Opinion
E066678
01-17-2017
In re V.R., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. E.H., Defendant and Appellant.
Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, and James E. Brown, Guy B. Pittman, Julie Koons Jarvi, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.No. RIJ113950) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Jacqueline C. Jackson, Judge. Affirmed. Jack A. Love, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Gregory P. Priamos, County Counsel, and James E. Brown, Guy B. Pittman, Julie Koons Jarvi, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
E.H. (mother) appeals from the judgment terminating her parental rights over V.R., her 7 year-old son. She contends the trial court erred by determining the parent-child relationship did not outweigh the benefits of adoption. We affirm.
I
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Jurisdiction and Removal
Mother and V.R. came to the attention of the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (Department) on December 11, 2013, when law enforcement arrested mother for stealing a puppy. At the time, mother was 43 years old and V.R. was 5 years old.
A social worker spoke with law enforcement, mother, and V.R. the same day. A police officer told the social worker they arrested mother for conspiring to steal and stealing a Maltese Poodle puppy. She had contacted a woman from Orange County about purchasing the puppy for $1,600. The woman brought the puppy to show mother, but mother had arranged for a friend to walk off with the puppy. V.R. was present for the theft. The woman returned home and contacted the police. It took the police a few weeks to locate mother, and in the meanwhile the puppy died of neglect because mother did not feed it while she drove some friends to Oregon.
The social worker then met with V.R. He exhibited no injuries, but his body and clothes were dirty and he had a strong body odor. He also exhibited a serious speech impediment, which made it difficult for the social worker to understand him. The social worker said, "He was able to tell me that he had a dog that died in the car. He said that he was at the park with the dog as well. He then told me that the police took his mother to jail and that his father was in jail as well." V.R. named several people who lived with him "but could not explain . . . who they were to him." The social worker reported V.R. "did not appear to be distraught that he was no longer with his mother, instead he wanted to stay with me." When the social worker told V.R. she was leaving to speak to his mother, "[h]e did not ask to speak with his mother or anything pertaining to her."
Mother identified V.R., Sr., as V.R.'s father. Mother said she had no idea how to contact father. V.R.'s father is not a party to this appeal. We omit discussion related to the allegations and rulings about his status and parental rights.
The social worker then watched part of the law enforcement interview with mother and interviewed her further. Mother admitted to police she had smoked "weed and 'rock' aka crack cocaine" the night before. She denied conspiring to steal the puppy. In a separate interview with the social worker, mother said she wanted custody of her son when she was released. "She insisted that she is not 'a druggie' and that when she smoked [drugs] last night her son was with her adult daughter." She declined to submit to a drug test. Asked about her primary residence, mother said "she was staying with 'Mr. Beans', some man that she met 'through a friend' who allowed her to stay as he needed help with getting his hair braided and cooking etc. She said that she also was staying with [her adult daughter]." The social worker asked why V.R. was not in school. Mother said "she was going to register him when they got back from Oregon however she is now being arrested."
Mother had previously been accused of neglecting a half sibling of V.R. and lost custody as a result. On March 4, 2007, the Department received a referral saying mother had been arrested and her child had been left with a man other than his father. The investigating social worker took the child into protective custody because the mother was incarcerated and the father's whereabouts were unknown. A relative on the father's side of the family later adopted the child.
Mother had also been accused of neglecting V.R. on several prior occasions. On September 22, 2008, the Department received a referral saying mother tested positive for marijuana, alcohol, and cocaine after she gave birth to V.R. V.R. tested positive for cocaine. Mother admitted to using drugs on and off during the pregnancy. The Department closed the referral because the investigating social worker concluded mother and father were making progress toward remaining sober. On August 29, 2012, the Department received a referral saying mother abused crack cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol in front of V.R. and left him with drug-using friends. Mother tested negative and denied the allegations, and the social worker found no evidence of abuse or neglect. On April 24, 2013, the Department received a referral saying mother's home was dirty and had a strong smoke odor and there was limited food in the home. The social worker confirmed a strong cigarette odor in the home, but found the home was not dirty and contained food. On October 16, 2013, the Department received a referral saying mother was under the influence of drugs during her public assistance interview. The social worker closed the referral when the Department was unable to locate her and she lost her aid.
