1 Filed 11/20/13 In re C.M. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

In re C.M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. L.M. et al., Defendants and Appellants. E058036 (Super.Ct.No. J227010)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Sa n Bernardino County. Cheryl C. Kersey, Judge. Affirmed. Rosemary Bishop, under ap pointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant L.M. Richard L. Knight, under appointment by the Court of Appeal , for Defendant and Appellant S.M.2 Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, Kristina M. Robb, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. No appearance for Minor. On April 30, 2009, plai ntiff and respondent San Bernardino Department of Children and Family Services (the depart ment) took C.M. (minor; born January 2005) into protective custody, along with minor’s siblings K.M. (born February 2006), and C.J.M. (born March 2008), after receiving a call from a deputy sheriff reporting defendant and appellant S.M. (mother) had been in voluntarily institutionalized pursuant

to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150. 1 Defendant and appellant L.M. (father) had been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stre ss Disorder (PTSD) and Schizophrenia. The home was found in a deplorable state. The de partment placed minor with the prospective adoptive parents (PAPs) on September 23, 2009. On January 27, 2011, the juvenile court terminated the reunification services of mother and father (parents) as to minor. On January 27, 2012 , the juvenile court returned custody of K.M. and C.J.M. to parents a nd dismissed the dependency as to K.M. and C.J.M. On January 29, 2013, the juvenile court terminated parents’ parental rights to minor and ordered adoption as the permanent plan. Parents appeal contending the court erred in declining to apply the beneficial parent relationship an d sibling relationship exceptions to the termination of parent al rights. We affirm the judgment.

1 All further statutory references are to the to Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise indicated.3 FACTUAL AND PROC EDURAL HISTORY A sheriff’s deputy “reported he was ca lled by an informant th at [parents’] home

was substandard and a risk to the children’s safety, health, and well being.” The deputy “reported that the home was strewn with f ilthy clothing; the home smelled of urine and feces, there [was] dog feces inside the home and about the home. The children we[r]e walking about the home and tracking through the feces with bare feet. There were no provisions for the children.” Minor was observed squatting to urinate in the living room. C.J.M. had a diaper rash an d appeared uncared for. The home had very little food and no milk. Father’s psychiatric medication was found in the garage within reach of the

children. Minor had been dia gnosed as autistic, but parents had not obtained any services

for her.

Mother had been involuntar ily committed for thoughts of suicide and depression. Mother reported incidents of domestic violen ce at the hands of father. Father admitted the domestic violence charges: “‘I get ener gy in my arm—like electricity and—yes, I have domestic charges against me.’” “‘[T]her e is a plan that guides me, I believed that— I hear things swirling in my head—I am gui ded by a plan.’” Father had multiple arrests

and convictions for domestic vi olence and was currently on prob ation. Father had served over three years in the military with tours of duty in both Iraq and Afghan istan. While in Iraq, father suffered from a combat blast wave and sustained shrapnel injuries in a mortar attack for which he received a purple hear t. He was diagnosed with PTSD and Schizophrenia.4 The department filed a section 300 juvenile depende ncy petition alleging mother

and father suffered from mental illnesses th at prohibited them fro m properly caring for the children (B-1 & B-2), ha d maintained substandard liv ing arrangements for the children (B-3 & B-4), had engaged in domestic violence in the presence of the children (B-5 & B-6), and mother was hospitalized (G-7). 2 In the jurisdiction and disposition report filed May 26, 2009, the social worker no ted, “The most significant strength is the parents[’] love for their children. The family has no substantiated priors. In the past the parents have met the children’s needs. The fa mily has stable housing and their rent is reduced through Section 8. The parents ha ve made improvements on the home. When the undersigned made an unannounced visit to the home the undersigned noted that the floors were clean, the carpet was clean, th e home was free from an unpleasant odor and

the clothes had been washed. The hom e was still messy, but a major visible improvement was noted from the initial unsan itary conditions noted in the detention report. The parents are receptive to [department] recommendations.”

