Opinion
E070600
12-04-2018
In re S.C. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. D.B., Defendant and Appellant.
Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Jamila Bayati, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. J260274, J260275 & J260276) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steven A. Mapes, Judge. Affirmed. Jacob I. Olson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Michelle D. Blakemore, County Counsel, and Jamila Bayati, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
D.B. (mother) appeals from orders terminating her parental rights to three of her children, W.C., R.C., and S.C. Mother contends the juvenile court erred by finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), did not apply. We conclude there is substantial evidence to support the juvenile court's ruling, and the court did not abuse its discretion by terminating mother's parental rights. We will affirm.
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Original Petitions and Detention.
On May 6, 2015, mother, who was 26 weeks pregnant, was taken to the hospital after her live-in boyfriend punched her in the stomach. Police responded and arrested the boyfriend, and hospital staff referred S.A.B., W.C., R.C., and S.C. to CFS for possible neglect and abuse. Mother was evasive when asked about domestic violence in the home and said the children did not witness the boyfriend punch her in the stomach. S.A.B. and W.C. told hospital staff that they did, in fact, witness the boyfriend punch mother in the stomach, and that they had been present during other incidents of domestic violence in the home. The children told a social worker that they saw the boyfriend punch mother in the stomach "really hard," and that mother started to scream, "Get off me." The children said they were scared and worried about mother's health.
This appeal does not address the juvenile court's orders regarding S.A.B. (See fn. 5, post.)
The children were unkempt and dirty, but they had no marks or bruises. S.A.B., W.C., and S.C. told the social worker that they slept on the floor, there was "minimal food in the home" and no refrigerator, and "they often felt hungry." The children also told the social worker that they were disciplined with "whoppings," which they described as being hit by mother with her hand. The children said mother's boyfriend had been arrested after a prior incident in which he stabbed mother with a knife. The children denied any sexual abuse or inappropriate touching. The children reported that mother and the boyfriend would smoke outside, then "act funny."
When interviewed, mother told the social worker that she had recently obtained an apartment but had not yet acquired beds, a refrigerator, or other necessary items for the children. Mother told the social worker that she had been arrested after an earlier incident of domestic violence with the boyfriend, and she had charges pending against her. She described her relationship with the boyfriend as "fair." Mother said she and the boyfriend argued like any other couple and generally worked out their differences peacefully. Mother denied that she experimented with illegal drugs and alcohol.
Mother denied that the boyfriend punched her in the stomach and told the social worker that she and the boyfriend had an argument that got out of hand. Mother said she and the boyfriend wrestled and she fell to the floor, causing her to experience abdominal pain. Mother also denied that the children had witnessed the incident. Mother said she went to the hospital only as a precaution to check on the health of her unborn child, and that she would be leaving the hospital against medical advice. Although mother acknowledged that domestic violence in the home was an issue that needed to be resolved, she minimized the extent of the problem and stated "that it was not problematic to raise her children in [that] type of environment." Mother admitted that she had no plan to ensure the children's safety and well-being.
The four children were removed from mother and placed in protective custody. A police officer who assisted the social worker in serving the detention warrant said he had been to the home the day before, and the home reeked of marijuana. The officer told the social worker that it was likely mother smoked marijuana while caring for the children.
On May 11, 2015, CFS filed petitions in the juvenile court alleging W.C., R.C., and S.C were dependent children within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b). CFS alleged, inter alia, that mother failed to protect the children by engaging in domestic violence with the boyfriend (including an incident where the boyfriend allegedly threw bleach at mother), and by failing to provide the children with safe and adequate shelter and necessary provisions.
CFS also alleged the children were dependent children within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (g), but that allegation related to failure of the children's father to provide provisions for their support. The father did not appeal from the termination of his parental rights to the children, so we need not discuss the facts pertaining to him in great detail.
All additional statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
At the detention hearing conducted on May 12, 2015, the juvenile court made a prima facie finding that the children were dependent children and ordered that the children be detained.