Mother also has a criminal record. She has 13 convictions between 1988 and 2011, including two convictions for driving under the influence, three for possessing a controlled substance, one for being under the influence of a controlled substance, one for marijuana possession, and one for petty theft.
On December 13, 2013, the Department filed a dependency petition on the grounds V.R. had suffered or is at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm or illness (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subd. (b)), mother is incarcerated and father's whereabouts are unknown so they cannot arrange for the child's care (§ 300, subd. (g)). The Department alleged mother (i) was arrested for grand theft and conspiring to commit grand theft while the child was present; (ii) has a chronic and unresolved history of abusing controlled substances and cares for her child while under the influence; (iii) lives a transient lifestyle, has failed to maintain a stable home environment for the child, fails to meet the child's educational needs, and has not sought services to address the child's speech impediment; (iv) has an extensive criminal history, including drug-related arrests and convictions; and (v) received child welfare services for the child's sibling, failed to benefit and lost parental rights over the sibling. Initially, the Department alleged mother was incarcerated and unable to provide care or support for V.R., but it withdrew the allegation after the detention hearing, and the court later struck it.
Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
We omit a discussion of mother's drug use and transience, as well as her attempts to address those problems, because her appeal is limited to the issue of whether the juvenile court should have found her relationship with her son warranted finding an exception to the preference for adoption. We therefore focus on those parts of the record concerning V.R.'s relationship with mother and the prospective adoptive family.
On December 16, 2013, based on a December 13 detention report, the juvenile court found the Department had established a prima facie case V.R. came within section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g), and ordered him detained. The court ordered V.R. placed in a licensed foster family home and authorized supervised visits for mother at least two times a week.
The Department filed a jurisdiction/disposition report on January 21, 2014. The social worker reported V.R. was clean, well-groomed and free of marks or bruises on his arms, neck, and face. The social worker said he "had trouble speaking during the interview and appeared to be nervous. He was unable to count his numbers or say his alphabets. He appeared to have a limited understanding of the circumstances and appeared to be confusing the foster home with his previous home. He kept repeating, 'I want to eat.' He described the way back to his class room. When asked about where he lives and the people living in the home, he started talking about his current foster home. He stated that he lives with his mom and dad and was unable to give any further information. After a few minutes, he stated he wanted to leave and he went back to the classroom."
The social worker interviewed mother, who admitted—but attempted to minimize—most of the allegations against her. She admitted she was arrested for stealing a puppy, V.R. was present, and she received eight months of probation. However, she blamed a friend for taking the dog. She admitted using marijuana and marijuana laced with crack cocaine, but denied she did so regularly and denied using enough to get high. She admitted to being transient, but said she would have her own place and be stable in about two months. She admitted she "got arrested with a little something in my system," "was arrested once for shoplifting and again for conspiracy to steal a dog," and had "been using weed since I was sixteen," but denied being a repeat criminal offender. She admitted she lost custody of V.R.'s sibling and she and V.R. had tested positive for drugs when V.R. was born, but pointed out she had received treatment and retained custody of V.R.
However, mother resisted the allegation she was failing to meet V.R.'s educational needs. She said he "understands both English and Spanish, after residing with parents who do not speak each other's language, therefore, he does not communicate well in both languages. She stated that he does not have a speech problem. She stated that she made an 'Executive Mother Parent Decision' not to have him in school until he is better prepared." However, mother then changed her story and said V.R. "was in Head Start in Beaumont and she was going to provide the proof. She stated that she had to remove the child from Head Start when she relocated to Moreno Valley. The mother . . . report[ed] that the child was on the wait list at the Riverside Community College Head Start[,] . . . [which] had an extended program whereby a teacher came to the home twice a week to teach the child until they had an opening. [Mother] could not provide the name of the teacher. She stated that this teacher referred her to Rainbow Ridge School, to address the speech problem."
The social worker reported V.R. was found to have a speech problem, and his school planned to develop an individualized education program (IEP) and refer him to speech therapy. After he was placed in foster care, V.R. enrolled in kindergarten at an elementary school in Moreno Valley. His teacher "reports that the child is behind in class as he is unable to count, say his ABC[s] or identify his colors, while the other students are learning to read." The school was considering moving V.R. to transitional kindergarten. Regarding his mental and emotional state, the social worker said he "presents as happy and friendly. He is appropriately bonded with his caregiver. He is not showing any emotional damage from being removed from his mother."