Mother had enrolled in behavioral servi ces. “The parents’ progress and initiative has been noted.” “The parents have grea t insight and are comm itted to successfully reunify.” Parents’ first visit with minor occu rred on May 22, 2009: “The visit went well. The parents were attentive and interacted a ppropriately with the ch ildren. The children appeared comfortable in their presence and ha ppy.” “The mother has had to act in the capacity of a conservator for the father instead of a wife. It appears that the mother has to

2 The department later withdrew the G-7 allegation, apparently when mother was released.5 monitor the father daily to en sure his medication is effective and ensure he is receiving appropriate services. In the midst of mother’s care for the father she . . . fell into a depression which has affected her ability to adeq uately parent.” “The parents both desire to be good parents and they lo ve their children. It is th e undersigned’s impression that through counseling, ongoing ps ychiatric care, psychotropic medication[,] and a parenting class the parents can successful[ly] reunify.” The juvenile court sustained the allegations in the petition, as amended, on June 5, 2009. The court removed minors from pa rents’ custody and ordered twice weekly

visitation to be liberalized at the discretion of the social worker. In the status review report filed Novemb er 25, 2009, the social worker reported she had been informed by the Veterans’ Ad ministration (VA) father required intense monitoring. Father was par ticipating in a program with the VA for persons with PTSD and Schizophrenia. He had “man y appointments with mental health care professionals.”

It was recommended mother not work outside th e home so that she could care for father; she “is very organized and acts as an effe ctive advocate for her husband’s needs.” Mother was working on obtaining permanent disa bility for father due to his service injury in Iraq. Although all the children ha d initially been placed in the same foster home, minor was removed and placed with the PAPs on September 23, 2009, due to her “frequent tantrums, particularly in public as well as a ggressive tendencies toward her sisters.” “It

has been observed that [K.M.] appeared nervous or stre ssed when [minor] was placed in the same home. Since [minor] has left [K.M.] is more ‘carefree’ and sleeps through the6 night more consistently.” When moved, mi nor’s behavior improved dramatically. The

foster families “have formed a close friendshi p” allowing the siblings to have ample time together in addition to the time sc heduled for parental visits. Parents completed a parenting class and mother had nearly completed her approved counseling sessions. Father mainta ined ongoing mental health services and mother had regularly scheduled psychiatry appointments. Parents had twice weekly monitored visits with the children: “The parents have rarely missed a visit. When they have had to cancel a visit, it is due to an important appointment for [father] at the VA hospital. . . . The family visits appear to be appropriate. There is some concern, however, that mother and father have difficulty in effectively re-directing the children. The child ren tend to do what they want to without listening to instruction from the parents. There has been minute improvement over the months; however, it appears that more time is required for [parents] to put effective parenting techniques into practice.” Mother “attempts to provide educational toys and activities during her visits with the children. She also provides hea lthy snacks. It has been reported that family vis its with father present are more hectic and less controlled. [Father] has difficulty remaining during the en tire [two]-hour visit; consequently, he goes outside for minutes at a time prio r to rejoining the family.” “There is no doubt that [mother] love s her family. She has a tremendous task

ahead of her in order to care for them. Despite her strengths, [mother] is not yet ready to independently care for her mentally ill husba nd, two developmenta lly delayed children7 and a toddler.” 3 “With a gradual transition, it is this social worker’s belief that [mother] can eventually juggle all the components of her high needs family and thus, succeed as a parent.” On December 7, 2009, the juvenile c ourt found parents ha d made moderate progress and that there was a substantial pr obability the children wo uld be returned to parents’ custody within six months. The court authorized the social worker to transition visitation to unsupervised as deemed appr opriate; Mother was to be present for unsupervised visits. In the status review report filed May 25, 2010, the social worker recommended, “Six more months of services [to] prov ide time for the family to transition to unsupervised visits, which would allow for a be tter assessment of th e [parents’] ability to parent and care for their children, and build their relationship with their children.” The

recommendation included twic e weekly one-hour visits , one supervised and one unsupervised. Parents had acquired a four-bedroom, two- bathroom house. There were beds and dressers for each child. The house appeared a ppropriate and clean. Parents had installed locks on the refrigerator and some cabinets . Father remained medication compliant. Parents had complied with their case plan.

