In re J.J. CA3

Filed 8/27/14 In re J.J. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re J. J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court C076112 Law.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF (Super. Ct. No. JD230699) HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

S. P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant S.P., mother of minor J.J., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating her parental rights. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.)1 She contends the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption provided a compelling reason to

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

forgo adoption. We conclude that mother failed to raise the beneficial parental relationship exception in the juvenile court and has forfeited this argument on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the juvenile court’s orders. DISCUSSION A recitation of the factual background of this case is unnecessary to the resolution of this appeal. Mother’s sole contention is that the juvenile court erred in failing to find that the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption applied. The Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services (Department) contends mother forfeited her claim by failing to assert the applicability of the exception in the juvenile court. We agree with the Department. At the selection and implementation hearing (§ 366.26), a juvenile court must choose one of the alternative permanent plans provided by statute. The Legislature’s preference is for adoption. If the juvenile court finds a minor adoptable and no circumstances would make the termination of parental rights detrimental to the minor, the juvenile court must terminate parental rights. (In re Ronell A. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1352, 1368.) The parent has the burden of establishing an exception to termination of parental rights. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.725(e)(3); In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 809.) The juvenile court has no sua sponte duty to determine whether an exception to adoption applies. (In re Melvin A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252.) Rather, the parent has the burden of affirmatively raising and proving that an exception applies. (In re Zachary G., supra, 77 Cal.App.4th at p. 809; In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 553.) Here, mother’s counsel entered a general objection to termination. Mother and her counsel asserted that she had been a good mother when she had custody of the minor. There was no mention of the applicability of the beneficial parental relationship exception, no mention of her bond with the minor or any detriment he would incur from