The social worker reported mother's visits had been acceptable. "The mother has visits with the child at the CPS office in Moreno Valley. The visits are held every Monday and Tuesday from 1-2 pm. The visit[s are] supervised by the agency social worker and this worker. The mother is regular and appropriate during visits. She comes to the visits with food for the child and some of his old toys. The visits have been adequate."
The juvenile court held a contested jurisdictional and dispositional hearing on February 18, 2014. The court accepted a second amended petition, which struck the allegation that mother was transient. Based on the social worker's reports, the juvenile court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, all the remaining allegations true. The court sustained the petition and adjudged V.R. a dependent of the court. The court removed V.R. from his mother, ordered the Department to provide mother with reunification services, and approved mother's case plan.
B. The Reunification Period and Preliminary Reunification
1. The child's progress in foster care
V.R. made progress during his 15 months in foster care. Initially, his school recommended he enroll in kindergarten instead of first grade because while in transitional kindergarten "he was unable to complete his homework, struggled with writing his name and became easily frustrated." He "appear[ed] to be emotional[ly] overwhelmed when he was in class with his peers that were far more advanced than him. However, being with children who are on the same pace as him, will help with some of those issues." Before the 12-month review, his kindergarten teacher said she believed he needed speech therapy to address his speech impediment.
By the time of the 18-month review hearing, V.R. was doing well in school. He was enrolled in kindergarten. He still had some trouble with letters, sounds, and spelling, but did well in mathematics. And though he still had a noticeable speech impediment, he was seeing a speech pathologist every week. The social worker reported V.R. appeared to be emotionally well-adjusted. He "show[ed] no emotional issues with being removed from his mother . . . and ha[d] adjusted well to his foster home."
2. Visits during reunification
Mother's visits with V.R. were sporadic over the first six months of reunification services. The social worker reported "[th]e visits that the mother did attend have been positive and she often engages with her son," though "a few times that she has not engaged with him and did not interact." The social worker said she always brings V.R. something to eat. V.R. told the social worker he "likes visiting his mom and she brings him food and toys." However, mother came to one visit under the influence.
The social worker concluded "mother is showing an eagerness to have more visits with her son. She is compliant with her case plan and her home appears to be a suitable residence. Once the mother completes four drug tests that are negative and the adults in the home backgrounds are checked, it is appropriate to start unsupervised visits."
The social worker reported visits during the second six months of reunification services were adequate but inconsistent. The visits were scheduled for one time a week, but mother sometimes called to reschedule at the last minute. At visits, mother interacted with V.R. when he was not engaged in the playground, but she did not talk to him about his feelings. Mother also brought men along to the visits, describing them as "her ride."
At the 12-month review hearing on March 17, 2015, the court found mother had made adequate but incomplete progress on her case plan, and continued reunification services to mother because it found a substantial probability V.R. would be returned to mother within six months. The court authorized the Department to liberalize visits for mother provided the Department found the home suitable and mother continued to comply with her plan. The court ordered overnight/weekend visits with mother to begin by March 20, 2015.
After that, V.R. visited his mother on weekends from 4 p.m. Fridays to 7 p.m. Sundays. On April 7, 2015, V.R. told the social worker he spent the weekend with his mother and her boyfriend. He said he "[p]layed with toys, I ate lunch, I got to sleep in my Spiderman bed," and talked about having an Easter egg hunt at a church. On May 4, 2015, the social worker learned V.R. reported his nephew bit him on his thigh and that he had scratches on the side of his face. On May 11, 2015, the social worker learned V.R. had a bump on his forehead following a weekend visit. The social worker questioned V.R. about the injuries, but he said he could not remember what happened to him. The social worker warned mother to make sure she supervises V.R. during visits.
