In re Gabriel B. CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. NJ14200C
- Trial judge
- Michael J. Imhoff (commissioner)
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- dependency
- Panel
- Alex C. McDonald (author), Judith L. Haller, Patricia D. Benke
Analysis
The trial court terminated the appellant's parental rights to her son Gabriel, finding that the sibling relationship exception did not apply because the benefits of adoption outweighed the potential detriment to his relationship with his older brothers. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Gabriel did not have a strong bond with his siblings and that the Agency's efforts to place them together did not contradict the legal determination.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Termination of parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, specifically the rejection of the sibling relationship exception.“Examining the evidence most favorably to the judgment, we conclude substantial evidence supports the finding.” | substantial evidence | correct | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the substantial evidence standard to the trial court's factual findings regarding the strength of the sibling bond and the balance of interests. The court properly noted that the exception is rare for young children and that the trial court's order to seek a joint placement was a remedial measure that did not negate the legal finding that the exception did not apply to prevent termination. |
Authorities
- relied: In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942 — Establishes the framework for balancing the beneficial interest of the child in maintaining the sibling relationship against the sense of security and belonging adoption would confer.
- relied: In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567 — Supports the balancing test for the sibling relationship exception, specifically the comparison between tenuous guardianship/foster care and the security of adoption.
- relied: In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987 — States that the application of the sibling relationship exception will be rare, particularly when proceedings concern young children whose needs for a stable parent are paramount.
- relied: In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45 — Clarifies that the sibling relationship exception focuses on the detriment to the specific child whose parental rights are being terminated, not the siblings.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for the sibling relationship exception and applies the substantial evidence standard to the specific facts of Gabriel's limited time with his siblings. It effectively addresses the appellant's argument regarding the Agency's placement efforts by distinguishing between the legal test for termination and the practical steps taken to mitigate potential harm.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe juvenile court terminated Gabriela B.'s parental rights to her two-and-one-half-year-old son Gabriel, finding the sibling relationship exception of Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v) did not apply because termination would not substantially interfere with his relationship with his two older brothers and, in any event, the benefits of adoption outweighed continued sibling contact. The Court of Appeal granted the Agency's motion to augment the record with postjudgment evidence that all three boys had been placed together in a prospective adoptive home, declined to dismiss the appeal as moot, and affirmed under the substantial evidence standard.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Finding that the sibling relationship exception (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v)) did not apply and termination of parental rights to Gabriel“Here, the court found termination of parental rights would not substantially interfere with Gabriel's relationship with the siblings and, in any case, the benefits he would derive from adoption would outweigh any benefits from ongoing sibling contact.” | substantial evidence | correct | agree with court The record evidence recited by the court supports the finding: Gabriel lived with his brothers only six months of his life, did not ask for them between visits, greeted them as he would any friendly visitor, and the social worker found no strong bond. Under L.Y.L. and Celine R. the question is detriment to Gabriel, not the siblings, and for a very young child the exception is rarely applicable (Valerie A.). The Agency's intent to place all three together further undercuts any claim of substantial interference. The court applied the correct statutory factors and the standard it chose (substantial evidence per L.Y.L.) was an accepted standard at the time, though some courts used a hybrid standard for the weighing component; the result would be the same under either. |
Order directing the Agency to search for a single adoptive home for Gabriel and his siblings, argued to be inconsistent with the finding that the sibling exception did not apply“There is no inconsistency. This appeal concerns Gabriel only.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Celine R. holds the exception looks to detriment to the child whose adoption is at issue, not to the siblings. Because the combined hearing addressed all three boys, an order protecting the older siblings' interests in remaining with Gabriel does not establish that severing the relationship would be detrimental to Gabriel himself. The court's reasoning correctly distinguishes the two inquiries. |
Authorities
- relied: In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942 — Sibling relationship exception requires showing termination would substantially interfere with sibling relationship and severance would be so detrimental to the child as to outweigh benefits of adoption; finding reviewed for substantial evidence.
- relied: In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567 — Court must balance the benefit to the child of maintaining the relationship against the security and belonging adoption would confer.
- relied: In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987 — Application of the sibling relationship exception will be rare, particularly for young children whose need for a stable parent is paramount.
- relied: In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45 — The sibling exception focuses on detriment to the child being considered for adoption, not detriment to the siblings.
- missed: In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396 — An appellate court reviewing a judgment terminating parental rights generally may not consider postjudgment evidence outside the record on the merits; the parent raised this general rule in opposing augmentation and the court granted the motion and 'took into account' the new placement without addressing Zeth S.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly identified the statutory factors, relied on the governing Fourth District and Supreme Court authorities, and the trial record it recites amply supports the finding that Gabriel lacked a strong bond with his brothers. It did not, however, address In re Zeth S. when it granted augmentation and considered postjudgment placement evidence on the merits, and it did not acknowledge the then-existing split over whether the weighing component is reviewed for abuse of discretion; neither gap affects the result.
Opinion
Filed 8/7/13 In re Gabriel B. CA4/1 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re GABRIEL B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. D063710 SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY, (Super. Ct. No. NJ14200C) Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GABRIELA B., Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Michael J.
Imhoff, Commissioner. Affirmed.
