In re F.G. CA6

Filed 6/4/13 In re F.G. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re F.G. et al., a Person Coming Under H038919 the Juvenile Court Law. (Santa Cruz County Super. Ct. Nos. DP002612, DP002613) SANTA CRUZ COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.G. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants. F.G. (father) and C.G. (mother) appeal from a juvenile court judgment terminating their parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)1 concerning their son, F.G. (born 2001), and daughter, S.G. (born 2003). Father challenges the evidence supporting the juvenile court‟s rejection of his evidence and argument that the case came with the exception to termination described by section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) (no termination if termination would be detrimental to the child because the parents maintained regular visitation and the child could benefit from continuing the relationship). Mother agrees with father‟s argument and asserts that we must reverse the judgment as to her if we reverse the judgment as to father. We affirm the judgment.

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

LEGAL BACKGROUND Section 366.26 sets forth the procedure for permanently terminating parental rights concerning a child who has been removed from parental custody and declared a dependent child of the juvenile court. The statute states that the court shall terminate parental rights if it “determines . . . by a clear and convincing standard, that it is likely the child will be adopted.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) If the court determines it is likely the child will be adopted, certain prior findings by the juvenile court (e.g., that returning the child to the physical custody of the parent would create a substantial risk of detriment to the physical or emotional well-being of the child) shall constitute a sufficient basis for the termination of parental rights unless the juvenile court finds one of six specified circumstances in which termination would be detrimental. (Ibid.) The first of these circumstances states: “The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (Id. subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 1996, four older children had been removed from father and mother‟s custody and adopted. The children at issue were born in Mexico, and, after bringing them to the United States, father and mother hid the children from the Santa Cruz County Human Services Department (Department), did not enroll them in school, and later lied to the Department about the children‟s whereabouts. The Department ultimately placed the children in protective custody because “the children had suffered medical and dental neglect, emotional damage, lack of educational opportunities and they were not protected by the parents from physical harm, neglect and domestic violence.” The juvenile court declared the children dependents and bypassed reunification services. The Department placed the children with a paternal aunt and uncle. Father had regular visitation; mother could not have contact because she was incarcerated. The Department ultimately reported that the aunt and uncle were committed to adopting the children. It