3 K.M. also showed some in tellectual developmental delays.8 Parents had twice weekly monitored visits : “The parents have rarely missed a

visit. When a visit has been cancelled it ha s been due to [father] having a conflicting appointment at the VA hospital.” They were 25-30 minutes la te to one visit on March 22, 2010, arriving only after the foster parents ha d left. “The family visits appear to be appropriate; howeve r[,] there is still concern that [parents] have some difficulty redirecting the children when they misbehave. It has been ob served . . . that the children tend to do as they please in the visits. Th ere are times when [mother] will intervene and redirect the children; howeve r[,] intervention is usually done as a last resort.” Minor was receiving Early Childhood SART services through Victor Community Support Services. A clinician reported mi nor’s “diagnosis of Autism is being reevaluated at this time.” Minor “does not ap pear to meet diagnostic criteria for Autism, and . . . her delays might have been caused by neglect.” This was because minor had made such substantial progress since treatment began. 4 Minor’s “behaviors have improved drastically. The frequen t tantrums that [minor] disp layed, especially when in public have reduced to the point that they al most never occur.” It was noted that without a structured environment, minor would “‘dysregulate.’”

Minor “has formed a hea lthy bond with the [foster] fa mily. [Foster mother] has indicated that ‘[minor] has become a part of th e family’ and that they ‘love her as if she were their own child’.” The foster parents of the siblings have continued “to maintain a

4 Subsequent testing in September 2010 failed to result in any rediagnosis. The social worker opined, “there appear to be some fundamental biases against the parents that exist on the part of the service provider.”9 close relationship with each ot her, which allows all three children to spend time with each other frequently throug hout the week. The two fost er families attend the same church, which further allows all three girls to interact with one another.” On June 7, 2010, the juvenile court ordered parents to undergo psychological evaluations as the department and minor’s counsel were concerned regarding the proposed unsupervised visitation. On July 7, 2010, the court found parents’ progress toward alleviating or mitiga ting the cause necessitating plac ement had been moderate to substantial. It found a substantial probability the children would be returned to parents’ custody within six months. In the interim review report filed August 23, 2010, th e social worker recommended unsupervised visitation incl uding overnight, weekend, and holiday visitation. “Since being assigned to the matter, the undersigned has supervised the majority of the visits between the children and their parents both in an office setting and in public. Results of the psychological eval uations support the observations made by the undersigned in that [parents] present as bei ng very loving and attentive parents to their children who pose no risk of de triment to the children should they be return ed to their care. . . . [Parents] have demonstrated that they have the ability to manage their children in a public setting and that they ar e attentive to the children’s needs.” Parents “work together to balance the need s of the children for individual attention while maintaining the sense that they are a ll a family.” The psyc hologist, Heidi KnipeLaird, Ph.D., concluded parents do not pose a da nger or risk to the children if reunified: “Dr. Laird notes that the two carry a heavy burd en together, but that they have learned the10 skills to assess their needs and to ask for appropriate assistance as they provide a safe and nurturing home for thei r children. [¶] [Mother] showed that she has enjoyed satisfaction and validation from parenting he r children, is attuned to thei r needs, and has a grasp of the differences in their personalities. . . . Her parenting approaches reflected a strong commitment to parenting with nurturance, open communication, and a style of discipline that relies on frequent praise, consistent lim it setting[,] and non-pun itive consequencing.” The social worker did note parents gave pe rhaps too much leeway when it came to

minor’s behavior. On August 25, 2010 , the juvenile court granted the request for twice weekly unsupervised visitation including overnight, we ekend, and holiday vi sitation. In the status review report filed October 25, 2010 , the social worker recommended the court find parents had made substantia l progress and minors be retu rned to their custody while being maintained as dependents at home with family maintenance services. Minor was found to be eligible for IRC services throughout her lifetime, respite care to relieve her parents for a period of time monthly, educa tion advocacy services, behavior modification therapy, in-home and center based services, pa rent support, applied behavioral analysis, one-on-one services, equipment, and Medi-Cal and Medicaid waiver programs. Parents had been having two-hour visits twice week ly. Father was comfor table watching one of the children, okay with two, but found minor wild and worried for her safety. He was observed to be less able to effectively parent than mother. Parent s were expecting the

