Opinion
A156549 A156561
09-18-2019
In re S.S., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. HUMBOLDT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.C. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. JV170101)
Appellants S.C. (Mother) and M.S. (Father) challenge the termination of their parental rights to their daughter, S.S. Father contends the juvenile court should have applied the beneficial parental relationship exception to the statutory preference for adoption as a permanent plan for S.S., and Mother contends the sibling relationship exception outweighs the preference for adoption. We shall affirm the order terminating their parental rights.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Background of the Dependency
We are familiar with the background of this case through our review of Mother and Father's petitions for extraordinary relief under California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, asking us to set aside an order setting a permanent plan hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (.26 hearing). (S.C. et al. v. Superior Court (Nov. 30, 2018, A155299) [nonpub. opn.].) For the facts underlying this dependency, we quote at length from our opinion in that case:
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Empty brackets [ ] indicate deletions from our previous opinion; brackets with material enclosed indicate matter added by this court.
A. The Petitions
The Humboldt County Department of Health & Human Services (the Department) on May 31, 2017, filed two petitions pursuant to section 300. One of the petitions was filed on behalf of 18-month-old S.S, naming Mother as her mother and Father as her father. The second petition was brought on behalf of mother's two older daughters, 11-year-old S.T. and 10-year-old D.A., and her son, 8-year-old Z.T. Another man, R.T., was named as the father of these three children (the older children). Although Father is the father of only S.S., not the three older children, we will refer to him as "Father" for the sake of convenience.
The petitions, as later amended, alleged the children were at risk of serious physical harm and emotional damage due to Mother's substance abuse; ongoing domestic violence between Mother and Father; Mother's untreated mental illness; the presence of drug paraphernalia in the home; the older children's exposure to sexual and violent pictures and videos of Mother and Father; and the older children's missing substantial amounts of school because Mother and Father locked them in the house. The petitions also alleged Father had sexually abused S.S. and that the older children were at risk of such abuse, and that Mother had the two older girls, S.T. and D.A., read her diary containing explicit descriptions of sex between Mother and Father. [ ]
B. Jurisdiction Reports and Jurisdiction Hearing
The Department received a report on May 26, 2017, that the children had been left without a caregiver after Father was arrested for domestic violence and Mother suffered a drug overdose. A social worker went to the family's apartment. A neighbor told her that no one was home, and that Mother had been taken to the hospital the previous night after having what appeared to be seizures or convulsions. The neighbor said that there was domestic violence in the home almost every day, and that Mother and Father often locked the children out of the home at all hours of the day and night. She had seen Mother and Father fighting while Mother held one-year-old S.S. in her arms. Another neighbor, who was caring for S.S., said she had heard Mother and Father fighting and had seen Mother and the children upset many times. Mother sent the two older girls to the store by themselves late at night, and the neighbor had seen Z.T. outside in the rain with no shoes and socks, appearing cold, unable to get back into the home. The neighbor had found a razor blade in S.S.'s diaper bag that day, and she said S.S. often smelled bad and cried as if she was in pain.
S.T. told the social worker that Mother and Father fought every day and that when the fighting started, she sent her siblings outside and stayed inside to " 'make sure no one is hurt too bad.' " Father had been arrested on May 25, 2017, after hitting Mother and screaming at her in S.T.'s presence. S.T. reported the children were sometimes locked out of the house.
Mother was in a hospital. When interviewed, she said she and the children had been away from home the night of May 24, 2017. When they returned, the apartment was in disarray, with trash and hypodermic needles everywhere. She began cleaning up, and Father woke up and began hitting and slapping her and screaming at her as she held S.S., with S.T. present. Father was arrested for domestic violence; the arresting officer said there were hypodermic needles all around the home and minimal food.
Mother later felt sick to her stomach and said she did not remember anything after that except arriving at the hospital. She left the hospital against medical advice and was later found passed out in the parking lot under some bushes. She appeared disoriented, weak, and dizzy. She was admitted to the hospital for sepsis, polysubstance abuse, and withdrawal. At the hospital, she tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and opiates. A social worker saw four red slash marks, which appeared to be in the progress of healing, on Mother's left forearm on May 27, 2017.
Mother said she believed Father had recently been using drugs. Father told the social worker both he and Mother used methamphetamine.