B. Jurisdiction and Disposition.
In a report submitted for the jurisdiction hearing, the social worker recommended that the children remain detained out of mother's home and that mother be provided with family reunification services. The social worker reported that mother continued to minimize the extent of domestic violence in her home and deny that her arguments with the boyfriend had any negative impact on the children. Mother acknowledged she needed to address her anger issues, but she believed she could do so with the children still in her care. Mother denied that the boyfriend threw bleach at her, stabbed her with a knife, or that he punched her in the stomach. Although mother obtained a temporary restraining order against the boyfriend, mother told the social worker that she would not seek a permanent restraining order and "she planned to continue her relationship" with the boyfriend. Mother explained the boyfriend "was her only support system," she relied on him in times of crisis, he was the father of her unborn child, and she wanted him to be involved.
Mother told the social worker that she was in the process of obtaining beds and furniture through the Children's Fund, that she had an ice chest to keep perishable food from spoiling, and that she took the children out to eat often. Mother denied starving or abusing the children. She admitted smoking cigarettes daily, but denied using street drugs. Father told the social worker that mother was violent toward him when they were still in a relationship, and he had heard that mother engaged in domestic violence with her boyfriend. S.C. told the social worker that he witnessed mother fight with the boyfriend, including incidents during which mother was arrested or injured. He told the social worker he was fearful when mother and the boyfriend argued, and he felt powerless to help mother when she fought with the boyfriend. The social worker reported that mother had previously been offered referrals to counseling services to address the chronic domestic violence in her home, but she had never taken advantage of the referrals. S.A.B. and W.C. tended to act out violently toward their caregiver due to their exposure to domestic violence in mother's home. R.C and S.C. appeared to have been affected less by the domestic violence and were adjusting well to their caregiver's home. The children's caregivers reported the children "have an appetite and appear never to be full," which the caregiver attributed to a concern on the children's part "that they will run out of food and want to eat everything quickly." The children's caregivers had provided the children with the stability and peace they needed.
At the June 2, 2015 jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court sustained the petitions and declared the children to be dependent children. The court ordered that the children be removed from mother's custody and remain with their caregivers under the supervision of CFS. The court also ordered that mother receive reunification services and be given supervised visitation once a week for a minimum of two hours. CFS was authorized to liberalize the frequency of the visits, including unsupervised, overnight, and weekend visits. Mother was ordered to participate in her case plan, which included general counseling, participation in a domestic violence program, and on-demand drug testing.
In August 2015, mother gave birth to J.B. J.B. was removed from mother's care because of the allegations of domestic violence between mother and the child's father, and because mother was not regularly participating in her case plan for the other children.
In an earlier appeal, this court affirmed an order terminating mother's parental rights to J.B. (In re J.B. (Aug. 23, 2018, E070095) [nonpub. opn.].)
C. Review Hearings and Return to Mother Under Family Maintenance.
In a six-month status review report filed on November 24, 2015, the social worker recommended that the children remain with their caregivers, that mother continue to receive reunification services, and that the case plan be amended to include interactive parent and child therapy (IPCT). Mother reported attending therapy, parenting classes, and domestic violence counseling. Mother also reported that she was seeking employment. The social worker reported that the primary problem that prevented reunification was domestic violence in mother's romantic relationships. Although mother recognized she could benefit from services to help her identify why she became involved in relationships that exposed her and the children to domestic violence, mother did not regularly participate in her services and had not demonstrated she had benefited from those services. The social worker reported that the children were doing well in their caregivers' homes, and that mother visited with the children once a week for two hours.
At the six-month review hearing conducted on December 2, 2015, the juvenile court found that mother had only made moderate progress in her case plan. The court ordered that mother continue to receive reunification services, adopted the recommendation that the case plan be amended to include IPCT, and ordered that the children remain out of mother's care.
In a report prepared for the 12-month status review hearing, the social worker again recommended that mother receive additional reunification services. The social worker reported that mother had made substantial progress in her case plan during the reporting period, and that she was motivated to reunify with the children. The social worker also reported that mother had gained insight and acknowledged that her past acts of domestic violence and neglect had contributed to the children being removed from her care. The social worker was concerned that mother was still in a relationship with the boyfriend, but mother reported that they were no longer together. Mother had been attending individual therapy sessions on a weekly basis but had not yet obtained a therapeutic progress report. In addition, mother reported that she had completed a parenting education class, but she had not provided the social worker with a certificate of completion. Although mother completed a domestic violence course, the completion report stated mother had made some progress in setting a goal but "she needs to continue working on decision making and anger management techniques."