Meanwhile, mother had made only limited progress addressing the causes of V.R.'s removal. She exhibited ongoing problems establishing a home and staying off drugs. In a report before the 18-month review hearing, the social worker reported mother did not have a source of income and was living with and dependent on her married boyfriend. However, the social worker indicated she had complied with her counseling and substance abuse treatment case plan requirements. She had enrolled in Family Preservation Court and remained in the program until April 29, 2015. Though the Department concluded mother had completed her case plan, it recommended the court order her to take a hair follicle drug test, continue the case for no more than four weeks, and allow V.R. to have an extended visit with mother. The juvenile court adopted the recommendation and continued the 18-month review hearing to July 14, 2015.
On July 11, 2015, the Department filed an addendum report on mother's progress. Mother had a negative hair follicle drug test. V.R. went home with his mother on an extended visit on June 15, 2015, and the visit had gone well. Mother said she had taken V.R. to church and family functions, had taken him out to eat, and had watched him play with neighborhood children. The social worker "observed visits with [V.R.] and his mother" and said he "appears to enjoy the visits and always looks comfortable around his mother," reporting he "is often talkative and playful during interactions with his mother." The social worker said the Department had "no concerns about [mother's] care of [V.R.]," but noted mother would "need to ensure [he] receives speech therapy when he starts school again later this year" and "she will also need to ensure that she continues to drug test clean and regularly."
The juvenile court held an 18-month review hearing on July 14, 2015. Based on the social worker's reports, the juvenile court found mother had made satisfactory progress in alleviating or mitigating the causes of V.R.'s removal. The court placed V.R. in the custody of mother and ordered the Department to provide Family Maintenance services and ordered the family to participate in those services. The court also ordered mother to ensure V.R. would attend school regularly and make reasonable efforts to ensure he receive educational services for his specific needs.
C. The Second Removal
By October 2015, the Department had decided placing V.R. with mother was a mistake. On October 27, 2015, the Department filed a supplemental petition for a more restrictive placement under section 387. The petition alleged "The previous disposition has not been effective in the protection of the child in that since the child was returned to [mother] in Family Maintenance, [mother] has failed to participate in case plan services, specifically substance abuse testing, has not maintained contact with the Department or provided her new address. Further, [V.R.] is not attending school regularly and is sent to school dirty, with soiled clothing and poor hygiene." The Department filed an amended petition on October 30, 2015.
In a declaration in support of a warrant for removal of V.R. from mother's custody, the social worker said she received a referral alleging mother was neglecting V.R. She reported, V.R. "is enrolled in school in Moreno Valley; however he has had 10 absences and 18 tardies so far this school year. He is reported to be showing up to school dirty, in soiled clothing with poor hygiene and smelling of urine. [Mother] has not updated [V.R.'s] emergency cards and the school has no contact information for her. [V.R.] is reportedly brought to school by various unknown males." The social worker also reported mother had missed numerous drug tests and appeared to have moved and changed her telephone number without updating the Department.
On October 30, 2015, the Department filed a section 387 detention report, which reiterated the information in the petition and declaration. The social worker reported the staff at V.R.'s school said he was not completing his homework regularly, was coming to school with dirt under his nails, in dirty clothing, and sometimes wearing the same clothes. Staff said they were concerned about V.R.'s well-being and care. The social worker had interviewed V.R., who said "he continued to live in Hemet, CA but at a different residence. He stated that he lived with Mr. Bean, who was an old and grumpy man. When asked if Mr. Bean transported him to school, [V.R.] stated that Mr. Bean does not drive. [He] stated a man named 'Kevin' brings him to school." In an interview after the Department had detained him, V.R. said "he did not eat breakfast today at home or at school; he stated that he did not know how to tie his shoes; he stated that when he gets home from school he does not get anything to eat; he stated that he eats pancakes and bacon [for] dinner; he stated that he sleeps on the floor and his mother either sleeps on a chair or on the bed; and he stated he has clothing and a backpack in storage."
On November 2, 2015, the juvenile court held a hearing on the Department's petition. Based on the Department's report, the juvenile court found a prima facie showing the previous disposition had not been effective and continuing the placement with mother would be contrary to V.R.'s welfare. The court ordered V.R. detained, ordered supervised visits with mother at least two times a week, and set a jurisdiction/disposition hearing on the petition.