[ ] Z.T. reported that Mother had shown him a drawing of Father pointing a gun at Mother and Mother lying in a pool of blood with a gunshot wound to her head. The older children reported that Mother used to hide needles in their backpacks, and S.T. and D.A. had to go through their bags at school and make sure there were no needles in Z.T.'s bag. Z.T. reported that the needles looked like they were full of blood, that he had seen Mother "empty needles into her arm," and that there were a lot of needles in the home. He once saw S.S. playing with a full needle that was on the living room floor.
Z.T. said Father hit S.T. and D.A. with a belt and called them "assholes, bitches, and whores." He said he got so angry at Mother and Father " 'that the whole room turns black.' " S.T. told a social worker Zack had anger issues and needed counseling, and that D.A. also needed counseling because she was " 'having a hard time.' " S.T. said she was fine and would take care of the younger children.
The older children reported that they had missed a lot of school because Father would keep them at home to care for S.S. Father would keep Mother locked in a bedroom or bathroom most of the day, and he would beat her up, throw her against walls and furniture, choke her, and throw things at her. When Father locked Mother in a room to beat her up, S.T. and D.A. would pick the lock on the door to " 'save the baby and our mom.' "
The older children would often take care of S.S. There was rarely food in the home, so they had to scavenge for scraps. Homeless friends of Father's would stay in the house, sleeping in the girls' room while the girls slept in the living room. They would leave used needles, pipes, and blood all over the girls' bedroom, including in their beds.
D.A. told a social worker she was worried about something that had happened. One day, while Mother was passed out, Father locked himself into a bedroom with S.S. and told the older children he had to change her diaper. He stayed in the bedroom with S.S. for about 30 minutes. The older children heard S.S. yelling and screaming, until things went quiet. After Father brought S.S. out of the bedroom, the older children saw her hitting at him and trying to get away from him. The older girls took S.S., who would " 'freak out' " every time Father came near. After that incident, S.S. began coming up to the older children and rubbing her private parts against them and moving her lower body "as if she was humping them." She had never done so before.
The Department submitted addendum reports after the older children were interviewed more extensively. They described in more detail how Father was physically violent to Mother on a daily basis; the children and Mother were trapped in the home; S.T. had to care for S.S. constantly; needles, both used and "loaded," were littered throughout the apartment; Father would grab Z.T. by the neck and choke him when he was angry; Father would strike S.T. and D.A. with belts; three homeless people were allowed to move into the home for several months, take over the older children's bedroom, and keep marijuana and needles there; and there was little food in the home. On one recent occasion, Father tried to hit Mother and instead hit one-year-old S.S. in the face, " 'full strength,' " causing her to fly into a wall and drop to the ground. After this incident, S.S. had a "hand mark" on her face.
As of May 24, 2017, the older children had not attended school for multiple weeks. S.T. had missed seven weeks of school and D.A. had missed three weeks. S.T. said that when Mother and Father did not get up in the morning, she had to wake D.A. and Z.T. and get them ready for school, but she would stay home to care for S.S. She was afraid to leave S.S. alone with Mother and Father because she had once come home from school to find S.S. unsupervised, looking for crumbs in the kitchen to eat, and because S.S. might find one of the needles in the home.
Father and Mother had been evicted from their apartment. When the landlady cleaned out the home, she found multiple needles in the older children's bedroom, the living room, bathroom, kitchen, and S.S.'s crib, and methamphetamine in the bedroom in which Mother, Father, and S.S. slept.
The family had a total of 35 prior child welfare referrals since 2006 related to domestic violence, drug use, and Mother's mental health issues and suicide attempts. When S.S. was born, she tested positive for opiates and methamphetamines.
On August 10, 2017, the juvenile court took jurisdiction over all four children based on a plea agreement. The court sustained allegations that the children had suffered, or there was a substantial risk they would suffer, serious physical harm (§ 300, subd. (a)); that they were at substantial risk of physical harm due to failure to protect them (§ 300, subd. (b)); and that they were at risk of serious emotional damage (§ 300, subd. (c)). The Department dismissed allegations of sexual abuse (§ 300, subd. (d)) and cruelty (§ 300, subd. (i)).
C. Disposition
Before the disposition hearing, the Department reported that [ ] Father said that there had been " 'a little domestic violence' " with Mother and that he would seek anger management. He denied that he had ever used heroin and said he had "only slipped up on methamphetamine 'a while ago.' " Mother and Father said that all of the children were fine before the Department became involved and that the children were being traumatized by their current care provider.
