Opinion
E068037
11-03-2017
In re D.V. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. F.Z., Defendant and Appellant.
Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Danielle E. Wuchenich, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J263637 & J263638 & J263639 & J263641) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Affirmed. Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Danielle E. Wuchenich, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
The juvenile court terminated the parental rights of defendant and appellant F.Z. (Mother). Mother contends the juvenile court erred by terminating her parental rights because it should have applied the parent-child bond exception. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We affirm the judgment.
All subsequent statutory references will be to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. BACKGROUND
Mother had six children: (1) K.J.V. (J.V.), a female born in 1999; (2) K.S.V. (S.V.), a female born in 2001; (3) K.A.V. (A.V.) a female born in 2004; (4) R.V., a male born in 2010; (5) V.V., a male born in 2012; and (6) D.V., a male born in 2015.
In April 2004, Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) detained J.V., S.V., and A.V. because Mother tested positive for amphetamines when A.V. was born. Mother admitted using crystal meth while pregnant. Mother began abusing crystal meth in May 2003, and smoked it approximately once per week. F.V., the father of the three children (Father) admitted having smoked crystal meth since the age of 16, which would be approximately 10 years. The three children were placed in foster care.
Father is not a party to this appeal.
The Los Angeles County juvenile court found the three children came within the court's jurisdiction. (§ 300, subd. (b).) Mother attended a substance abuse program and tested negative for drugs. Mother had unsupervised overnight weekend visits with the children. In November 2004, the Los Angeles County juvenile court ordered the children be returned to Mother's custody on a plan of family maintenance.
In May 2005, Mother admitted that, since the children had returned to her custody, she twice abused crystal meth due to feeling depressed and overwhelmed. The Los Angeles County juvenile court ordered the children remain with Mother on a plan of family maintenance. In November 2005, the Los Angeles County juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction over the three children.
B. DETENTION
In May 2015, Mother and Father (collectively, Parents) argued. J.V. "got in the middle" of the argument because she did not like the way Father was speaking to Mother. Father punched J.V.'s head and pulled her hair. J.V. went to a friend's house and called the police. DCFS was contacted.
J.V. told DCFS that "[F]ather is always hitting them," that he hits them with a belt; in particular, he hit V.V. with a belt because V.V. was "really bratty." In July, Mother and Father tested positive for methamphetamines. The children remained in Parents' custody.
In July, at the detention hearing, the Los Angeles County juvenile court ordered the children removed from Parents' custody. The children were placed in foster care. The court granted Mother supervised visits two to three times per week for two to three hours per visit.
C. JURISDICTION
S.V. suffered from hearing loss. S.V. understood conversations best when American Sign Language (ASL) and voices were used together to communicate. Mother did not know ASL, but communicated with S.V. through lip reading. The children expressed a desire to return home.
In October, the Los Angeles County juvenile court held a hearing on DCFS's first amended petition. The court found true allegations concerning (1) Father imposing inappropriate physical discipline on J.V. (§ 300, subds. (a) & (j)); (2) Mother knowing of the inappropriate physical discipline and failing to protect J.V. (§ 300, subds. (a) & (j)); (3) Mother's 19-year history of drug abuse, including methamphetamine abuse, and current drug abuse (§ 300, subd. (b)); (4) Father's 19-year history of drug abuse and current drug abuse (§ 300, subd. (b)); (5) Parents' history of engaging in physical and verbal altercations in the presence of the children (§ 300, subd. (b)); and (6) Parents' periodic neglect of S.V.'s medical needs (§ 300, subd. (b)).
On October 7, Mother tested positive for methamphetamines. That same month, Mother moved to San Bernardino. The case was transferred to San Bernardino County.
D. SIX-MONTH REVIEW
Parents separated. Mother attended parenting classes, counseling, and a substance abuse treatment program. Mother visited the children on Sundays from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at a McDonald's restaurant. The children were doing well in foster care. S.V.'s sign language skills improved due to her foster parent knowing ASL. The children expressed a desire to return to Mother's home.