In a section 387 jurisdiction/disposition report and addendum reports, the social worker said the foster mother reported the night V.R. returned to her care "he ate three sandwiches, he ate soup, he had spaghetti and he had three bananas. He was really hungry." She also noted V.R. had begun cursing. In addition, his hair had become matted and hard to comb. However, the social worker said V.R. did not fully understand the allegations in the case. He said he "wanted to . . . live with his mother and he spoke about having fun while visiting her. . . . It was clear that [V.R.] misses his mother."
The social worker said school records showed V.R. had 10 unexcused absences and 19 late arrivals between August 13 and October 28, 2015. The school held a meeting on November 5, 2015 to address V.R.'s educational needs. Mother was invited, but did not attend. "During this meeting, it was reported that [V.R.] only knows 8 of 75 sight words; he does not retain information from day to day; he scored in the 5th percentile on the MAPS assessment; when he was residing with his mother the homework was not touched; [V.R.] is far below grade level; he has a comprehension problem and can get frustrated when things are overwhelming for him." He received at least 30 minutes of speech therapy a week.
After his second removal, the social worker reported V.R. was doing well in his placement and at school. "He looks presentable when attending school on a daily basis and his hair is combed nicely and placed in a long pony tail. [V.R.'s] needs are being met and he is being assisted with his homework and day to day living skills." He had been placed with the same foster parents he had before he was returned to his mother. He was comfortable there and had no complaints, but looked forward to his visits with his mother.
Mother denied the Department's allegations. She said, "'[V.R.] was only transported to school by me or by Kevin. [He] had brand new clothing and went to school once wearing the same clothes, but these clothes were washed the previous night. [He] may have peed at school. It is untrue that [he] was dirty going to school.'" Mother said "'I did not [drug] test for a while because I was not thinking it was that important. I did not have a phone for two months. It slipped my mind.'" Mother did not have a job or stable residence; she lived in one room in a family home. Mother told the social worker she loves V.R. and wants to be able to obtain housing and a job to support him.
Mother's visits with V.R. were sporadic during this period. She did not respond to attempts to arrange a visit with V.R. on November 2, 2015. The foster mother arranged visits on the following Tuesday and Thursday. Mother missed the Tuesday visit, but made the Thursday visit. The foster mother arranged a visit with mother on Thanksgiving, but mother did not show up. The foster mother told the social worker mother also missed an arranged Christmas Eve visit and about four other visits. V.R. told the social worker he had not seen his mother "in a long time" and she "does not come" for visits. The foster mother said V.R. became anxious when he went to the location of the visits and wanted to leave immediately because his mother so often failed to show up. Mother did attend a visit on January 5, 2016 and brought V.R. Christmas presents.
The juvenile court held a contested jurisdictional hearing on January 21, 2016. Mother was present, but waived her rights to present and cross-examine witnesses at trial. Based on the social worker's reports, the juvenile court found true the allegation placing V.R. with his mother had not been effective and continued V.R. as a dependent. The court found by clear and convincing evidence mother had made minimal progress toward mitigating the causes of V.R.'s removal. The court terminated reunification services for mother as not being in V.R.'s best interest, and set a hearing to select a permanent plan for V.R. Finally, the court ordered supervised visits to continue, but also ordered visits to be reduced to once a month if mother missed two visits in a row.
D. Termination of Parental Rights
In a section 366.26 report filed on May 9, 2016, the social worker reported V.R. was doing well in his foster placement and attending the same school he attended when placed with his mother. According to the social worker, V.R. said "he watches TV, watches movies and plays outside." He does not understand why he is in foster care rather than with his mother, and becomes angry and sad when his mother fails to come to visits. According to the social worker, V.R. "loves his mother and would like to reside with her" and the foster mother said he "is more connected to his mother" than to her.
However, V.R. has adjusted to the placement. V.R. said "he likes the placement." Asked about his favorite foods in his foster home, he said, he likes "Hamburgers, fries, hot dogs, peanut butter and jelly, soup, apples, bananas, oranges, cereal and tacos." He said he also likes playing soccer in school and running and said his favorite hobby is football.
The social worker concluded V.R. is adoptable and his foster parents have filed an application to adopt him. The social worker said they "are dedicated to ensuring [V.R.] has a stable home environment. They are aware that [he] does not love them as much as he loves his mother and [he] gets upset, hurt and sad when his mother does not show up for the visits." Initially, the foster mother delayed submitting her adoption application because V.R. had strong feelings for his mother.