S.S. (one and a half years old) had tested positive for methamphetamine on a hair follicle test on June 9, 2017. The older children told a social worker that if Mother did not leave Father, they would not return to her care, and they said they wanted a restraining order to protect them from Father. [ ]
In September 2017, the Department recommended that Z.T. (eight years old) be moved from the home in which the children were placed and placed instead in a therapeutic group home after he subjected another boy at the home to sexualized behavior that caused him pain and required medical treatment.
At the September 19, 2017 dispositional hearing, the juvenile court found there would be a substantial danger to the children's well-being if they were returned home. The court declared the children dependents, placed them out of the home, and ordered reunification services for Mother and Father. [ ]
D. Six-Month Review Period
[ ] Before the six-month review hearing, Mother reported that she was pregnant and was due to give birth in June 2018. [ ]
In late 2017, Father attended a substance abuse group regularly and had all negative drug tests. His attendance started to drop by early November 2017. In January 2018, he tested positive for methamphetamine and was discharged from the program for failure to attend groups.
The social worker met with Mother and Father in February 2018. Father told her he had " 'cut himself off' " from everything, that he was not engaging in the batterer's intervention program or substance abuse treatment, that he was couch surfing with friends, and that he did not have a working phone. The social worker encouraged both Mother and Father to engage in their case plan. [ ] Father had supervised visitation with S.S.
At the April 23, 2018 six-month review hearing, the juvenile court found the Department had made reasonable efforts to return the children, and continued reunification services.
E. Twelve-Month Review Hearing
A contested 12-month review hearing took place on August 22 and 24 and September 5, 2018. The Department's report repeated much of the background found in the earlier reports and set forth the events that had occurred since the six-month hearing. The Department recommended terminating reunification services and setting a .26 hearing.
Mother's Efforts
In early June 2018, Mother gave birth to a daughter, V.S., who had Father's last name. Mother's accounts of her relationship with Father had been inconsistent, and the Department had received reports they were still an intact couple. After Mother gave birth to V.S., she told a social worker Father was using methamphetamine and he should not be around her or the baby. [ ]
Father's Efforts
[ ] On June 6, 2018, Father told a social worker who had recently been assigned to the case, Kristen Palmero, that he would go to an inpatient treatment program to address his substance abuse, and she arranged a referral to a program. He said he had last used methamphetamine on June 3, 2018. [ ]
The Children
All three of the older children had struggled academically due to their excessive absences from school while in Mother and Father's care. Z.T. was far below grade level and would need to repeat third grade. He continued to live in a therapeutic group home due to violent and sexualized behaviors and suicidal ideation. His behavior had improved significantly in the group home.
Social Worker's Testimony
At the hearing, Palmero testified that there was a dependency case on behalf of Mother's new baby, V.S., but that V.S. had not been removed from Mother because there was no immediate safety threat and the Department wanted to give Mother a chance to complete her services. [The dependency as to V.S. is not at issue in this case.] [ ]
Father's Testimony
Father testified that he [ ] relapsed and used methamphetamine in early June, as he admitted to Palmero when he met with her in early June. He entered a residential drug treatment program, had been there for 30 days as of the time of the hearing, and had sought permission to stay another 30 days to work on his recovery. He was attending four to six programs or groups a day, including one addressing family dynamics, and behavioral modification and parenting classes. The issue of domestic violence was addressed in some of his classes. He had begun individual therapy two weeks previously, and had completed one session. [ ] He acknowledged there had been domestic violence between him and Mother. [ ]
Juvenile Court's Ruling
The juvenile court found that return of the children to the home would be detrimental, found by clear and convincing evidence that reasonable services had been offered, found Mother and Father had not made significant progress in resolving the problems leading to the dependency, and found there was not a substantial probability the children would be returned within 18 months of their removal. The court terminated reunification services and set a .26 hearing. [End of quotation from opinion in case No. A155299.] In case No. A155299, we denied Mother and Father's petitions for extraordinary relief on the merits.
II. Termination of Parental Rights
Reports prepared for the .26 hearing, which took place in January and February 2019, indicated that Father was visiting with three-year-old S.S. twice a week for two hours, and the visits were positive and loving. The Department recommended that parental rights as to S.S. be terminated, that D.A., and S.T. have a permanent plan of guardianship, and that Z.T. remain in foster care.
S.S. was three years old. She had lived outside her parents' care since May 2017, when she was 18 months old. She and her half-sisters had been living with their current foster parents since October, 2017. S.S. was attached to the foster parents, who wished to adopt her, and was also bonded with the foster family's extended family. Z.T. was living in a group home, and S.S. visited with him periodically. The Department recommended that the court terminate parental rights and select a permanent plan of adoption for S.S.
