Opinion
E069119
03-27-2018
In re H.B. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A.B. et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.B. Maryann M. Goode, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.C. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, Dawn M. Martin, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.Nos. J251077 & J251078 & J251079) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Erin K. Alexander, Judge. Affirmed. Robert McLaughlin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant A.B. Maryann M. Goode, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant S.C. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, Dawn M. Martin, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellants and defendants S.C. (Mother) and A.B. (Father; collectively, Parents) appeal after the termination of their parental rights to their three children A.B. (a boy, born Oct. 2008), R.C. (a boy, born May 2012) and H.B. (a girl, born Aug. 2013; collectively, Minors) at a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. Mother, joined by Father, challenges the juvenile court's order terminating their parental rights arguing Mother shared a beneficial parental relationship with all three children within the meaning of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) (B)(i).
All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. ORIGINAL DETENTION
Mother tested positive for methamphetamine at H.B.'s birth; H.B. tested negative. Mother, A.B. and R.C. had lived with the paternal grandmother (PGM) for the prior five years. PGM assisted Mother in the care of Minors.
Both Mother and Father had criminal histories. Father's most recent crime was possession of methamphetamine, for which he was incarcerated. Mother had her parental rights to four of Minors' siblings (S.C., D.G., V.G. and B.C.) terminated in May 2011.
Mother insisted she had been sober for four months prior to H.B.'s birth. She relapsed one month prior to H.B.'s birth and again on the day of H.B.'s birth. Her relapse had been triggered by the death of her father-in-law, Father's incarceration and the loss of her four other children. Mother agreed to no longer use drugs and to participate in treatment if Minors remained in her custody. It was determined by plaintiff and respondent San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the Department) that Minors would stay in Mother's custody under a family maintenance plan as long as she stayed with PGM.
The section 300 petitions were filed on September 6, 2013. It was alleged under section 300, subdivision (b) that both Parents failed to protect Minors by having a substance abuse history. It was also alleged that Father had a criminal history. A failure to provide for support was alleged against Father under section 300, subdivision (g) because he was incarcerated. It was also alleged under section 300, subdivision (j) that Mother had her parental rights for four other children terminated. The Department recommended that Minors stay in Mother's the custody.
The original petition for A.B. alleged his father was A.G. A.G. attended one court hearing but then could not be located.
The detention hearing was held on September 11, 2013. The juvenile court adopted the recommendation of the Department that Minors remain in Mother's custody as long as she and Minors lived with PGM.
B. JURISDICTION/DISPOSITION ON THE SECTION 300 PETITIONS
The jurisdiction/disposition report was filed on October 3, 2013. It was recommended that the section 300 petitions be found true and that Minors remain in the custody of Mother with court-ordered supervision. Minors were in Mother's custody at PGM's home.
Mother admitted during an interview with the Department that she suffered from a substance abuse problem. She did not believe it impacted her ability to take care of Minors. Father was also interviewed and admitted he had convictions for possession of methamphetamine and burglary. His current sentence was for three years and he had been incarcerated for eight months.
The Department was "optimistic" that the family would reunify. Mother was taking care of Minors' needs. Mother expressed remorse for her relapse and drug use. She agreed she needed substance abuse treatment. The Department recommended that Father be named the presumed father of Minors and be provided with family reunification services. Minors were bonded with Mother and PGM.
An addendum report was filed on January 24, 2014. Mother relapsed on November 10, 2013, by ingesting alcohol and methamphetamine. She entered an inpatient substance abuse treatment center with Minors on December 18, 2013.
The contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing was conducted on January 27, 2014. Parents waived their rights to be heard on jurisdiction. The trial court found the allegations in the section 300 petitions for H.B., R.C., and A.B. true. Father was named the presumed father of Minors. Minors were to remain with Mother's under a family maintenance plan as long as she remained in the inpatient treatment program. Father was granted reunification services.