In an addendum report, the social worker described the placement. The prospective adoptive parents are an African-American couple in their mid-forties who had married in 1990, when they were 19 years old. They live with two sons (ages 15 and 17) and two daughters (ages 16 and 18). The father works outside the home and the mother works as a homemaker. The family lives in a 3000 square foot two-story home located in a quiet neighborhood. The house has five large bedrooms, four bathrooms, a living room, dining room, family room and a kitchen.
The social worker reported the prospective adoptive parents "indicated that they fell in love with [V.R.] and decided to adopt him. They stated that adoption was an easy decision to make especially after bonding with [him]. They are very committed to providing a loving and stable home for [V.R.] and making him a permanent member of their family. In addition, [they] report that all their extended family are very supportive about the adoption and see [him] as part of the family." V.R. "appears to have a reciprocal bond with the prospective adoptive parents and the extended family. He goes to them freely for comfort and support and has adjusted well to their home. [They] have advocated well for [V.R.]'s medical, physical and emotional needs. [¶] [and] are financially stable and will be able to provide for him throughout the coming years."
The social worker reported V.R. did not understand the concept of adoption. He said he loved living with the family, "but also likes his mom." The social worker said he "appeared comfortable in his home environment . . . [and] presented as a happy, outgoing and energetic child."
In a post permanency planning review report filed August 2, 2016, the social worker reported V.R. "has spent over two years [in] the home of the [prospective adoptive parents] and he is comfortable in the home and the environment. [He] is attending school regularly; he now has an [IEP] that provides him the services he needs to help him do better in school; he will be starting sports soon and will play basketball in an organized setting at the Parks and Recreation Center; and [V.R.] is much more talkative and aware of his surroundings, emotions and desires. He is doing well in the current placement."
Mother's visits continued to be sporadic through this period. The social worker said mother "tend[ed] to miss visits every now and then but has not missed two visits in a row. She was initially visiting twice a week until she changed the visits to once a week for two hours" on March 16, 2016. Mother subsequently missed visits on May 18 and June 8. Visits were supervised and usually occurred two to three times a month. At first, the foster mother told V.R. about the visits in advance, but he would get upset and anxious if she did not show up, so the foster mother took to telling him on the day of the visit. In addition to the missed visits, mother also arrived late three times and on April 6, 2016 fell asleep during the visit. The social worker said V.R. "still likes the time he spends with his mother, but has also reported that sometimes 'My mother is too busy when she comes to visit me and she don't want to talk to me.'"
The court held a section 366.26 hearing on August 15, 2016. The court reviewed the social worker reports and admitted them into evidence. The court found by clear and convincing evidence it was likely V.R. would be adopted. The court then determined its findings at the January 21, 2016 hearing provided a sufficient basis for terminating mother's parental rights. Specifically, the court based its determination on findings reasonable services had been provided to mother to overcome the problems that led to removal; despite those services, V.R. could not be returned to mother's custody; and there was no substantial probability of return with six months. The court also found by clear and convincing evidence none of the exceptions to terminating parental rights applied and adoption would be in V.R.'s best interest. The court ordered mother's parental rights severed, referred V.R. to the county adoption agency for placement, and ordered an application for adoption by the current caregiver be given preference over any other application.
II
DISCUSSION
Mother contends the court erred in failing to find the parental benefit exception to terminating parental rights applied. We find no error in the court's ruling.
"'Adoption, where possible, is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature.'" (In re L. Y. L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.) Once the juvenile court finds a child is adoptable, the parent bears the burden of proving one of the exceptions to terminating parental rights exist. (In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1343.) "[I]t is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent's rights will prevail over the Legislature's preference for adoptive placement." (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350.)
The exception at issue here, commonly called the parental benefit exception, requires the parent to prove "termination would be detrimental to the child" because the parent has "maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) California courts have interpreted this exception to apply to only those parent-child relationships the severance of which "would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed." (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.)
"The parental benefit exception applies when there is a compelling reason that the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child. This exception can only be found when the parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." (In re Anthony B. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 389, 395.) "[T]he court balances the strength and quality of the natural parent/child relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer. If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent's rights are not terminated." (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 528-529.) We review the juvenile court's determination whether a beneficial parental relationship exists for substantial evidence, and its determination whether the relationship provides "a 'compelling reason' for finding detriment to the child" for abuse of discretion. (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.)