The supervisor for Father's visits with S.S. and V.S. testified that he had supervised 14 visits. Based on his observations, he thought Father had a close relationship with S.S. and V.S. When they went to a park, Father would hold V.S. while following S.S. and making sure she was safe. S.S. was usually happy and smiling during visits, and she referred to Father as "[D]addy." On the way to visits, S.S. seemed happy and said "[D]addy." At the end of the visits, Father hugged and kissed both girls. S.S. was affectionate toward V.S, kissing her when Father was holding her or when she was in her car seat.
The juvenile court admitted into evidence the logs of Father's supervised visits with S.S. and V.S. between July 2018 and January 2019. The logs show the visits were consistently positive; that Father showed affection for S.S., hugged her, told her he loved her, was attentive during visits, cared for her needs, behaved appropriately, played games with her, encouraged her to be helpful and behave well, and assisted in toilet training; and that he expressed concerns he had about her development (e.g., language skills, toilet training). They also show that S.S. expressed her excitement about seeing Father before visits, called him "[D]addy," on at least one occasion ran into his arms when she saw him and hugged him, responded happily to his praise, enjoyed his company, and was responsive to and engaged with him. S.S. also showed affection to her baby sister, V.S., and hugged her.
Father testified that, although his reunification services had been terminated, he had been attending therapy with a marriage family therapist. He was attending Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings to maintain his sobriety. He had been sober for about five months. He testified that he and S.S. shared a close bond, and that S.S. took pride in being a big sister to V.S. She enjoyed helping Father prepare bottles and find wipes for V.S. She showed her love for V.S. by hugging or kissing her. Father had raised his voice once to S.S. when she ran into the street, and he explained that cars could hurt her; since then, S.S. would raise her voice to Father if he walked into the street without stopping to hold her hand.
Father testified that he himself had been adopted, that he entered his adoptive family when he was four years old, that those memories still haunted him, and that he thought separation from him could be traumatic for her. He recalled being separated from his baby sister and feeling guilty about having "abandoned her" for most of his life. He remembered feeling "alone and scared and uncertain."
S.S.'s current caregiver and prospective adoptive mother (Foster Mother) testified at the .26 hearing. S.S., D.A., and S.T. had lived with her since the end of October 2017. She wanted to adopt S.S. if S.S. did not return to her parents. D.A. and S.T. had been given the choice of being adopted or being placed in a guardianship, and they had chosen guardianship so they could see Mother once a year. Foster Mother was willing to adopt D.A. and S.T. if they changed their mind and wanted to be adopted. The three girls had visited with their brother, Z.T.—who remained in long-term foster care—once or twice in the past six months, and Foster Mother wanted them to maintain a relationship with Z.T. Foster Mother also wanted the girls to maintain a strong relationship with V.S., but she wanted the visits to be supervised by the County, rather than by Mother. If S.S. was adopted, Foster Mother would not want her to have contact with Father.
Father argued that S.S. would suffer detriment if her relationship with him were severed, and both Mother and Father argued severance of parental rights would interfere with S.S.'s relationship with her siblings.
The juvenile court terminated parental rights as to S.S., found by clear and convincing evidence that she was likely to be adopted, and chose adoption as her permanent plan. As to the other children, the court found termination of parental rights would be detrimental, appointed Foster Mother and her husband as legal guardians of D.A. and S.T., and continued Z.T. in foster care. Mother and Father have appealed from this order.
Mother's notice of appeal states her appeal is also from a January 8, 2019 order denying her request to change a court order. She raises no issues related to this order.
DISCUSSION
Father contends the juvenile court erred in not applying the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) exception to the termination of parental rights with respect to S.S. because he has maintained regular visitation with her and she would benefit from continuing the relationship. Mother argues the court should have applied that statute's sibling relationship exception. (Id., subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).)
When a .26 hearing has been set to select and implement a permanent plan for a child, "the interests of the parent and the child have diverged . . . [Citation.] '[C]hildren have a fundamental independent interest in belonging to a family unit [citation], and they have compelling rights to be protected from abuse and neglect and to have a placement that is stable, permanent, and that allows the caretaker to make a full emotional commitment to the child.' [Citation.] Adoption gives a child the best chance at a full emotional commitment from a responsible caretaker." (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527.)