Father was subsequently released from custody and was allowed to live with Mother and Minors. Mother had completed the three-month inpatient drug program and had been released.
C. SUPPLEMENTAL SECTION 387 PETITIONS
On July 24, 2014, Minors continued to be in the custody of Parents. Mother had returned to live with PGM on April 2, 2014, and was involved in an outpatient treatment program. PGM fell and hurt herself. She required care from Mother. Mother was unable to continue in the drug treatment program. Mother continued to test and had negative tests on April 17 and June 17, 2014. She assured the Department she was committed to her sobriety and Minors. The Department recommended an additional six months of family maintenance. Father had begun outpatient drug treatment but had been terminated on April 24, 2014, due to having to care for PGM. Father had several negative drug tests in March and April 2014, but had also missed several tests. Father had a strong bond with Minors. Mother had completed counseling and parenting classes. Minors appeared to have adjusted positively since Father returned to the home but A.B. had some problems with authority. He was being referred for counseling. A.B. and R.C. were being evaluated for possible behavioral/social-emotional concerns.
An addendum report was filed on August 22, 2014. Parents admitted to a relapse on August 13, 2014. The Department noted there had been no referrals to the Department and Minors were bonded to Parents. The Department determined it would cause too much damage to Minors to remove them from the care of Parents. Father was advised to enter a 90-day inpatient program. Mother was to attend outpatient treatment four times each week.
Section 387 supplemental petitions were filed on August 27, 2014, against Father only, for Minors. It was recommended that Minors be removed from the custody of Father and remain in the care of Mother. Although Father had been advised by the Department to enter into an inpatient drug treatment program on August 22, 2014, as of August 26, 2014, he had failed to enroll in treatment.
The detention hearing on Father's section 387 petition was heard on August 28, 2014. Minors were removed from Father's custody and were to remain with Mother. A jurisdiction/disposition report for the section 387 petition was filed on September 12, 2014, recommending reunification services for Father. Minors had no referrals for services although counseling was available for A.B. if needed. The Department had not heard from Father since September 2, 2014. Father never entered into the required inpatient treatment program and had not contacted the Department.
The jurisdiction/disposition hearing on Father's section 387 petition was heard on September 18, 2014. Father was present in court and submitted on the allegations. The juvenile court ordered Minors removed from Father's custody and they were to remain in Mother's care under a family maintenance plan. Reunification services were ordered for Father.
A status review report filed March 16, 2015, recommended that Minors remain with Mother under family maintenance and that reunification services with Father be continued. Mother had been dropped from her outpatient drug treatment program for failing to fully participate. She also had failed to attend random drug tests from September 30, 2014, to February 9, 2015. However, there were many other drug tests performed during the same period that were negative. Mother and PGM continued to appropriately care for Minors. Father was successful in completing his inpatient drug treatment program but had failed to advise the Department if he was participating in outpatient meetings. Further, Father had failed to drug test for the Department in January and February 2015. Mother insisted she had been sober since November 2014.
The status review hearing was held on March 18, 2015. Parents were ordered to submit to drug tests that day. Parents both tested negative. At the next hearing on April 20, 2015, Minors were continued on family maintenance with Mother; Father's reunification services were continued.
On May 4, 2015, section 387 petitions were filed against Mother for Minors. Mother had relapsed and Minors had been detained from Mother. Minors were placed with PGM. Mother had tested positive for methamphetamine on April 21, 2015. Mother only attended her outpatient drug treatment program seven times during the month of April 2015. Mother failed to take a required drug test on April 23, 2015. A home visit was conducted on April 28, 2015. Minors appeared to be stable. Mother admitted that she relapsed " 'one time' " but admitted to an ongoing substance abuse problem. It was determined it was in the best interests of Minors to remove them from Mother's care. Mother agreed to move out of PGM's home so Minors could remain in the home. A detention hearing on the second 387 petitions was held on May 5, 2015. Minors were ordered detained in the home of PGM. Visitation for Mother was ordered a minimum of one time each week.