Mother visited with the children once a week for two hours, but she cancelled or failed to show for six visits during the reporting period because of her work schedule. The visits were appropriate, and mother brought snacks, clothing, and activities to do with the children. The children continued to do well in their placements, and they appeared to be bonded with both mother and their individual caregivers.
At the 12-month status review hearing, the juvenile court found that mother had made substantial progress in her case plan. The court ordered that mother receive additional reunification services and increased supervised visitation to eight hours a week. The court also authorized CFS to liberalize visitation by approval packet.
In a 30-day update packet, CFS informed the juvenile court that mother had provided certificates and completion reports for her parenting and domestic violence classes. Mother was now receiving unsupervised visits once a week for two hours. CFS also reported that mother was in the process of looking for appropriate housing for the children and had maintained gainful employment.
In a subsequent update packet, CFS informed the juvenile court that mother had been having appropriate, unsupervised visits with the children since July 13, 2016. CFS reported that mother had obtained appropriate and stable housing, and a home assessment had been completed. CFS was providing mother with assistance, including providing her with beds and a crib for the children, bed linens, a refrigerator, a table and chairs, and groceries. The juvenile court authorized CFS to grant mother overnight and weekend visits.
The social worker conducted an unannounced visit to mother's home on November 11, 2016. The children looked well and were very active. The social worker reported that W.C. was acting out and being violent with mother and the other children. The social worker recommended that the children be returned to mother's care under family maintenance, but that W.C. remain with her caregivers for another 30 days for further services to transition her back to mother's care. Mother and her new boyfriend informed the social worker that they wanted to continue providing the children with a safe, loving, stable, and supportive home environment.
In a report submitted for an 18-month review hearing, the social worker again recommended that the children be returned to mother's care under family maintenance. The social worker reported that mother had made substantial progress in completing her case plan. Although mother had said it was difficult at times to care for the children, she loved the children dearly and was open to receiving assistance from CFS through family maintenance in transitioning the children back to her care. The social worker opined that returning the children to mother would not place them at risk of physical or emotional harm, but that conditions still existed to justify continued jurisdiction. Mother had unsupervised overnight and weekend visits with the children, and the visits went well. The children got along well with mother's new boyfriend. Mother reported that her new boyfriend was a "huge support" for her in caring for the children. The social worker reported that the children were doing well, though they had some noticeable developmental delays.
At the 18-month status review hearing, counsel for the children expressed some concern that only four of the children be returned to mother, and that W.C. "may feel she is being discriminated against if she doesn't go back." Counsel suggested the court approve a 29-day visit rather than a full return to mother under family maintenance. The court authorized CFS to initiate an extended 29-day visit with mother.
In an information packet submitted for the next hearing, the social worker reported that W.C. was calmer during an unannounced visit, but that S.A.B. was acting out. The social worker again recommended that the children be returned to mother under family maintenance.
At the next hearing conducted on November 28, 2016, the juvenile court ordered that the children, including W.C., be returned to mother under family maintenance.
On December 9, 2016, CFS informed the juvenile court that W.C. and S.A.B. had been approved for wraparound services, and the family would be receiving "intense, home-based services."
D. Subsequent/Supplemental Petitions and Detention Hearing.
On April 24, 2017, the social worker received a referral for abuse and general neglect. According to the referral, S.A.B. said his father hit him in the middle of his back with a belt buckle. The referral indicated that the buckle left a rectangular bruise on the child's back that was still visible a few days later, although the child did not complain of pain or express fear of going home. Upon further investigation, the social worker learned that all of mother's children reported being hit with a belt by mother's boyfriend. S.A.B. still had bruising days after the child had been removed from mother's care. The children also reported witnessing domestic violence between mother and the boyfriend, something mother denied. Mother admitted that her boyfriend had hit one of the children with a belt. Mother told the social worker that she had grabbed the belt from the boyfriend and told him he could not discipline the children. In addition, mother said she was no longer with that boyfriend.
CFS filed subsequent/supplemental petitions alleging W.C., R.C., and S.C. were dependent children within the meaning of section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), and section 387. CFS alleged the children suffered or were at risk of suffering physical injury, the children witnessed domestic violence in mother's home, and mother failed to comply with her family maintenance plan by not protecting the children from corporal punishment by her now ex-boyfriend.
