In re James P. CA5

Filed 1/9/15 In re James P. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re JAMES P., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY F069489 COMMUNITY SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. 515877) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OPINION TIFFANY P., Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Liana Serobian, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. John P. Doering, County Counsel, and Carrie M. Stephens, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J., and Smith, J.

Tiffany P. appeals from a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 concerning her seven-year-old son, James. She contends substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s finding that severing her parental rights to James would not be detrimental to him under two of the exceptions to adoption set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), the “beneficial relationship” exception and subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v), the “sibling relationship” exception. We affirm. LEGAL BACKGROUND Section 366.26 governs the proceedings at which the juvenile court must select a permanent plan for a child under its jurisdiction. If the court determines it is likely the child will be adopted, the statute requires the court to terminate parental rights. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) The court’s prior findings that it would be detrimental to return the child to parental custody and its order terminating reunification services constitute a sufficient basis for terminating parental rights unless the court finds that one of the six exceptions specified in subdivision (c)(1)(B) would render termination of parental rights detrimental to the child. Tiffany argued at the section 366.26 hearing that termination would be detrimental under the beneficial relationship and sibling relationship exceptions. The beneficial relationship exception states: “The 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).) The sibling relationship exception states: “There would be substantial interference with a child’s sibling relationship, taking into consideration the nature and extent of the relationship, including, but not limited to, whether the child was