When reunification services have failed and the court holds a hearing pursuant to section 366.26, the court must determine whether the child is likely to be adopted. If so, with limited exceptions, the court must terminate parental rights and order the child placed for adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) Under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), the denial of reunification services "shall constitute a sufficient basis for termination of parental rights" unless "(B) [t]he court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child" due to one or more enumerated circumstances, among them, "(i) The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship," and "(v) 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 raised with a sibling in the same home, whether the child shared significant common experiences or has existing close and strong bonds with a sibling, and whether ongoing contact is in the child's best interest, including the child's long-term emotional interest, as compared to the benefit of legal permanence through adoption."
I. Beneficial Parental Relationship
In In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1165-1166, a different panel of this division explained that the parental benefit exception " 'requires the parent to prove [that] his or her relationship with the child "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." [Citations.] No matter how loving and frequent the contact, and notwithstanding the existence of an "emotional bond" with the child, "the parents must show that they occupy 'a parental role' in the child's life." [Citations.] The relationship that gives rise to this exception to the statutory preference for adoption "characteristically aris[es] from day-to-day interaction, companionship and shared experiences. Day-to-day contact is not necessarily required, although it is typical in a parent-child relationship." [Citation.] Moreover, "[b]ecause a section 366.26 hearing occurs only after the court has repeatedly found the parent unable to meet the child's needs, it is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent's rights will prevail over the Legislature's preference for adoptive placement." ' "
The court in In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 (Autumn H.), explained that "[i]nteraction between natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child." The court must "balance[] the strength and quality of the natural parent/child relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer." (Ibid.) Only if "severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed" is the preference for adoption overcome. (Ibid.) "[A] child should not be deprived of an adoptive parent when the natural parent has maintained a relationship that may be beneficial to some degree but does not meet the child's need for a parent. It would make no sense to forgo adoption in order to preserve parental rights in the absence of a real parental relationship." (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350.)
To determine whether the beneficial relationship exception applies, the court looks to such factors as "[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." (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) We review the juvenile court's findings for substantial evidence. (In re G.B., supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166, fn. 7.)
There is some conflict as to the proper standard of review of a challenge to a juvenile court's ruling on whether one of the exceptions to adoption applies. (See In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 575-577 [substantial evidence]; In re Jasmine D. supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1351 [applying abuse of discretion but recognizing that differences in standards are not significant]; In re E.T. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 68, 76 [applying substantial evidence standard to existence of beneficial parental relationship and abuse of discretion standard to whether there is compelling reason to find termination would be detrimental to child].) The question of proper standard of review is currently pending before our Supreme Court. (In re Caden C. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 87, review granted July 24, 2019, S255839.) We agree with In re Jasmine D. and In re G.B., supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166, fn. 7, that, in this context, the practical differences between the standards are minor. We would reach the same result under either standard. --------
Applying these standards, we must uphold the juvenile court's decision. Like the juvenile court, we have no doubt of Father's love for S.S., and we recognize that his supervised visits with her were positive, that he showed her affection and cared for her needs, and that S.S. enjoyed the visits. But S.S. had lived in Father's care for only the first 18 months of her life, and that time had been marred by substance abuse and violence in the home. By the time of the .26 hearing, she had spent more of her life apart from him than with him, and Father had not progressed beyond supervised visitation with her. She was happy in the home of her foster parents, who wished to adopt her; the Department's report for the .26 hearing stated that S.S. had become "especially bonded and attached to her foster parents and the family considers her as one of their own children." Bearing in mind the legislative preference for adoption as a permanent plan where reunification efforts have failed, the juvenile court could properly conclude this is not the sort of "extraordinary case" in which the harm that would be caused by severing the parental relationship outweighs the benefit S.S. would receive from the security of an adoptive home. (See In re G.B., supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 1166.)
Father draws our attention to several cases in which appellate courts have reversed termination orders based on the beneficial relationship exception. But most of those cases contain crucial differences from the one before us now. (See, e.g., In re Scott B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 452, 471-472 [11-year-old child had spent most of life with mother, wanted to be with her, and would be unable to endure interruption of frequent visits with her]; In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 298-300 [when child was removed from his care, father immediately acknowledged his drug use was untenable, began services, maintained sobriety, sought medical and psychological services, and maintained regular and consistent visitation]; In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 689 [evidence of primary attachment between mother and child]; In re Jerome D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1207 [child lived with mother first six and half years of life, wanted to live with her again, and had unsupervised overnight visits in her home]; see also In re E.T., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at pp. 76-78 [children were " 'very tied to their mother,' " she "ease[d] their fear and anxiety," and she "did all she was asked to do and more"].) In any case, the question before us is whether the facts of this case compelled the juvenile court to apply the exception. (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 575-576 [exception must be examined on case-by-case basis].)