A jurisdiction/disposition report was prepared on May 21, 2015. At that time, A.B. was six years old; R.C. was three years old; and H.B. was one year old. It was recommended that Mother be given family reunification services. Minors were maintained in the home of PGM.
The Department alleged Mother had been discharged from one outpatient drug treatment program for noncompliance. Further, there were five instances of her using methamphetamine since being placed on family maintenance including on April 21, 2015. Mother missed tests on March 19, 2015, and April 23, 2015. She was in danger of being removed from her current outpatient treatment program. Mother admitted to still struggling with substance abuse. Despite Mother being involved in three different treatment programs during the case, she was unable to maintain her sobriety. Mother regularly attended visitation with Minors and Minors were attached to Mother.
An update was submitted on June 8, 2015. Inland Valley Recovery Services (IVRS) who was handling the outpatient treatment for Mother, reported that Mother was advised if she did not attend treatment on June 4, 2015, she would be terminated from the program. She did not attend on that day. She also had a positive drug test on May 19, 2015. Further, another update filed on June 19, 2015, provided that Mother had failed to submit to any drug testing for the Department since Minors were removed from her care. She had been dropped from IVRS as of June 15. Father had not tested since April 28, 2015. He had been discharged from his outpatient drug treatment as of April 30, 2015, and had not attended counseling.
Minors' counsel filed a request that reunification services not be granted to Mother. Minors' counsel argued that family maintenance services were provided from October 2013 to May 5, 2015. Minors were removed for the first time on May 5, 2015. This was the time to conclude that Mother was not entitled to reunification services pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13) due to her chronic substance abuse.
A contested jurisdiction/disposition hearing was held on June 19, 2015. The juvenile court found the allegation in the section 387 petition true. As for disposition, the juvenile court noted that even though Mother was warned that if she did not attend an outpatient treatment program she may lose custody of Minors, she failed to attend. The juvenile court noted that Mother had an ongoing substance abuse problem and had four other children removed previously from her custody. Mother had been in and out of drug treatment since the inception of the case. The juvenile court found that Mother did have a bond with Minors. However, this bond was not enough to find that reunification services would be in the best interests of Minors. The juvenile court denied reunification services to Mother pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13). Parents were granted visitation.
Additional section 387 petitions were filed for Minors on September 14, 2015, against PGM. Minors were moved into a foster home. The Department reported that PGM had allowed Father to be alone with Minors. Father appeared to be under the influence of a controlled substance while with Minors. Further, PGM's medical issues were impacting her ability to care for Minors. She had trouble walking and had to ask Minors to help her. On July 27, 2015, Father was arrested for possession/manufacturing/selling a dangerous weapon. He was on bail for the offense. The Department was informed that Father had regularly been picking up A.B. from school. A detention hearing was held on September 15, 2015; Parents were not present. The trial court found a prima facie case to detain Minors outside the home in foster care.
The jurisdiction/disposition report provided that during visits between Minors and Mother, Minors expressed that they were oftentimes hungry while in the home of PGM. A.B. reported during a visit that he was "starving." H.B. had an extremely soiled diaper when she arrived for a visit. PGM was unwilling to keep Father away from Minors. Father was in custody, having been sentenced to 30 days on the recent weapon's charge. Father had not been participating in any services.
Mother was attending all visits with Minors. Mother told Minors they would be going home with her when she finished all of her classes. The jurisdiction/disposition hearing was conducted on October 6, 2015. The juvenile court found the allegations in the section 387 petition true against PGM and Minors were continued detained outside the home.
A status review report was filed on December 21, 2015. It was recommended by the Department that reunification services be terminated for Father, that Minors stay in the foster home, and that a section 366.26 hearing be set to establish a permanent plan of adoption. Father continued to abuse illegal substances and engage in criminal activity. He failed to take advantage of services. Mother continued to attend visits regularly. A.B. demonstrated sad moods and tearfulness after visits with Mother. The Department requested visits be limited to monthly, rather than weekly, due to A.B.'s reaction and to help Minors transition to the permanent plan of adoption. Minors had adjusted well to the placement in the foster home. A.B. was expressing some distress from being moved from his family.