birth of a fourth child.11 The psychologist’s evalua tions of parents were att ached to the report. The

clinician conducted five in-home service visi ts. The clinician “reports that [parents] appear to enjoy playing and interacting w ith their children and verbalize praise and enthusiasm. [Mother] is described as bein g nurturing of the children and both parents have been open to parenting sugge stions.” “In the opinion of this evaluator, [father] does not present a danger to his children, and hi s children are not at risk of detriment if reunified with him and [mother] . [Parents] carry a heavy bu rden together, but it is the

sense of the evaluator that th e couple has learned the skills to assess their needs, and ask for appropriate assistance as th ey provide a safe and nurturi ng home for their children.” Nevertheless, father’s chroni c symptoms of PTSD and Schizophrenia suggested he posed a “very real risk” for suicide. “In reviewing [mother’s] past choices a nd decisions, her judgment has obviously been good. Her responses in the clinical interview sh owed genuine insight.” “This evaluation was performed in order to determine whether [mother] is likely to be able to parent her three children effectivel y. The test results discussed above indicate that [mother] certainly has the intellectual capacity to provide nurturing and safe parenting. Her level of cognitive functioni ng definitely enables her to recognize and solve practical problems, and meet the demands of household maintenance.” “It is the strong impression of this evaluator that [mothe r’s] children are not at risk of detriment if they reunified with her and . . . father. Th is young family faces formidable challenges, and it is recommended that they receive appropriate help[.]”12 On October 29, 2010, the court orde red unsupervised visitation including overnight and extended visits as appropriate, as recommended by the social worker. In the addendum report filed January 27, 2011, the social worker indicated that since the prior hearing, parents had extended visits with the children; during this time, Mother gave birth to a baby girl. “Over the extended visit period, the children . . . have spent up to a week a nd a half together with their pare nts. In that time it has been observed that [minor’s] special needs (related to her diagnosis of autism) are so great that her extended presence in the home creates a situation that is almost unmanageable for her parents.” Father shared he had difficulty se tting limits for minor; mother expressed need for additional behavioral support to meet mino r’s needs; it was anticip ated there would be family support, which had not manifested . Although minor had shown continued improvement, she exhibited problem behavio r, which K.M. began mimicking. “Although there are behavioral support services available, it does not appear that this will be enough to provide the level of stability in the home that would be desired to facilitate a sound

reunification for all the children.” The de partment recommended return of K.M. and C.J.M. to parent’s custody as continued de pendents of the juvenile court and family

maintenance services. Th e social worker recommende d terminating reunification

services as to minor. At the hearing on January 27, 2011, pare nts submitted on the report. Mother was “fine with that recommendation. Considering the challenges with [minor], she is fine. The intended goal will still be to return [minor] to her parents at some point in the future.

And the visitation order that is suggested by the department works very well for the13 parents.” The juvenile court found parent s had made substantial progress, returned minor’s siblings to parents’ custody, but fo und minor’s special needs outweighed “the capacity of the parents’ ability to meet her needs and those of the other minors in the home.” The court found minor was not adoptabl e, that no adult was available to become her legal guardian, terminated reunification se rvices as to minor, and found termination of parental rights was not in minor’s best inte rests with the permanent plan ordered to be long-term foster care w ith the goal of return to the home. The court ordered visits with minor, parents, and siblings to be unsupervised a minimum of twice per month for two hours with weekends, overnight s, and holidays as appropri ate and arranged by social

worker. In the status review report filed July 18, 2011, the social worker recommended minor’s siblings remain dependents of the c ourt with family maintenance services. The