Father argues that since D.A., and S.T. received a permanent plan of guardianship rather than adoption, it would have been appropriate to choose such a plan for S.S. as well. But three-year-old S.S. is much younger than her older sisters, who were 12 and 13 years old at the time of the .26 hearing and had expressed their preference for a guardianship rather than adoption. The juvenile court was not required to ignore the legislative preference for adoption as to S.S.
Father also contends the juvenile court improperly relied on an expectation that the adoptive parents might allow future contact between him and S.S. The record does not support this contention. Foster Mother testified that she did not want S.S. to have contact with Father if the family adopted her, and nothing in the record suggests the juvenile court believed otherwise.
II. Sibling Relationship
Mother argues the harm that will be caused by disrupting S.S.'s relationship with her brother and sisters outweighs the legislative preference for adoption. " 'Reflecting the Legislature's preference for adoption when possible, the "sibling relationship exception contains strong language creating a heavy burden for the party opposing adoption. It only applies when the juvenile court determines that there is a 'compelling reason' for concluding that the termination of parental rights would be 'detrimental' to the child due to 'substantial interference' with a sibling relationship." ' " (In re Naomi P. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 808, 823.)
The fact that children know they are siblings and enjoy seeing each other does not compel a juvenile court to apply the sibling relationship exception. (See In re D.M. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 283, 292-293.) "Many siblings have a relationship with each other, but would not suffer detriment if that relationship ended. If the relationship is not sufficiently significant to cause detriment on termination, there is no substantial inference with that relationship." (In re L.Y.L (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 952.) And, "even if adoption would interfere with a strong sibling relationship, the court must nevertheless weigh the benefit to the child of continuing the sibling relationship against the benefit the child would receive by gaining a permanent home through adoption." (In re Naomi P. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 808, 823; see In re L.Y.L., at p. 951.) This exception will be applied "rare[ly], 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; accord In re Elizabeth M. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 768, 783.) It is the parent's burden to show there will be substantial interference in the sibling relationship. (In re D.O. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 166, 176.)
On this record, the juvenile court could reasonably reject the argument that it should apply the sibling relationship exception. This family's situation is complicated: of S.S.'s four siblings, two, D.A., and S.T., are placed in the same home as she is with a plan of guardianship. One, Z.T., lives in a separate group home; S.S. had only limited contact with him in the months before the .26 hearing, and there is no suggestion she is likely to have frequent contact with him in the foreseeable future, whether or not she is adopted. Her younger sister, V.S., remained with Mother.
Thus, the two siblings with whom S.S. had spent the most time, D.A. and S.T., live with her, and there is no reason to presume she will not maintain her relationship with them. (See In re Valerie A., supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 1014 ["the court could not ignore the practical realities of the extended family's circumstances in considering whether termination of parental rights would substantially interfere with the sibling relationships"].) Moreover, they are so much older than three-year-old S.S. that a court could reasonably conclude her need for the stability of an adoptive home outweighs any potential disruption with the sibling relationship.
As to the other children, S.S. has had only limited contact with Z.T. for more than half of her young life, and the record does not compel a conclusion that they share a significant relationship. V.S. was a baby at the time of the .26 hearing, and, although S.S. saw her on visits and was affectionate toward her, they had never shared a home. Even assuming S.S. has a significant relationship with Z.T. and V.S., Foster Mother testified she wanted all the siblings, including Z.T. and V.S., to maintain their relationship. (See In re Valerie A., supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 1014 [where prospective adoptive parent willing to consider future contact, "termination of parental rights did not necessarily foreclose the continuation of the sibling relationships"]; In re D.O., supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 175 [court may consider assurances of continued sibling visits in determining whether there will be substantial interference with sibling relationship].) The record does not show that termination of parental rights will interfere with a substantial sibling relationship, let alone that the detriment caused by any interference is a compelling reason to deprive S.S. of a permanent adoptive home.
Mother's reliance on In re Naomi P., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th 808, is unavailing. The appellate court there concluded substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's application of the sibling benefit exception. (Id. at p. 811.) The question before us, on the other hand, is whether the record supports the juvenile court's decision not to apply the exception. (See In re D.M., supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 293.) For the reasons we have discussed, we conclude the trial court could properly decline to do so.
DISPOSITION
The orders appealed from are affirmed.
/s/_________
TUCHER, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
POLLAK, P. J. /s/_________
STREETER, J.