The contested status review hearing was conducted on January 12, 2016. Mother objected to reduction in visits and to the setting of the section 366.26 hearing. Father testified services should not be terminated because he was currently in a drug treatment program. The juvenile court terminated Father's reunification services. Minors were to remain in the foster home until an adoptive home could be found. Mother's visits were reduced to once each month. A section 366.26 hearing was set.
D. SECTION 366.26 REPORT
The Department filed its section 366.26 report on May 9, 2016. It recommended a continuance in order to locate an adoptive family. Minors remained in foster care. H.B. and A.B. were developing normally and R.C.'s speech difficulties were being addressed. A.B. received counseling to address his sadness of being in foster care. He had gotten much better. R.C. and H.B. were receiving weekly evaluations and services; R.C. for aggressive behavior and H.B. for concerns about drug exposure in utero.
On March 17, 2016, R.C. had to be moved into another foster home due to his aggressive behavior. Since being moved, he was not exhibiting aggressive behaviors. Minors had no serious delays or concerns that would impede adoption. Mother continued appropriate visitation with Minors. They were happy to see her at visits. The Department recommended continued monthly visits for Mother. The matter was continued.
An addendum report was submitted on November 8, 2016. Minors' maternal second cousin (Cousin) had agreed to adopt them. Minors had been moved to her home in July 2016. Minors were developing normally. A.B. was exhibiting an increased ability to control his emotions and did not require further services. Minors liked living with Cousin and felt safe with her. Cousin advised the Department she would have no trouble setting boundaries with Mother and PGM. The Department requested an additional continuance in order to allow time for the adoption assessment to be completed. The section 366.26 hearing was continued.
On January 5, 2017, section 387 petitions were filed against Cousin. Cousin had allowed Minors to live with Mother and her new boyfriend for five days unsupervised. Minors were placed in a foster home. Mother had given birth to another child, Z.C. in September 2016; Z.C. had been removed from Mother's care. Mother did not want Minors with Cousin because Cousin refused to let her see Minors when she wanted. Mother admitted having unauthorized visits with Minors. Mother's boyfriend (who was Cousin's brother) was reported to have a history of domestic violence. He had assaulted Cousin in the presence of Minors. Cousin reported that Mother had been persistent in seeking to visit Minors outside the set visitation. Mother repeatedly showed up at Cousin's home to visit. Cousin had finally dropped Minors off at maternal grandmother's house because she could no longer take the harassment; maternal grandmother called Mother.
Z.C. was the subject of another appeal in this court (In re Z.C. (Feb. 7, 2018, E068858) [nonpub opn.]).
The Department recommended no visits between Mother and Minors. Mother was giving Minors false hope they would be returned to her care. Mother's actions made Minors defiant and aggressive in their placements. Mother admitted she contacted her four other children, who had been removed from her care, despite being advised not to contact them.
At the detention hearing, the juvenile court found a prima facie case to remove Minors from Cousin's care. Mother objected to the termination of visits. The trial court suspended visitation between Mother and Minors finding it detrimental. Mother continued to break the rules of visitation and she was jeopardizing the stability of Minors' placement.
The jurisdiction/disposition report for the section 387 petition against Cousin recommended Minors stay in foster care. It was reported that Cousin and Mother frequently argued in front of Minors. Cousin allowed her estranged husband to take care of Minors alone and he had a lengthy criminal history. During his stay with Mother, A.B. had observed that she and her boyfriend were always arguing. A.B. reported unauthorized visits with PGM. R.C. reported he liked his new placement but that Mother had told him that they would be living with their uncle soon. R.C. also reported that Mother had been drunk and had smoked something while they were with her. The jurisdiction/disposition hearing on the section 387 petition against Cousin was held on January 27, 2017. The juvenile court found the allegation in the petition true. Minors were removed from Cousin's care. Visits between Mother and Minors were terminated. A section 366.26 hearing was set.