social worker recommended minor be maintain ed in her current plac ement. The social worker found parents maintained the househ old in a manner consistent with community standards. The home was appropriate and hea lthy. “The children’s need for a safe and stable environment is consistently met, despit e some of the struggles that the parents have in dealing with the issues re lated to [father’s] traumatic br ain injuries and the resulting

mental health concerns.” Th e social worker obse rved parents had welcomed the social worker and assigned services providers “int o their home and they have wholeheartedly participated to the extent deemed appropria te for their children’s needs.” Father had completed probation and there were no further reports of domestic violence.14 The therapist believed minor regressed as a result of having spent a week in parents’ home. K.M. would continue to mimic minor’s behavior problems when minor

was around. “Visits in the biological family home began taking place for approximately two to four hour periods, a nd then moved to overnight and then weekend visits. It was determined early on that [t]he extended visits with the parents and siblings tended to have somewhat of a negative effect on [minor’s] behavioral stability on ce she returned to placement. The transition from the foster fa mily’s home-routine, to the biological family’s home-routine, and then back agai n, exacerbated the dysfunctional components of [minor’s] autism disorder. Essentially, the distinct di fferences in the amount of

environmental stimulation lead to a sensor y overload[,] i.e., [minor’s] spending the weekend playing with her sibli ngs and having the excitement of being unfettered by the structure of her primary environment caused he r to present as being much less controlled, both internally and externally, upon her return to care. [¶] . . . This is not to state that the parents did anything wrong duri ng the visits, it merely points out the fact that [minor’s] specific needs are better met by limiting her tran sitions and by not placing her in an over stimulating environment for extended periods of time.” Since the negative effects were noted, the social worker made the determination to change the frequency, location, duration, and activities involve d in visitation. Visits since were scheduled outside the family home, at a park, or Chuck E. Cheese’s. Thus, visitation occurred less frequently than befo re, taking place on Janu ary 28-29, February 2-4, and February 18-20. Minor had exhibite d behavioral problems such as being tired, biting, spitting, acting out, and regressing up on return from visitation. On March 29,15 2011, parents and siblings visited with minor at Chuck E. Cheese’s: “At the end of the visit, [Minor] was a bit confused as to who she was going home with but made the transition without difficulty or lasting effect . Parents made arrangements to visit on May 5, 2011, but failed to show. Parents visited with minor at the park for three hours on May 20, 2011, with no subsequent deregulation in minor’s behavior. On May 26, 2011, a visit occurred, to which mother br ought a family member for a dditional support, so that

mother could focus her atten tion on minor. On June 8 a visit occurred at minor’s kindergarten graduation, and on June 27, 2011, parents vis ited with minor at Chuck E. Cheese’s: “No issues or probl ems afterwards. Mother reports that [minor] seemed to be more engaging of her siblings during the visit in that sh e sought the siblings out independently and individually to play with them.” Parents longed for minor’s return to their home and we re evaluating what services, provided outside of the department, could help them achieve the standard of home maintenance they needed to attain. “The risk of detriment should [d]ependency be dismissed at this time is solely based upon the mental health issues of [father] and the ongoing struggles he has relate d to the traumatic brain injuries he sustained during his military service in Iraq. [Par ents] have demonstrated their ability to engage the Veteran’s Administration, as well as other service providers and to independently seek the necessary interventions as the need aris es[;] however[,] [t]he undersigned, as a representative of [the department], wishes to recommend an additional period of family maintenance support as they solidify their current successes.” Father’s VA therapist “visits in the home weekly and reports that [father] is stable and is participating in the16 recommended support groups. He has recently begun to participate in a weekly . . . group that will assist him in developing his outlets for socialization and support[] outside the

home.” The social worker noted minor’s “n eed for a calm and stable environment is paramount to her mental and emotional stability.” In the status review report filed January 24, 2012, the social worker recommended termination of the dependenc y proceedings as to minor’s siblings, but recommended setting the section 366.26 hearing to establish a permanent plan of legal guardianship for minor; based upon the fact that [minor’s] specia l needs are such that returning her to the family home would likely create a situation th at would lead to a deterioration in her overall progress as well as to overload the capa city of the parents to meet the ongoing

