In re Elizabeth L. CA5

Filed 10/1/15 In re Elizabeth L. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re ELIZABETH L., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

STANISLAUS COUNTY COMMUNITY F071233 SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. 516828) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. OPINION STEPHANIE L.,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ann Q. Ameral, Judge. Jamie A. Moran, 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 Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Kane, J.

Stephanie L. appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 for her three-year-old daughter, Elizabeth. Stephanie contends the juvenile court erred in not applying the exception to adoption set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). We affirm. LEGAL BACKGROUND Section 366.26 governs the proceedings at which the juvenile court must select a permanent placement for a child adjudged its dependent. 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 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 section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B) would render termination of parental rights detrimental to the child. Stephanie contends the juvenile court should have found that termination of her parental rights would be detrimental under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), the “beneficial relationship exception” which 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).) We conclude the juvenile court properly ruled in not applying the exception. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY These dependency proceedings were initiated in September 2013 during an investigation by the Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) into the physical abuse of Stephanie’s minor niece and nephew. At that time, Stephanie and her husband, Luis, were caring for their then 17-month-old daughter, Elizabeth, and