An addendum report asked for a 120-day continuance of the section 366.26 hearing in order to find an adoptive home. Minors each were exhibiting some concerning behaviors such as aggression and defiance. The unauthorized visits with Mother had led to increased sadness and confusion for Minors. At the hearing, Mother's counsel requested visitation arguing Minors were asking to see Mother. The juvenile court noted that Mother was violating visiting orders in the case involving Z.C. The juvenile court left it up to the Department to work with Mother to see if visits could be conducted. The Department was to speak with Minors to see if visits would be beneficial to their transition into an adoptive home. The section 366.26 hearing was continued.
The Department requested another 60-day continuance on June 6, 2017, to assess an adoptive home. An adoptive family had been located as of April 17, 2017, but placement had not occurred and further time for assessment was needed. Minors were adjusting well to their current placement. They were no longer showing concerning behaviors. No visitation with Mother occurred. Minors improved after the termination of visits. The juvenile court granted the continuance of the section 366.26 hearing. It found visitation with Mother, Father and PGM detrimental.
Mother filed a section 388 petition on June 26, 2017. Mother had participated in counseling and parenting classes. She had completed a residential treatment program in May 2017 and was involved in outpatient drug treatment. Mother requested visitation and reunification services. The Department filed a response to the section 388 petition. They recommended denying the section 388 petition due to Mother's repeated violation of visitation rules and her ongoing substance abuse issues. Minors were thriving in their stable home.
An addendum report was filed on July 28, 2017, by the Department. They recommended that parental rights be terminated and that the permanent plan of adoption be implemented. Minors had been placed in the adoptive home on June 10, 2017
E. SECTION 366.26 HEARING AND DENIAL OF SECTION 388 PETITION
On September 13, 2017, four years after the initial section 300 petition was filed, the section 366.26 hearing was held. The juvenile court denied the section 388 petition without a hearing. The parental rights of Mother and Father were terminated, as will be discussed in more detail post, and Minors were freed for adoption. Parents both filed appeals from the termination of their parental rights.
DISCUSSION
A. BENEFICIAL PARENTAL BOND EXCEPTION
Mother, joined by Father, argues that she has a significant bond with Minors and the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the parental bond exception pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) to adoption.
Father contends that if this court finds the juvenile court erred by refusing to apply the parental bond exception to Mother, and reverses the order, the judgment against him should also be reversed. --------
1. ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
Mother testified at the section 366.26 hearing. Mother requested that a legal guardianship be ordered. Mother was consistent with visitation with Minors until the visits were terminated. Minors would hug and kiss her during the visits. Minors all called her mom. A.B. would tell her he wanted to go home with her. H.B. had lived with Mother until H.B. was two years old. R.C. was three years old and A.B. was six years old when they were first removed from her care. Even though she had no recent visits with them, she believed they were still bonded to her. At the last court hearing, they all hugged her.
Mother argued there was a parental bond exception. Even though visits had ended in January 2017 there was still a significant bond. The benefits of adoption were not going to outweigh the benefit of continuing a relationship with Mother.
The juvenile court found Minors were adoptable. The court noted, "There has not been consistent visitation. The mother's visits were found to be detrimental based on her prior actions in the case." The juvenile court did not doubt that Mother loved Minors, but she had placed her needs in front of the needs of Minors by continuing her substance abuse and sabotaging placement. The exception had not been met. Stability and permanency outweighed any possible detriment.
2. APPLICATION OF THE PARENTAL BOND EXCEPTION
If a child cannot be returned to a parent, "[a]doption, where possible, is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature." (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573.) Under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), the juvenile court must terminate parental rights if it finds "by clear and convincing evidence" it is likely the child will be adopted. However, the court will not terminate parental rights if it determines doing so would be detrimental to the child based on one of several statutory exceptions. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B.) The party challenging the termination of parental rights bears the burden to produce evidence showing an exception applies. (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1527.)
