In re F.S. CA2/6

Filed 7/22/24 In re F.S. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re F.S. et al., Persons Coming 2d Juv. No. B333553 Under the Juvenile Court Law. (Super. Ct. Nos. 22JV00330, 22JV00331, 22JV00332, 22JV00333, 22JV00334, 22JV00335) (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

E.M. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

E.M. (mother) and R.F. (father) appeal the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights as to Y.S., one of their six

children. (Welf. & Inst. Code1, § 366.26.) Mother contends reversal is necessary because the juvenile court erred when it found inapplicable both the parental-benefit and sibling relationship exceptions to adoption. Father restricts his focus to the sibling relationship exception but joins in mother’s arguments. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In October 2022, Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services (CWS) obtained protective custody warrants for Y.S., age 1, and her five older siblings. CWS filed a section 300 petition alleging unsanitary and unsafe living conditions, as well as a prior instance of domestic violence by father. On October 20, 2022 CWS detained all six children. Pairs of the six siblings were placed in three confidential resource homes. Y.S. and her sister F.S., age 8, were paired. At the October 2022 detention hearing, the court ordered continued detention. At the November 2022 jurisdiction hearing, the court found the allegations in an amended petition true by a preponderance of the evidence. In a December 2022 disposition hearing, the court ordered family reunification services, including at least four hours of supervised visits each week. At a contested six-month review hearing in June 2023, the court terminated reunification services as to both parents. In November 2023, the court held a contested section 366.26 hearing at which social worker Adrian Rodriguez, mother, and father testified. Based on his review of notes on the visits between mother and Y.S., Rodriguez testified these visits regularly occurred. Y.S. ran to mother and stretched her arms