At the detention hearing on the subsequent/supplemental petitions, the juvenile court made a prima facie finding that the new allegations were true and ordered the children detained out of mother's care. The court also ordered immediate referrals for reunification services to mother.
E. Jurisdiction and Disposition on Subsequent/Supplemental Petitions and Order Setting a Section 366 .26 Hearing.
In a report for the jurisdiction hearing on the subsequent/supplemental petitions, the social worker recommended that the children remain detained and out of mother's care, that mother not be offered additional reunification services, and that the juvenile court set a hearing under section 366.26 for selection of a permanent plan for the children. The social worker opined that mother had continued to make poor choices regarding her romantic relationships, which put the children at risk of physical harm or abuse, and she had failed to take responsibility for the abuse suffered by the children at the hands of her now ex-boyfriend. The social worker opined that mother's prognosis of reuniting with the children was poor.
The social worker filed information packets with the juvenile court, which contained additional information obtained during the investigation into the new allegations of abuse. All five children were examined by a doctor and found to have bruising. During their interviews, the children confirmed that they had received "whoppings" from mother and her now ex-boyfriend, including being hit with a wooden spatula. S.C. reported that mother and the ex-boyfriend slapped J.B. in the cheek "for messing with the TV," causing the child's cheek to bleed. The physical examination conducted on J.B. showed she was underweight and had a linear scar on her forearm.
At the contested jurisdiction hearing, minor's counsel agreed with the social worker's recommendation because mother had received 18 months of reunification services in the original case regarding the older children, yet the children had suffered abuse and had witnessed domestic violence in mother's home. Mother's attorney denied the allegations in the subsequent/supplemental petitions, argued the children were confusing past acts of domestic violence with mother's current boyfriend, and stated mother believed the marks and bruises were caused by the children's foster parents or from roughhousing. Mother's attorney acknowledged there was "some physical discipline," but she denied that mother ever used a belt on the children. With respect to the disposition, mother's attorney objected to the recommendation that mother receive no further reunification services, that her visits be reduced, and that the juvenile court set a hearing under section 366.26. According to counsel, mother was attending counseling and domestic violence and parenting classes.
The juvenile court found the allegations in the subsequent/supplemental petitions true and declared the children to be dependent children within the meaning of sections 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), and 387. The court found there was no probability of returning the children to mother within the 24-month period from initial removal. The court, therefore, terminated reunification services for mother and set a hearing under section 366.26.
F. Section 388 Petition and Section 366 .26 Hearing.
In a report filed for the section 366.26 hearing, the social worker recommended that S.C., R.C., W.C. and S.A.B. be placed in adoptive homes, and that the court terminate mother's parental rights to J.B. The social worker reported that mother had been inconsistent in her weekly supervised visits during the reporting period and recommended that visitation be discontinued.
At the initial hearing, mother's attorney asked that the juvenile court continue the matter so mother could file a section 388 petition, and counsel objected to the social worker's recommendation regarding visitation. Further, counsel argued that mother had not acted inappropriately during visits, and that mother's failure to appear for visits was the result of scheduling problems. The court continued the hearing and ordered that mother have visits twice a month.
Mother filed a petition under section 388, requesting that the children be returned to her care under family maintenance. In the alternative, mother requested that the juvenile court reinstate reunification services for an additional six months and increase the frequency of visits to include unsupervised, overnight and weekend visits. According to mother, she had engaged in services to address the causes of the children's removal, including participating in domestic violence and parenting classes and attending counseling. Mother argued that returning the children under family maintenance or reinstating reunification services and increasing visitation would be in the children's best interests because she was "progressing and benefiting from services in order to maintain this large family together." Mother supported her petition with documentation indicating she had attended domestic violence classes, was making "positive changes and progress" in counseling sessions over a three-month period, and had completed a 10-week parenting course. The juvenile court set an evidentiary hearing on mother's petition.
CFS opposed mother's section 388 petition. The social worker confirmed that mother had completed a parenting course, and she was participating in weekly counseling sessions. The social worker also contacted the provider through which mother was attending domestic violence classes. Mother had only attended one class of a 12-class program and, in order to receive a certificate, she would be required to restart the program. The social worker opined that mother had not benefited from 18 months of reunification services, and she was not using the skills she had learned from those services. Mother continued to blame CFS for the removal of her children. In addition, the social worker reported that mother was no longer employed, and she was once again in a relationship with the boyfriend who had beat the children. The social worker recommended the juvenile court deny mother's petition so the children could obtain closure and continue to develop a secure bond with their caregivers.