needs of the other children in the home.” “ [I]t has become evident that the parents are truly at their capacity to provide for the ne eds of their children[] in the home and the special needs of [minor], are such that to retu rn her to the family home are likely to cause a regression in her current progress and creat e a situation in the family home where all the children would likely be placed at risk.” Minor “continues to require a great deal more individual attention than is practicable given the circumstan ces associated with [father’s] ongoing psychologi cal needs . . . .” Parents maintained appropriate furnis hed housing, with adequate food and supplies for the children. Fath er “continues to be supported for his mental health needs through the VA. . . . He is provided with in -home therapeutic services as well as on-site services at the VA Hospital including medica tion monitoring, suppor t groups[,] and dual diagnosis support for his alcoholism. [Fat her] openly admits that he occasionally17 consumes alcohol contrary to the advice of his VA therapist . . . . There have been no reports that his consumption of alcohol has negatively impacted the family and/or the children’s safety in the home. It is, howeve r, of concern to this therapist and mental health provider due to the pot ential interactions alcohol can have with his medications.” Father voluntarily had check ed himself into the VA hosp ital twice during the last reporting period, the latest in December 2011, during which he spent two weeks hospitalized. Parents had twice monthly unsupervised visits with minor. However, overnight, holiday and weekend visits were suspended as minor would “dysregulate” afterward. “Visits have taken place for day long excursi ons to theme based restaurants and parks as well as to the family home for birthday celebrati ons and holidays. . . . It is apparent that the parents do not consistently set the necessary limits for [minor] and they tend to respond to her wants and need s as opposed to ensuring th at they set the limits and boundaries that keep her safe and regulated . This in turn leads [minor] to be less controllable in the foster home for periods of up to several days time upon her return . . . .” Minor “presents as being well adju sted to the placement home and she is well

bonded to her caretakers and the othe r children in the foster home.” On January 27, 2012, the juvenile court dismissed the dependency as to minor’s siblings and set the section 366.26 hearing as to minor. On Fe bruary 14, 2012, the department changed minor’s permanent plan to a PPLA (permanently planned living arrangement) without the goal of return to parents’ home. Parents submitted, but mother objected to the ch ange of goal.18 In the status review report filed August 2, 2012, the social worker changed the recommendation to adoption as the permanent plan. “The undersigned has concerns about [minor] being in [PAPs’] care and fam ily for three years w ithout the benefit of permanency and assesses that now is the time to make a decision in favor of permanency on [minor’s] behalf. [Minor ] needs and deserves perman ency after being a Court dependent for three years without the parent s being any further do wn the road toward reunification than they were three years ago. ” “In light of the foster parents views on continuing the visitation and the connection to the biological fa mily there does not appear to be any negative effects to [minor] which will result from the adoption.” The PAPs “want an open adoption to where [minor] continues to have a relationship with her biological sisters and her parents, although it is doubtful that [minor] knows what that relationship is. The parents have made every effort they know how to prepare and ready themselves for the return of [minor] to their home[;] however, it does not appear that they ha ve the ability of taking on the additional load of one more child, especially given all [mino r’s] needs as an autistic child.” 5 “The foster parents have assured the undersigned that they are not th e kind of people who would withdraw the contact and visitation of the parents.”

“The Court ordered visita tion continues to be an ap propriate arrangement. Two times a month for two[,] possibly three . . . hour s a session at a public place, i.e.[,] a park, a fast food place with a playgrou nd, or Chuck E. Cheese have been successful venues.”

