Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gary M. Bubis, Commissioner., Super. Ct. No. EJ02535A.
NARES, J.
I.G. appeals an order of the juvenile court removing her minor son, Anthony H., from her custody, terminating her reunification services and placing Anthony in Connecticut with his father, Anthony H., Sr. (father) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2, subdivision (a). I.G. contends the court erred by placing Anthony with his father because the evidence showed Anthony would be emotionally harmed by being separated from his siblings and extended family. We affirm the order.
Statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March 2005, 10-year-old Anthony and his half-siblings, four-year-old D.G. and three-month-old Darnell, became dependents of the juvenile court and were removed from parental custody based on findings I.G. abused drugs. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) initiated a parent search for the father and eventually located him in Connecticut. The father requested appointed counsel and custody of Anthony.
D.G. and Darnell are not subjects of this appeal. Their father, Darnell G., Sr., is not a party to the appeal.
I.G. participated in reunification services and visited the minors, who were placed together in foster care. At the 12-month review hearing, the court ordered the minors returned to I.G.'s custody with continued juvenile court supervision. However, several months later, the court sustained the allegations of a section 387 petition and removed Anthony and his siblings from I.G.'s custody because Anthony witnessed domestic violence between I.G. and Darnell, Sr., and I.G. was arrested for violating the terms of her probation when she tested positive for cocaine and marijuana. The court detained Anthony and his siblings with the maternal great-aunt in Stockton, California.
The father, who appeared in court in San Diego, renewed his request to have Anthony placed with him. Following a home study under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), Anthony's placement in the father's home in Connecticut was approved. The father expressed concern for Anthony's well-being and safety. Although he knew Anthony would miss his siblings, the father said Anthony could maintain contact with them by telephone and mail. He also planned to help Anthony save money for visits to California. During interviews by Agency social workers, Anthony said he wanted to live with his maternal great-aunt and his siblings, and his second choice was his father. The maternal great-aunt said she loved Anthony, but believed it was best for him to live with his father.
At a contested disposition hearing, I.G. testified she lived with the father and Anthony until Anthony was two and one-half years old. The father then moved away and had no contact with Anthony for two years. For one month in 2004, Anthony lived with his father in Connecticut. During that month, Anthony telephoned I.G. frequently to say he wanted to return to I.G.'s care. Between 1999 and 2006, the father occasionally contacted Anthony by telephone and sent a few gifts. I.G. did not want the court to place Anthony with the father because Anthony did not know him, and I.G. did not want Anthony separated from his siblings.
The father testified by telephone, stating he lived with I.G. and Anthony until Anthony was four years old. After the father moved to Connecticut, he communicated with Anthony for nine months, but lost contact because I.G. frequently moved. The father testified Anthony lived with him for two months in 2004, but returned to California because he missed his mother and wanted to play football. If the court awarded him physical custody of Anthony, the father would encourage continued contact between Anthony and his mother and siblings. He would allow Anthony to travel to California for visits whenever it was financially feasible.
Anthony testified he did not want to live with his father because he did not know him well enough. Although Anthony denied his father telephoned or sent packages, he did remember his father sent him clothes and video games, and he also remembered having brief telephone conversations with his father.
After considering the evidence and hearing argument of counsel, the court removed Anthony from I.G.'s custody, terminated I.G.'s services and placed Anthony with his father under section 361.2, subdivision (a). The court found there was no clear and convincing evidence of detriment to Anthony if he were placed with his father.
DISCUSSION
I.G. contends the court erred by placing Anthony with his father in Connecticut because the evidence showed Anthony dearly loved his siblings and extended family, and the separation would be detrimental to his emotional well-being.
A
When a court orders removal of a dependent child at disposition and a nonoffending, noncustodial parent requests custody, the court must place the child in the physical custody of that parent unless it finds, by clear and convincing evidence, the placement would be detrimental to the child's safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being. (§ 361.2, subd. (a); In re Luke M. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1426.) Section 361.2, subdivision (a) shows the Legislature's preference for placement with the nonoffending, noncustodial parent. (In re John M. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1564, 1569.) We review the court's finding on the question of detriment in the light most favorable to the order to determine whether substantial evidence supports it. (Ibid.; In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 329-330; In re Brian R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 904, 912-914.)
In evaluating detriment, the court weighs all relevant factors, including the emotional impact its placement decision has on the minor. (In re Luke M., supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1425-1426.) Although the court may evaluate the appropriateness of keeping siblings together, the sibling relationship is one factor, among many, for the court to consider in making its detriment finding. (Id. at p. 1422.) The overriding consideration for the court is the minor's best interests. (In re Nicholas H. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 251, 268; In re Nada R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1179.)
B
Here, the evidence showed that due to I.G.'s drug abuse and resulting inability to adequately parent her children, 11-year-old Anthony had a parentified relationship with his younger siblings and felt responsible for their well-being. He had been caring for D.G. since she was a baby, regularly fed Darnell and directed the foster mother on how to care for these children. The court was entitled to consider this emotionally unhealthy aspect of the sibling relationship when deciding whether placing Anthony with his father would be detrimental to Anthony. In contrast to Anthony's current circumstances, the father was committed to giving Anthony a stable home and the opportunity to just be "a kid." To the extent Anthony relied on his siblings for security, love and emotional support, the evidence showed the father knew Anthony would miss his siblings and he was committed to facilitating contact between them by letters, telephone calls and visits when financially possible. Additionally, he was aware of Anthony's educational limitations and was willing and able to work with Anthony on these issues.
The ICPC evaluation showed the father's home was appropriate for Anthony. The father had no criminal record or history of substance abuse. He and his wife had lived in the same home for seven years and had a four-year-old son. The father understood Anthony's needs, and was sensitive to Anthony's loyalty to his mother and his sense of obligation to his siblings. The ICPC social worker recommended placing Anthony with the father. Even the maternal great-aunt recognized Anthony's best interests required placement with the father.
Although Anthony said he did not want to live with his father because he did not know him well enough, the court found this statement did not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence of detriment. (In re John M., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1570 [14-year-old minor entitled to have his placement preference considered, but not entitled to decide where he would be placed].) In the absence of a showing of detriment, the father was entitled to have Anthony placed with him. (§ 361.2, subd. (a); In re John M., supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1571.) Substantial evidence supports the court's finding Anthony would not suffer detriment if placed with his father in Connecticut.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P.J., AARON, J.