California Court of Appeal Jul 30, 2014 No. D065686Unpublished
Filed 7/30/14 In re R.H. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 R.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D065686 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ14510A) Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MELISSA M.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael
M. Imhoff, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Valerie N. Lankford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County
Counsel, and Lisa M. Maldonado, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Melissa M. appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights to her daughter,
R.H. Melissa contends the juvenile court erred by declining to apply the beneficial
Agency (the Agency) filed a dependency petition for R.H. The petition, as later
amended, alleged that on September 3, R.H. was exposed to a violent confrontation
between Melissa and maternal great-aunt Maria D. Melissa punched Maria in the face,
knocked a telephone from her hand, pushed her to the floor, kicked her in the stomach
and kicked her in the chest and/or upper thighs. Melissa had threatened Maria and her
minor children. This included a threat to burn down the house where Maria, her children,
Melissa and R.H. lived.
R.H. was detained in Polinsky Children's Center and in a foster home. In
November 2011, she was moved to a second foster home. In December, she was moved
to a third foster home. In January 2012, the court made a true finding on the petition,
ordered R.H. placed in foster care and ordered reunification services. In April, Melissa
turned 18 and became a nonminor dependent of the juvenile court. From April to May,
R.H. lived in a respite foster home. In May, she was returned to her third foster home.
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2
In November 2012, Melissa gave birth to her second child, J.H. J.H. was detained
at birth and returned to Melissa two weeks later. In May 2013, the court restored
physical custody of R.H. to Melissa.
In June 2013, the Agency filed a supplemental petition (§ 387) for R.H. The
petition alleged Melissa had not complied with services. Melissa had not made R.H.
available to be seen by the social worker, the court appointed special advocate (CASA)
and other service providers. Melissa had recently pulled family friend Mary by the hair
and hit her.
The court ordered the issuance of a protective custody warrant for R.H. and J.H.
In June 2013, R.H. was detained in her third foster home and J.H. was detained in a
different foster home. In August, the court made a true finding on the section 387
petition. In September, R.H. was again returned to Melissa. Within two weeks, Melissa
engaged in three incidents of domestic violence, and R.H. was returned to her third foster
home. At the section 387 dispositional hearing in September, the court ordered that R.H.
remain placed in foster care, terminated Melissa's reunification services and set a section
366.26 hearing.
The section 366.26 hearing took place in March 2014. At the time of the hearing,
R.H. was still living in her third foster home, and the foster parents wished to adopt her.
3
THE BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIP EXCEPTION
If a dependent child is adoptable,2 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.) One
exception exists 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).) 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
considering "[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 most favorably to
the judgment (ibid.), we conclude substantial evidence supports the court's findings
Melissa maintained regular and consistent contact with R.H.; it was not in "[R.H.'s] best
interest[s] to promote or facilitate a mother-child relationship;" and whatever benefit R.H.
derived from contact with Melissa was "greatly outweighed by [R.H.'s] need for stability
in placement, which can only be achieved through adoptive placement."
2 Melissa does not contest the adoptability finding. 4
By March 2014, five-year-old R.H. had been in eight placements and had lived
with her third foster family for a total of more than 18 months. R.H. had been in
Melissa's care for a total of approximately 10 and one-half months and had been removed
from Melissa's care three times. R.H. had lived with Melissa for the first nine and one-
half months of her life; for approximately six and one-half weeks in early 2013; and for
11 days in late 2013.
Visitation varied between supervised and unsupervised. R.H. ran to Melissa when
visits began. During visits, Melissa sometimes ignored R.H. When visits ended, R.H.
separated from Melissa easily. During visits, Melissa sometimes exhibited poor
parenting skills. For example, at one visit she gave R.H. food that was a choking hazard.
On another occasion, Melissa "snatched" R.H. from the foster parent. At a third visit, the
social worker called the police after Melissa "blocked [R.H.] in a corner, refusing to
allow her to go back to the [visitation] monitor."
R.H. had developmental delays and behavioral problems. The foster parents
"actively sought out and then participated in services to benefit [R.H.'s] developmental
and other needs." As a result, R.H.'s behavior, speech, motor skills and attentiveness
improved. After visits with Melissa, R.H.'s night terrors worsened. R.H.'s treatment
team believed her anxiety would not lessen until she was allowed the stability and
security she needed.
THE SIBLING RELATIONSHIP EXCEPTION
Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v), provides an exception to termination of
parental rights when termination would substantially interfere with the child's sibling
5
relationship and the severance of the relationship would be so detrimental to the child to
outweigh the benefits of adoption. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 951-953;
§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) The juvenile court must "balance the beneficial interest of
the child in maintaining the sibling relationship, which might leave the child in a tenuous
guardianship or foster home placement, against the sense of security and belonging
adoption and a new home would confer." (In re L.Y.L., supra, at p. 951, citing In re
Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) Factors to be considered include whether
the children were raised in the same home; whether they shared significant common
experiences or have existing close and strong bonds; and whether ongoing contact is in
the child's best interests, including his or her long-term emotional interests, as compared
to the benefits of adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) "[T]he application of this
exception will be rare, particularly when the proceedings concern young children whose
needs for a competent, caring and stable parent are paramount." (In re Valerie A. (2007)
152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1014.) Examining the evidence most favorably to the judgment,
we conclude substantial evidence supports the court's finding Melissa did not meet her
burden of proving the exception. (In re L.Y.L., supra, at pp. 947, 952.) The court found
termination of parental rights would not cause a substantial interference with the sibling
relationship and, even if it did, R.H.'s need for stability outweighed her "close and strong
bond" with J.H. The court concluded "[c]onsidering [R.H.'s] long-term emotional
interests, ongoing contact would not be in [R.H.'s] best interest[s] as compared to the
benefit of legal permanence through adoption."
6
R.H. and J.H. lived together for just six weeks and saw each other during some of
Melissa's visits. R.H. called J.H. "baby" and "Jos" and liked to play with her. R.H.'s and
J.H.'s foster parents were longtime friends and saw each other regularly. R.H.'s foster
parents were committed to maintaining R.H.'s relationship with J.H., whether J.H.
remained in her foster home or returned to Melissa's care. As noted above, R.H. needed
the stability and security of adoption.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
McDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
McINTYRE, J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the termination of parental rights, finding that the mother failed to meet her burden of proving the beneficial relationship or sibling relationship exceptions to adoption.
Issues
Did the juvenile court err in declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception to the termination of parental rights?
Did the juvenile court err in declining to apply the sibling relationship exception to the termination of parental rights?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“whatever benefit R.H. derived from contact with Melissa was "greatly outweighed by [R.H.'s] need for stability in placement, which can only be achieved through adoptive placement."”
“The court found termination of parental rights would not cause a substantial interference with the sibling relationship and, even if it did, R.H.'s need for stability outweighed her "close and strong bond" with J.H.”