Terence M. Chucas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County Counsel and Erica R. Cortez, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Gabriela B. appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights to her two-and- one-half-year-old son, Gabriel B. She contends the court erred by declining to apply the sibling relationship exception (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v))1 to termination of parental rights. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In August 2009, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed dependency petitions for Gabriela's sons (together the siblings) Angel B., then nearly 10 years old, and Fernando A., then five and one-half years old. The petitions alleged domestic violence between Gabriela and the siblings' father. In September, the court made true findings on the petitions. In June 2010, Gabriel was born. In February 2011, at the siblings' 18-month review hearing, the court ordered the siblings returned to Gabriela's care.
In August 2011, when Gabriel was one year old, the Agency filed a dependency petition for him with the following allegations: Gabriela had resumed drinking alcohol to excess, exacerbating the risk of domestic violence; she was in a new relationship with a man, and had a history of exposing the siblings to domestic violence; and she had been leaving Gabriel and the siblings home alone.
Gabriel was detained in Polinsky Children's Center for a few days and then moved to a foster home. The Agency filed a supplemental petition (§ 387) for the siblings, and they were detained in a different foster home.
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 In October 2011, the court made true findings on Gabriel's petition and ordered him placed in foster care. At the six-month review hearing in April 2012, the court set a section 366.26 hearing. In December, Gabriel was moved to the home of an approved family that wished to adopt him. That family had not decided whether it would be willing to care for the siblings.
The section 366.26 hearing for Gabriel and the siblings was held in February 2013. The Agency recommended permanent plans of adoption for Gabriel and Fernando, and another planned permanent living arrangement for Angel.2 The Agency hoped to find an approved family willing to accept the recommended permanent plans: adopt Gabriel and Fernando; and care for Angel long-term. The siblings had a strong bond with each other.
The court terminated parental rights to two-and-one-half-year-old Gabriel. The court found there was a probability of adoption for 14-year-old Angel and eight-year-old Fernando, but they were difficult to place for adoption because they formed a sibling group. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(3).) The court directed the Agency to search for an adoptive home for Gabriel and the siblings together. The court set a further section 366.26 hearing for the siblings, to coincide with a postpermanency planning review hearing for Gabriel.
DISCUSSION
The Agency has filed a motion to augment the appellate record with postjudgment evidence and to dismiss this appeal as moot. The evidence consists of notices the Agency 2 At various times, each sibling said he did not wish to be adopted. 3 filed in the juvenile court on April 29, 2013, stating it had found an adoptive home for Gabriel and the siblings, and planned to move the siblings on April 8 and Gabriel on April 10 to that home. Gabriela opposes the motion, arguing it is untimely and citing the general rule that judgments are reviewed according to the evidence that was before the trial court. We grant the augmentation motion, and take into account the fact Gabriel and the siblings were moved into a prospective adoptive home in April. The new evidence does not render the appeal moot, however; it merely suggests that termination may not substantially interfere with the relationship between the siblings and Gabriel. We decline to dismiss the appeal.
If a child is adoptable,3 the court must terminate parental rights at the section 366.26 hearing unless the parent proves the existence of a statutory exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v), provides an exception when termination would substantially interfere with the child's relationship with sisters or brothers and the severance of the relationship would be so detrimental to the child to outweigh the benefits of adoption. (In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 951-953;
§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) The juvenile court must "balance the beneficial interest of the child in maintaining the sibling relationship, which might leave the child in a tenuous guardianship or foster home placement, against the sense of security and belonging adoption and a new home would confer." (In re L.Y.L., at p. 951, citing In re Autumn H.
(1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575.) Factors to be considered include whether the children 3 Gabriela does not challenge the adoptability finding. 4 were raised in the same home; whether they shared significant common experiences or have existing close and strong bonds; and whether ongoing contact is in the child's best interests, including his or her long-term emotional interests, as compared to the benefits of adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) "[T]he application of this exception will be rare, 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.)
Here, the court found termination of parental rights would not substantially interfere with Gabriel's relationship with the siblings and, in any case, the benefits he would derive from adoption would outweigh any benefits from ongoing sibling contact.
Examining the evidence most favorably to the judgment, we conclude substantial evidence supports the finding. (In re L.Y.L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 947, 952.)
Gabriel lived with the siblings for only six months, between February and August 2011.
He did not live with them for the first eight months of his life, or during the one and one- half years between the date of his detention and the date of his section 366.26 hearing.
The Agency intended to find a single permanent placement for Gabriel and the siblings, and during this case they had regular visits.4 Gabriel did not ask for the siblings between visits. When he saw them, he did not run to greet them. He reacted to them as he did to the social worker or any other friendly visitor. At the end of visits, Gabriel "just [walked]
4 Gabriel saw the siblings every other weekend and at other times. At the time of the hearing, he had not seen them since "around Christmastime." 5 away and . . . only sometimes [said] bye." The social worker believed Gabriel did not have a strong bond with the siblings.
Gabriela argues the Agency's efforts to place Gabriel with the siblings, and the court's order that the Agency find one adoptive home for all three boys, are inconsistent with the Agency's assertion and the court's determination that the sibling relationship exception did not apply. There is no inconsistency. This appeal concerns Gabriel only.
The issue is whether, if termination would substantially interfere with the sibling relationship, detriment would befall Gabriel, not the siblings. (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 54.) The hearing in the juvenile court, however, concerned all three boys, and the Agency and the court focused equally on possible detriment to all of them. The Agency made a recommendation and the court fashioned an order that took into account the interests of Gabriel and the siblings.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
MCDONALD, J.
WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
HALLER, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- In Re Valerie A. D049901 · 2007-06-26
- In Re Celine R. S111138 · 2003-07-07
- In Re Autumn H. D020708 · 1994-08-08