In April 2016, the juvenile court ordered the children continue to be removed from Parents' custody. The court ordered unsupervised visitation between Mother and the children a minimum of once per week for four hours. The court authorized San Bernardino Children and Family Services (the Department) to permit overnight and weekend visits. The court ordered that Father not attend Mother's unsupervised visits with the children.
E. VISITATION CHANGE
On May 10, Mother was terminated from her substance abuse treatment program due to poor attendance and a positive drug test. Mother began participating in a different treatment program. Mother admitted that she abused methamphetamine on May 14. Mother had another positive drug test. Mother's treatment progress improved through July. However, the Department discovered Mother permitted Father to attend her visits with the children on June 26 and July 3. Additionally, Mother transported the younger children in a car without child safety seats. The juvenile court ordered Mother have supervised visits with the children once per week for two hours.
F. 12-MONTH REVIEW
On July 20, Mother was terminated from her substance abuse treatment program due to poor attendance and "too many" positive drug tests; the tests were positive for methamphetamine. Mother told the Department she wanted to try substance abuse treatment again. The Department gave Mother another referral. Mother failed to test on August 15, August 24, and September 1.
Mother attended all her visits with the children. Mother spent equal time with the children, redirected them when needed, and helped them to clean up. Mother asked S.V. to teach her ASL. The visits were "consistent" and "appropriate."
J.V. suffered from rheumatoid arthritis and was "extremely behind" in school credits. A.V. suffered from mild scoliosis and was struggling in her social studies class. R.V. and V.V. took allergy medications and lacked hygiene skills in that they did not know how to brush their teeth or wash their faces. D.V. had asthma, which was controlled by use of a nebulizer. D.V. had "plagiocephaly (baby flat head)." He wore a helmet and needed to be checked at a clinic every two weeks for six months. D.V. was one month behind in his development. S.V. had made "substantial progress" in ASL due to communicating with her foster parent, but she was struggling in her math class. S.V. was in special education classes.
J.V. did not want to return to Mother's and Father's custody. S.V. was confused as to what outcome she wanted in the case. A.V. did not say what outcome she wanted in the case. R.V., V.V., and D.V. did not understand the concept of adoption. All the children appeared comfortable in their foster homes.
The juvenile court ordered the children continue to be removed from Parents' custody. The court terminated Parents' reunification services.
G. TERMINATION
S.V., R.V., V.V., and D.V. were placed in the same home, with foster parents who wanted to adopt them. The children appeared "happy and comfortable." The children sought out their foster parents for support and guidance. The Department recommended the four children's permanent plan be adoption. S.V. decided that she wanted to be adopted.
J.V. and A.V. were placed in the same foster home. The Department's recommended plan for J.V. was extended foster care because she was close to turning 18. J.V. planned to attend a fifth year of high school in order to obtain her diploma. The Department's recommended plan for A.V. was to continue receiving permanency planning services because no adoptive parent or legal guardian had been identified for her. J.V. and A.V. were bonded with their foster parents.
Mother missed one visit with the children due to illness. The visits with the children were positive. Mother and the children displayed affection and Mother was attentive to the children. The visits went well and they enjoyed their time together.
Mother moved back to Los Angeles. Mother was residing at the same address as Father. Mother obtained a job and was working "long hours." In January 2017 the visits were moved to the West Covina Mall. There were no issues during the visits. The Department recommended the visits be reduced to twice per month for two hours per visit. J.V., S.V. and A.V. agreed with the reduced visits. The Department discovered the three girls, A.V. in particular, had been texting with Mother during school hours. The Department told the three girls their interaction with Mother had to be supervised.
On March 16, the juvenile court held a contested termination hearing. Mother, Father, and a Department social worker testified at the hearing. During visits, the children ran to hug Mother and Father. The children said "I love you" to Mother and Father. During the visits, the children asked to go home with Mother. The children became sad at the end of the visits. During the visits, Mother ate with the children, played with the children, talked about school with the children, and learned sign language from S.V. Mother explained that, over time, S.V. relied more upon ASL to communicate. Mother was having difficulty learning ASL. The Department social worker believed adoption would serve the four children's best interests.
