the children shared a bond, substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the younger siblings would not suffer any detriment by the termination of parental rights. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in finding that the sibling bond exception did not apply.
Here, the sibling relationship is primarily based on the horrible circumstances that the children were forced to endure while residing with their parents. Mother summarized the children's relationship as follows: "[U]nfortunately these children share with one another a connection no other children should have to endure: the tragic murder of their brother at the hands of their father. As argued by the siblings, all the children shared the common experience of suffering extreme neglect and abuse at the hands of their parents, they all experienced the horrible loss of their brother, and they all experienced together the need to take care of each other." Additionally, three of the older siblings, child1, child2 and child4, testified to the parental role that they assumed while the younger siblings were living with them. The older siblings changed the younger siblings' diapers, fed them, cleaned them, and put them to bed. They continued in their parental roles during the weekly visits with the younger siblings.
Moreover, the younger siblings were very young when they were removed from parents' care—child6 was three years old, and the twins were only a year old and nonverbal. The older siblings, being older, had more recollection of their living together and caring for the younger siblings. After experiencing the horrific death of D.N., the older siblings felt that they would also lose their younger siblings if they were adopted.
Notwithstanding the bond the children shared, the sibling relationship exception only "permits the trial court to consider possible detriment to the child being considered for adoption . . . not a sibling of that child." (In re Celine R., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 54.) Thus, "the ultimate question is whether adoption would be detrimental to the adoptive child, not someone else." (Id. at p. 55.) Here, the juvenile court recognized that "[t]he law requires the Court . . . to look at it from the eyes of the [younger siblings]."
At the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court noted that the younger siblings did not have daily contact with the older siblings for 15 months. At the time of the hearing on April 17, 2018, the twins had resided with their prospective adoptive parents close to the same amount of time as they had been residing with the older siblings. Although child6 had not been placed with the twins until December 2017 and was a couple of years older than the twins, he nonetheless spent a substantial amount of his life without daily interaction with the older siblings. In the interim, the younger siblings had developed an attachment with their prospective adoptive parents who wanted to offer the younger siblings stability and permanence through adoption. The prospective adoptive parents reported that none of the younger siblings asked about the older siblings. Child6 did not mention the older siblings and was appearing to focus on his own life. The twins remembered child1 as he was a father figure to them, but they only mentioned his name when someone else brought him up.
Moreover, when considering the sibling bond exception, the juvenile court may consider the prospective adoptive parents' intent to maintain contact between the children. (In re Daisy D. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 287, 293; In re Salvador M.(2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1415, 1422.) In this case, the prospective adoptive parents were committed to ongoing sibling visitation as demonstrated by their facilitation of sibling visits during the case. The court opined it was likely that the children would continue to have contact based on the information in the reports and the prospective adoptive parents' statements. The prospective adoptive parents had been foster/adoptive parents for numerous years and had adopted several children; they understood the importance of maintaining sibling ties. Although the prospective adoptive parents had never dealt with older siblings of adopted children, the social worker observed that they had strong boundaries and opined they had the experience to handle whatever may come up in the future.
Nonetheless, even if the prospective adoptive parents would somehow interfere with visitations between the children, "even if a sibling relationship exists that is so strong that its severance would cause the child detriment, the court then weighs the benefit to the child of continuing the sibling relationship against the benefit to the child adoption would provide." (L.Y.L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 952-953.)
In this case, nobody disputes that the children share a bond. However, even two of the older siblings recognized that adoption would be best for their younger siblings. Child4 testified that she wanted all of her siblings to live together, but if that was not possible, she believed it was best for the younger siblings to be adopted and continue having visits. When asked if the younger siblings were adopted and she could not visit them anymore, child4 responded, "It would hurt my feelings if I wouldn't be able to see them. But as long as they are in a stable home and they don't have to continue to move throughout their whole lives, I think that would be best for them." Moreover, child2 testified that he thought it was best for his younger siblings to be adopted "because clearly the foster mom, she really loves them and they really love her, and every time they come out of the visits, they call her 'mom.' They get excited. Even though I wouldn't like them to get adopted, it's not what's—what I—what I feel. It's what's best for the twins."
After hearing all the testimony and arguments from counsel, the juvenile court, in making its order termination the parental rights of the children, thoughtfully stated as follows:
"Clearly the difficult, difficult choice in this matter is whether the sibling bond attaches such as to preclude an adoption.
"I want to say that I think all parties have been moved by the children's testimony today. These are remarkable kids. They are beautiful inside and out. They are articulate. They are smart. They are compassionate and they are remarkably resilient. Thinking about what the children have been through together to be able to have the courage to stand up and tell their truth I think is significant.
"That being said the issue before the Court—and I want the kids to understand to the extent that they are capable of it what the law says—is what the law requires the Court to do is to look at it from the eyes of the [younger siblings]. I think it's very clear that the older [siblings] are bonded to the little ones. I think it's clear that the older siblings did act in a parental role from the time that the children were born, and, in fact, it's so second nature to them that they continue to do so now.
"The issue again, though, is that the three little ones have been out of that daily contact with their siblings for some 15 months have been placed together in a concurrent planning home where they're forming new bonds and attachments which is a good thing for them and their future.
"I will note that as to the older siblings to the younger siblings, I think that bond is significant. But the law and what I am required to do is to look at it from the [younger siblings'] perspective and to determine whether severing the sibling bond would be detrimental such that it outweighs the permanency that would be afforded to them by adoption. And what that means is I would have find that severing that sibling bond outweighs 15 years of permanency for them.
"They are in a concurrent planning home that is willing to provide them permanency, and that is at least for the [younger siblings]—I said 15 years and it's a little over 15 years plus where they would be in a stable environment in a family environment where they could grow and mature.
"I will note I considered specific cases, In re Jacob S., as well as In re Valerie A., and I will note that those cases do direct that the Court can also consider that in weighing the benefits versus any detriment, whether it's likely that there would be continued contact, and I do find that that is likely based on the information in the reports and the statements by the prospective de facto petitioner from the children.
"But despite whether or not that contact was continued, form the eyes of the little children, I can't find that the bond is that significant that severing it would be detrimental to them such that it outweighs the right to have a permanent home for the next remainder of their childhood, and for that reason I find that there is insufficient evidence to apply the sibling bond exception."
Thereafter, when the court terminated the parental rights of parents, there was a disruption in the court and the court called a brief recess. When the court went back on the record, it noted that it witnessed "what can only be described as a heartbreaking and devastating breakdown by the children in the courtroom. Three have left and you can hear them sobbing in the hallway which is heartbreaking for everyone in the courtroom, and I think that should be noted for the record."
In sum, the evidence shows that the best interests and long-term emotional interests of the younger siblings are better served by adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) They have bonded with their prospective adoptive parents. The older siblings have noted that the younger siblings love their prospective adoptive parents. Some of the older siblings acknowledged that it would be in the best interests of the younger siblings to be adopted, despite the fact that they love the younger siblings and the adoption would make them sad. To impose a less permanent plan upon the younger siblings, such as legal guardianship, would expose the younger siblings to many more years of foster care and possible placement changes. Here, the younger siblings have a chance at joining a loving and permanent home where they were already loved and accepted. After parental rights are terminated, the objective is permanence and stability, best advanced through adoption. (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309.) Therefore, the court thoughtfully and reasonably determined there was no compelling reason to apply the sibling relationship exception. We discern no abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's findings and orders are affirmed on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J. SLOUGH
J.