5 Mother apparently gave birth to a fifth child in th e interim before the instant report.19 The social worker observed a visit at Chuck E. Cheese’s on June 21, 2012, from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. She observed minor did not interact with her parents or siblings much, but was focused on games, eating, and watching television. When it came time to leave, minor complained, but the social worker opined th is was because she was having fun playing games and not because she would miss her family. Father did not appear to interact or

communicate with minor. The social worker noted that “[u]pon r eceiving this case on June 11, 2012[, she] has spent much time reviewing the history of this case, and statements made by all previous social workers regarding their recommendation for a permanent plan for [minor]. It has been the general consensus of the previous five soci al workers that there was not a substantial probability of [mi nor] returning home to her parents.” 6 When

informed of the soci al worker’s new recommendation, mother cried and father, who appeared saddened, stated he could not cope with minor and her needs. “He is just now getting able to play with th e children they have in th eir home and that it is too challenging for him to think about taki ng [minor] back into their home.” In the Section 366.26 report filed No vember 29, 2012, th e social worker recommended termination of parental rights and adoption as minor’s permanent plan.

The social worker noted she had observed a th ree-hour visit between parents and minor at a park on October 9, 2012. She opined minor “does [not] appear to be attached or

6 The department concedes in its respo ndent’s brief that th is is not true.20 bonded with either parent.” 7 The social worker reported the PAPs love minor and were totally committed to her. On January 29, 2013, the juvenile cour t held the section 366.26 hearing. In preparation for qualifying minor to testify, minor identified herself, mother, father, and her sisters from family photographs. Noneth eless, as a result of subsequent exchanges, the court disqualified minor as a witness. As minor exited the courtroom, she said, “Bye, mommy” to mother.

Mother testified she had attended all but one of minor’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings, attended minor’s kindergarten graduation, and had been attending a support group for mothers of au tistic children. She had been visiting during the last reporting period ev ery other week for two hours. 8 Minor would sometimes run up to her and hug her at the be ginning of visits. When vis its were over minor would ask to stay longer or stay the nigh t. When told she could not, she would ask, “‘Why not?’”

Minor would tell mother she was mean because she would not a llow minor to stay longer.

Minor calls mother “‘Mom’” and father “‘Dad.’” She also ca lls her sisters both by their names and by the term “‘sister.’”

7 As the department maintains in its brief, the sentence appears to contain a typographical omission of the word “not ” between “does” and “appear” as the grammatical context of the sentence does not ma ke sense otherwise. Moreover, mother’s counsel questioned her at the section 366.26 as to whether she understood “the social worker is saying that you don’t ha ve a bond with your daughter?”

8 Since the adoption recommendation, the social worker reduced visitation from four hours to two hours.21 Mother felt she and minor had a bond, mi nor loved her, and she was part of their family. Minor sought “comfort from me when she is present at the visitations. She also

seeks comfort from her sister and she consoles her sister . . . when she feels that someone is not felling at their best, she is very caring towards all of us.” Mother could tell minor had a bond with her sisters by “[t]he way she in teracts with them. She is very considerate when they are crying, when they are sad, wh en something bothers th em. . . . She hugs them, she kisses them, she tells them she loves them. . . . Sh e tells them that she will be back.” Mother believed depriving minor of visitation with her biological family would be traumatic, “Because she know s we are her family. You just take that away from her and then how are you goin g to deal with that?” The current social worker, Sarah Conr ad, testified she had been assigned the instant case since June 2012, and had observed three visits between minor and parents. Minor “dysregulates” after visits with parents: “she reverts back to some old behaviors to where she is not as compliant and shows anxiet y.” Autistic children “need structure, they need limitations, they n eed one-on-one attention. They need to be feeling stable and secure and just a predictable environment. ” She opined parents could not meet those needs. Minor’s best interest was in getting adopted, “because she n eeds to feel secure

and stable. She needs that assurance that she really belongs in this home and that she is a part of the family more so than she is getting now with having two sets of mom[s] and dads and the confusion that that gives to her.”22 Conrad testified with regard to parents that minor “isn’t aware of them being her parents, her family. She treats them as she do es the children at school or the children in the playroom. She plays with her siblings as much as I sa w her do with her classmates at

school and with the children th at were in the playroom today. She is a sociable child.” On the other hand, she interact s differently with the PAPs; sh e treats them as her parents

