California Court of Appeal May 14, 2014 No. D064730Unpublished
Filed 5/14/14 In re Isaac J. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re ISAAC J., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D064730 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ11945B-C) Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
N.J. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Cynthia
Bashant, Judge. Affirmed.
Neil R. Trop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and
Appellant, N.J.
Kathleen Murphy Mallinger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for
Defendant and Appellant, A.C.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County
Counsel, and Georgia A. Gebhardt, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
N.J. appeals the termination of her parental rights to her son Isaac J. and daughter
Asia C. (together, the children). N.J. contends the juvenile court erred by declining to
(In re Lukas B. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1145, 1154).
THE BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIP EXCEPTION
If a dependent child is adoptable, the court must terminate parental rights at the
section 366.26 hearing unless the parent proves the existence of a statutory exception.
(§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); In re Helen W. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 71, 80-81.) An exception
exists if a 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).) A
beneficial 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." (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) If terminating parental
rights "would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that
the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome . . . ." (Ibid.)
The existence of a beneficial relationship is determined by factors such as "[t]he age of
the child, the portion of the child's life spent in the parent's custody, the 'positive' or
'negative' effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child's particular
needs . . . ." (Id. at p. 576.) Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the
judgment (ibid.), we conclude substantial evidence supports the court's conclusions that
although N.J. visited regularly, the children's best interest and need for stability
outweighed "whatever relationship" they had with her.
5
In November 2009, before this case began, the children were detained in Polinsky
Children's Center for a couple of days after N.J. was arrested for domestic violence. This
case lasted for nearly two years, during which time the children were in N.J.'s care for
approximately eight months. At the time of the section 366.26 hearing, eight-year-old
Isaac and five-year-old Asia had not lived with N.J. for approximately 10 months and had
lived with their foster parent for approximately 10 months. The foster parent wished to
adopt the children.
N.J.'s visitation with the children was generally positive, although she was
sometimes inappropriate. The children had a bond with her. Unsurprisingly, the bond
was an anxious one; in N.J.'s care, the children had been exposed repeatedly to violence,
substance abuse and homelessness. The children enjoyed visits, but sometimes appeared
ambivalent about or indifferent to contact with N.J. The children showed little or no
emotion toward N.J. when visits ended and avoided her attempts to elicit signs of
affection.
The children felt more secure with their foster parent than they did with N.J. The
children were happy in the foster home and wished to remain there and be adopted. Of
her own accord, Asia sometimes called the foster parent "mom." Isaac, who was
generally reserved, had become warmer and more expressive with the foster parent.
Isaac liked the structured environment of his placement. When given a homework
assignment of drawing a picture of his family, he drew his foster parent, Asia and
himself, and not N.J. Adoption offered the children the permanence, stability, security
and consistency they deserved and that N.J. had been unable to provide.
6
N.J. contends the parent-child bond was so strong that guardianship would be a
better permanent plan than adoption. This contention fails. Adoption is the preferred
plan, and if a child is adoptable, the court must terminate parental rights at the section
366.26 hearing unless the parent proves the existence of a statutory exception. (§ 366.26,
subd. (c)(1); In re Helen W., supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at pp. 80-81.) N.J. did not prove the
existence of a statutory exception.
The court did not err by declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NARES, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
O'ROURKE, J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's findings that the children were adoptable and that the parent failed to establish the beneficial relationship exception to the termination of parental rights.
Issues
Whether the juvenile court erred in finding the children adoptable despite the parent's claims regarding the children's understanding of adoption.
Whether the juvenile court erred in declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception to the termination of parental rights.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The court did not err by declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception.”
“N.J. did not prove the existence of a statutory exception.”