At the hearing on mother's petition, her attorney informed the juvenile court that mother had completed four domestic violence classes and was still participating in counseling. Counsel asked that the hearing be continued and the petition be heard at the section 366.36 hearing. The court indicated it wanted additional information about whether mother had benefited from her services, and it continued the hearing.
At the contested hearing on mother's section 388 petition conducted on March 6, 2018, mother's attorney requested that the juvenile court return the children to mother or, in the alternative, order a trial visit and additional services. Counsel made an offer of proof that mother had attended 10 domestic violence classes, that she planned to attend one more class the next day, and that mother was on "the verge of completing her domestic violence treatment." Moreover, counsel stated mother continued to participate in individual counseling, and a therapist had reported that mother was progressing, addressing her stressors, and learning coping and anger management skills. Counsel informed the court that mother was no longer with the ex-boyfriend. Counsel also stated that mother had attended 20 or so women's empowerment classes. In addition, counsel informed the court that mother had not missed any visits since the last hearing, which demonstrated mother was "making progress." Counsel argued mother had demonstrated changed circumstances, and that returning the children to her care "when Mother is making such progress" would be in the children's best interests.
Counsel for CFS expressed skepticism that mother was no longer dating the ex-boyfriend and was concerned that, although mother had made progress, she might go back to the boyfriend. Counsel argued returning the children to mother under family maintenance would not be in their bests interests, and that the children needed permanency and stability. Minor's counsel also requested that the juvenile court deny mother's petition, arguing mother had previously failed in her reunification services and she had not shown changed circumstances.
Although the juvenile court recognized that mother was "doing some stuff and [had] made some changes," it expressed disappointment that mother was still in romantic relationships that placed the children at risk of abuse or neglect. "I have concerns Mother's really not making the changes that she needs to do to protect the children . . . ." Therefore, the court denied mother's petition. The court set a section 366.26 hearing for the four older children, but proceeded with the hearing regarding J.B. and terminated mother's parental rights to J.B. (See, ante, fn. 3.)
In the prior appeal, we concluded mother did not appeal from the denial of her section 388 petition with respect to the four older children, and we affirmed the denial of the petition with respect to J.B. (In re J.B., supra, E070095.) Mother does not challenge the denial of the petition with respect to S.C., R.C., or W.C. in this appeal.
In an addendum report filed on April 11, 2018, the social worker recommended that the juvenile court terminate mother's parental rights to W.C., R.C., and S.C. The social worker opined that the children were adoptable, and their prospective adoptive parents were assessed and found suitable. The social worker reported that R.C. and S.C. love and respect their prospective adoptive family, and they desired to remain in their caregiver's home if they could not be returned to mother. S.C. was "very bonded" with her caregiver. W.C. had a close relationship with her prospective adoptive mother.
CFS had previously informed the juvenile court that it was actively seeking an adoptive home for S.A.B. The juvenile court found S.A.B. was not adoptable at that time and continued the section 366.26 hearing regarding S.A.B. to November 16, 2018. (See, fn. 1, ante.)
Mother indicated she did not want to testify at the continued section 366.26 hearing. Instead, her attorney made an offer of proof, to which all parties stipulated, that if called to the stand, she would testify that she believed she had been consistent in visiting the children twice a month for two hours, and that at most she had missed two visits in the past six months; during those visits, mother fed and played with the children, she spoke to the children about their behavior, she would redirect and encourage them to behave and follow instructions if they misbehaved, and she played math games and read books to the children; and mother would testify that she spoke to W.C. on the phone every day.
Mother's attorney objected to the social worker's recommendation that her parental rights to the children be terminated. Counsel argued mother's stipulated testimony and the social worker's reports proved mother had been consistent in her visitation, and that the social worker had reported no "specific concerns" about the visits. Counsel argued mother was fulfilling her "parental role" during the visits, the children recognized her as their mother, and the fact that the children cried at the end of visits "indicates that they want to be with Mom more often." Counsel characterized the relationship between mother and the children as "a very serious relationship," and that termination of the relationship would be detrimental to the children.