The juvenile court found Mother's visitation with S.V., R.V., V.V., and D.V. was consistent. However, the court concluded the four children's relationship with Mother did not outweigh the benefit the four children would experience from being in a permanent adoptive home. The juvenile court terminated Mother's and Father's parental rights to S.V., R.V., V.V., and D.V. The court ordered A.V. and J.V. remain in foster care with a goal of independent living.
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the juvenile court erred by terminating her parental rights to S.V., R.V., V.V., and D.V. because it should have applied the parent-child bond exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
J.V. and A.V. are not subjects of this appeal. --------
If a juvenile court finds a dependent child is adoptable, then it will terminate parental rights unless one of the statutorily enumerated exceptions is applicable. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) One of the enumerated exceptions provides that parental rights shall not be terminated if "[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
The juvenile court found Mother maintained regular visitation and contact with the four children. Accordingly, we focus on the second prong, which concerns whether the four children will benefit from continuing the relationship. We apply the abuse of discretion standard of review. (In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 622.)
"The benefit to the child from continuing such a relationship must . . . be such that the relationship '"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."'" (Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449.) "'The factors to be considered when looking for whether a relationship is important and beneficial are: (1) the age of the child, (2) the portion of the child's life spent in the parent's custody, (3) the positive or negative effect of interaction between the parent and the child, and (4) the child's particular needs.' [Citation] '[F]or the exception to apply, the emotional attachment between the child and parent must be that of parent and child rather than one of being a friendly visitor or friendly nonparent relative, such as an aunt.'" (In re Jason J. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 922, 937-938.)
S.V. was 16 years old at the time of the contested termination hearing. S.V. was removed from Mother for approximately eight months in 2004, and again from July 2015 through the end of the current record, in March 2017. Thus, S.V. has spent more than two years removed from Mother's care. The family visits are described as appropriate and affectionate. However, S.V. relies more on ASL to communicate as time passes, and Mother knows little ASL. Therefore, one can infer that the interaction between Mother and S.V., in terms of communicating, is limited. S.V. needs a parent with whom she can communicate, as reflected in S.V.'s request that she be adopted by her foster parents, one of whom is fluent in ASL.
In sum, S.V. spent the majority of her life in Mother's care. However, Mother is unable to fully communicate with S.V. As a result, it can be inferred that Mother will have a difficult time interacting with S.V. and meeting S.V.'s needs. Although Mother and S.V. appear to care for one another, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude their relationship does not promote S.V.'s wellbeing, due to the inability to communicate, and thus S.V. would derive the greater sense of wellbeing from living in a permanent home with adoptive parents with whom she is able to communicate. The juvenile court did not err by finding that S.V. would not benefit from continuing her relationship with Mother.
R.V. was four years old, V.V. was three years old, and D.V. was one and a half months old when they were removed from Mother's custody. The three boys were removed from Mother's custody from July 2015 through the end of the current record, in March 2017. Thus, the three boys were removed for approximately one year eight months. R.V. and V.V. spent the majority of their lives with Mother, while D.V. spent the majority of his life in foster care.
The visits with Mother were positive, and it appeared the three boys enjoyed seeing Mother. R.V. and V.V. took allergy medications and lacked hygiene skills in that they did not know how to brush their teeth or wash their faces. D.V. had asthma, which was controlled by use of a nebulizer. D.V. had "plagiocephaly (baby flat head)." He wore a helmet and needed to be checked at a clinic every two weeks for six months. D.V. was one month behind in his development.
In 2005, Mother relapsed into abusing crystal meth because she felt depressed and overwhelmed. During the course of the instant case, Mother failed to complete a drug abuse treatment program and continued abusing drugs. Given that Mother abuses drugs when she feels overwhelmed, and the three boys had various special medical and educational needs, it is reasonable to infer that Mother would have difficulty remaining sober while meeting the needs of the three boys. As a result of Mother's failure to obtain sobriety, the juvenile court could reasonably conclude the three boys' relationship with Mother did not promote the three boys' wellbeing to the point that the relationship outweighed the sense of wellbeing they would gain from being in a permanent adoptive home. In sum, we conclude the juvenile court did not err by not applying the parent child bond exception.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J. CODRINGTON
J.