Mother has not established she maintained regular visitation and contact with V.R. Her visitations were sporadic from the start. Over the first six months of reunification services, mother missed many visits and on some visits she failed to engage with V.R. After the Department detained V.R. a second time, mother missed several visits leading up to the second dependency hearing, including visits on Thanksgiving and Christmas Eve. Mother's visits continued to be sporadic even through the period leading to the termination hearing. Mother missed several of her twice-weekly visits, until she voluntarily reduced the visits to once a week for two hours. Thereafter, she made it to visits about two to three times a month. Indeed, the fact mother missed so many visits had become such a source of anxiety for V.R. that the foster mother delayed telling him about visits to avoid disappointing his expectations. We conclude these facts give reasonable support to the juvenile court's conclusion the parent-child exception did not apply. (In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 554.)
Further, the evidence concerning the bond between V.R. and his mother does not support applying the parent-child relationship exception. The record is clear that V.R. loves his mother and has a bond with her. He has consistently expressed a desire to live with her. However, the evidence also shows the connection to be shallow, not the sort of parental relationship whose severance would deprive him of a substantial, positive emotional attachment. "'That showing [is] difficult to make in the situation, such as the one here, where the parents have . . . [not] advanced beyond supervised visitation.'" (In re Jeremy S. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 514, 523, overruled on other grounds by In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396.) "One can know a child's interests, enjoy playtime together, and be a loved relative, but not occupy a parental role in the child's life." (In re Jeremy S., at p. 523.) Here, the evidence shows, at best, mother and son are bonded and most of the time enjoy each other's company when visits occur. But mother missed a significant number of visits and, as V.R. expressed, sometimes "'is too busy when she comes to visit me and she don't want to talk to me.'" On other occasions mother came to a visit under the influence, brought unknown men to visits, and spent a substantial part of a visit asleep on a couch. Thus, even the evidence of their bond is mixed.
In addition, the evidence shows mother failed to occupy a caregiving role for V.R. His removal stemmed from her failure to provide him basic care, enroll him in school, and help him address his speech impediment. Though she made some progress in complying with her case plan to address the root causes of these problems, the problems resumed immediately after she regained custody. Mother failed to get V.R. to school regularly; he had ten absences and 19 late arrivals in the first two months of the school year. When V.R. did attend school, he often arrived dirty, in soiled clothing, and had failed to complete his homework. When V.R. returned to foster care, his foster mother noted he was extremely hungry, had matted hair, and had begun cursing. Mother simply did not succeed in occupying a caregiving, parental role for V.R. It bears noting in this connection the puppy mother stole died of neglect within two weeks of the theft.
We conclude the juvenile court could reasonably have concluded from all this evidence the parent-child relationship between V.R. and his mother was not so strong that its termination would greatly harm V.R.
As important, there is strong evidence V.R. had bonded with his adoptive family and the new parents were providing him with a stable, loving home. At the time of the hearing, V.R. had lived with the adoptive family for more than two years. The social worker reported since moving into the new home, V.R. had shown marked improvement on several fronts. With the adoptive family, he was attending school regularly and making progress. The social worker noted in particular he was doing well in mathematics. Though V.R. continued to have language development problems, his school had placed him on an IEP and made sure he received regular speech therapy.
The social worker reported "he likes the placement" and V.R. reported enjoying typical childhood foods and activities. The adoptive family provided V.R. a network of parents and siblings for support, and the parents loved him very much and wanted to adopt him. The social worker reported V.R. "appears to have a reciprocal bond with the prospective adoptive parents and the extended family . . . goes to them freely for comfort and support and has adjusted well to their home." Moreover, the adoptive parents "have advocated well for [his] medical, physical and emotional needs" and "are financially stable and will be able to provide for him throughout the coming years."
We cannot conclude on this record that the juvenile court acted arbitrarily and without substantial evidence by determining the parent-child bond did not override V.R.'s need for the stable, permanent home with a prospective adoptive family who was already meeting his needs and enthusiastic about adopting him.
III
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
SLOUGH
J. We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J. MILLER
J.