"Section 366.26 provides an exception to the general legislative preference for adoption when '[t]he court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child' [citation] because '[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.' [Citation.] The 'benefit' prong of the exception requires the parent to prove 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.] . . . 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.' " (In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621.)
"In reviewing challenges to a trial court's decision as to the applicability of these exceptions, we will employ the substantial evidence or abuse of discretion standards of review depending on the nature of the challenge." (In re J.S. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1071, 1080.) "The first determination—most commonly whether a beneficial parental or sibling relationship exists, although section 366.26 does contain other exceptions—is, because of its factual nature, properly reviewed for substantial evidence. [Citation.] The second determination in the exception analysis is whether the existence of that relationship or other specified statutory circumstance constitutes 'a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child.' " (In re K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 622.) In other words, under the hybrid standard, the issue of whether a beneficial relationship exists is reviewed for substantial evidence. The decision of whether that relationship constitutes a compelling reason for termination being detrimental to the child is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. (Ibid.)
Here, Mother had Minors in her custody for at least half of their lives, and maintained consistent visitation until the juvenile court terminated visitation due to her inability to follow the applicable rules. It is true that Mother had not visited with Minors for eight months prior to the section 366.26 hearing due to the court's order. However, even if we were to conclude that Mother maintained consistent visitation, she did not meet the second prong that Minors would benefit from continuing their relationship with Mother.
When Minors first came to the attention of the Department in September 2013, Mother already had four of Minors' siblings removed from her care due to her substance abuse. Despite losing four of her children, she continued to use drugs as evidenced by her testing positive at H.B.'s birth. Even though she was unable to reunify with her other children, the Department gave Mother the opportunity to keep custody of Minors as long as they lived with PGM, who helped care for Minors.
Mother relapsed in November 2013, and entered inpatient treatment bringing Minors with her, requiring them to leave the only home they had known. Mother successfully completed the program in April 2014 and returned to live with PGM. Mother failed at outpatient treatment by not attending the required treatment. In August 2014 Mother had a relapse. Since the Department believed the bond between Mother and Minors was strong, it once again gave Mother a chance to keep Minors on a family maintenance plan.
In March 2015 Mother had again been dropped from her outpatient treatment program and had stopped participating in random drug tests. Despite these setbacks, the Department considered it a detriment to remove Minors from Mother's care due to the strong bond. However, less than two months later, Mother relapsed and Minors had to be detained from Mother. Thereafter, the juvenile court found that despite a bond between Minors and Mother, Mother was not entitled to reunification services.
Minors were finally moved to foster homes and struggled with their behaviors. However, once in stable homes, they improved dramatically. When Minors finally were placed with Cousin and were on a path of stability, Mother sabotaged the placement by continually harassing Cousin until Cousin could no longer "take it." Cousin felt forced to turn Minors over to Mother and Mother's abusive boyfriend. Mother admitted she had unauthorized visits with Minors and had no excuse for her behavior other than that she wanted to see them. The juvenile court was forced to terminate visitation because of Mother's behavior.
It is clear from the evidence that Mother was unable to maintain her sobriety even with the Department giving her numerous chances to maintain custody of Minors. Despite the bond that Minors had with Mother, she was unwilling to provide them with stability by continuing her substance abuse. She also was unwilling to follow the juvenile court's orders and caused harm to Minors by having unauthorized visits. She gave Minors' false hope that they would return to her care. She continued to sabotage any stable home in which Minors were placed. Without any doubt, it was not in the best interests of Minors to be returned to Mother's care, in fact, it would be detrimental to the well-being of Minors to continue their relationship with Mother, and the juvenile court properly freed them for adoption.
DISPOSITION
The juvenile court's order terminating the parental rights of Mother and Father at the section 366.26 hearing is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
J. We concur: McKINSTER
Acting P. J. SLOUGH
J.