Counsel for the children argued that the children were both generally and specifically adoptable, that the children had a close relationship with their prospective adoptive families, and that the court should follow CFS's recommendation and terminate mother's parental rights.
The juvenile court found that, although there was "some sort of relationship" between mother and the children, mother had failed to meet her burden of establishing that the benefit of maintaining the parental relationship outweighed the benefits to the children for adoption. The court also found by clear and convincing evidence that the children were likely to be adopted. Therefore, the court terminated mother's parental rights and directed CFS to refer the children to the California Department of Social Services or to a licensed local adoption agency.
Mother timely appealed.
II.
DISCUSSION
"Section 366.26 provides that if parents have failed to reunify with an adoptable child, the juvenile court must terminate their parental rights and select adoption as the permanent plan for the child. The juvenile court may choose a different permanent plan only if it 'finds a compelling reason for determining that termination [of parental rights] would be detrimental to the child [because]: [¶] (i) 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).)" (In re Marcelo B. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 635, 642.)
As the parties note in their briefs, the appellate courts are divided on the appropriate standard of review of a juvenile court's conclusion that the beneficial parent- child relationship exception does not apply. Some courts have applied the abuse of discretion standard while others have applied the substantial evidence test. (See In re Scott B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 452, 469.) Recently, some courts have taken a middle approach, applying the substantial evidence test to the juvenile court's factual finding of whether there exists a beneficial parent-child relationship, and applying the abuse of discretion standard to the juvenile court's "'"quintessentially" discretionary decision'" that termination of parental rights will not be detrimental to the child. (In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622, quoting In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315.) We need not decide which approach is correct because under either standard, the juvenile court did not err.
In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, is the seminal case regarding exceptions to the preference for adoption. There, the court held that parent-child relationships that can prevent termination of parental rights are ones that promote "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. In other words, the court balances 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. 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, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent's rights are not terminated." (Id. at p. 575.)
"The exception must be examined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the many variables which affect a parent/child bond. The 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 are some of the variables which logically affect a parent/child bond." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 575-576.)
Adoption cannot be thwarted simply because a child would derive some benefit from continuing the parent-child relationship, and adoption should be ordered when the court finds that the relationship maintained through visitation does not benefit the child significantly enough to outweigh the strong preference for adoption. (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350.) The juvenile court may reject the parent's claim simply by finding that the relationship maintained during the visitation does not benefit the child significantly enough to outweigh the strong preference for adoption. To apply the exception, the court must find compelling reasons to apply the exception. Only in an extraordinary case will the preservation of parental rights prevail over the Legislature's preference for adoption. (Ibid.)
Mother argues she had consistent and meaningful visits with the children throughout the life of this case. We agree with counsel for CFS that mother's visits were not as consistent as she claims. But, even if we do agree with mother that she visited with the children consistently, and that those visits were meaningful, mother presented no compelling evidence the children had a sufficiently strong bond with mother such that termination of the parental relationship would be detrimental to the children. Without a doubt, mother shared a loving relationship with the children, and mother's stipulated testimony was that the children wanted to spend more time with her. But, the social worker's reports, which were admitted into evidence without objection, demonstrated that the children were thriving in their foster homes and had a strong bond with their prospective adoptive parents.
Mother had made sufficient progress in her case plan, and the juvenile court had returned the children to her on family maintenance. However, mother had demonstrated that her progress was anything but permanent when she permitted the children to be exposed to additional domestic violence and abuse from a boyfriend. Considering the children's tender ages, the fact they had lived in their caregivers' homes for so long, and the demonstrated strength of the bond between the children and their prospective adoptive parents, the juvenile court did not err by concluding the bond between mother and the children was not so substantial that severing it would be detrimental. The benefits the children might derive from a continued parental relationship with mother, whose long-term ability to safely provide for the children had not yet been proven, did not outweigh the benefits they would derive from a stable and secure adoptive family. The record supports the trial court's findings, and we find no abuse of discretion.
III.
DISPOSITION
The orders terminating mother's parental rights as to W.C., R.C., and S.C. are affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
Acting P. J. We concur: SLOUGH
J. FIELDS
J.