and has a bond with them. “Adoption is the better altern ative. But my heart went out to the mother when she felt that she would never see [minor] again a nd I spoke with the foster parents and they— in fact, they have still kept [i n] contact with the two childre n who have been returned to [mother]. [The PAPs] have th em over for visits, they are very loving, very connected people and they would not do anything to hurt someone. They would not withdraw

visits.” “I don’t believe she won’t see her parents anymore. If you’ve read the report, I’ve done extensive talking with the [PAPs] a nd they have assured me they will

continue.” The juvenile court noted that parents ha d chosen to have tw o additional children since minor’s dependency proceedings bega n. “You are nurturing parents, you are devoted to [minor], you are devoted to your other children, I don’t think there is any question to that, but when you extended yours elf so much, I think sometimes something falls apart and something has to break . . . .” “[T]he parents have maintained visitation with benefit to” minor. Nevertheless, the c ourt found the benefits of permanency in adoption outweighed any benef it of maintaining the parent-c hild relationship. “I’m confident that once I conclude this hearing prior to adoption, th at there will be an23 agreement between the parties for visitation. I’m confident of that because of all of the love that I’ve seen in everyone today.” The court asked of the department, “I don’t really think there is any dispute as to a sibling bond here, do you disp ute?” The department did disp ute it. The court noted that most of minor’s siblings “w ere born after [minor] was re moved from the home, so there has not been that bonding th at occurs when all the ch ildren are living together.” 9 Regardless, the court found any sibling bo nd was outweighed by the permanence of adoption. The court terminated parental rights and ordered adoption as the permanent plan. DISCUSSION

A. BENEFICIAL PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP EXCEPTION Parents contend the juvenile court erre d in declining to apply the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental ri ghts and should have ordered long term guardianship instead. We disagree.

Once reunification services have been terminated and a minor has been found adoptable, “adoption should be ordered unless exceptiona l circumstances exist.” ( In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 51.) Under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) one such exception exists where, “[t]he pare nts have maintained regular visitation and

contact with the child and th e child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” The parent has the burden of proving termina tion would be detrimen tal to the child. ( In re

9 Minor had four siblings; two were bor n before and two after the dependency proceedings were initi ated as to minor.24 Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.Ap p.4th 1339, 1350 ( Jasmine D. ); In re Jerome D . (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1207.) “‘[T]he court balances the strength a nd quality of the natural parent[-]child relationship in a tenuous placement against th e security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer. If severing the natural parent[-]child relations hip would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attach ment such that the ch ild would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcom e and the natural parent’s rights are not terminated.’ [Citation.]” ( In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 555.) “[I]t is only in an extrao rdinary case that preservati on of the parent’s rights will prevail over the Legislature’s pref erence for adoptive placement.” ( Jasmine D. , supra , 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1350; see also In re Casey D. , supra , 70 Cal.App.4th at p. 51.) “We

determine whether there is substantial evid ence to support the tr ial court’s ruling by reviewing the evidence most favorably to the prevailing party and indulging in all legitimate and reasonable in ferences to uphold the court’s ruling. [Citation.] If the court’s ruling is supported by substantial evid ence, the reviewing court must affirm the court’s rejection of the exceptions to terminati on of parental rights . . . . [Citation.]” ( In

re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App. 4th 289, 297-298.) Here, substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s decision that the permanence afforded minor in her adoptive home outweighed any benefit that would be conferred upon her should she maintain her relationship with parents. Early on, father had been unable to cope with two-hour visitation, which, at that time, involved minor and only two siblings. Likewise, mother had th en been found unready to cope with two25 developmentally delayed children, father, an d a toddler. Minor required “a calm and stable environment [as] paramount to her me ntal and emotional stability.” Yet parents had difficulty setting limits on minor even during short visits. Thus, minor often regressed when returned to PAPs, expressing nega tive behavior including biting, spitting, and acting out. Yet parents now had two additi onal children to take care of. The social worker opined minor was not bonded with e ither parent. Thus, the juvenile court’s decision to terminate parental rights was supp orted by sufficient evidence that it would

not be detrimental to minor. Parents exposit In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681 and In re Scott B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 452 ( Scott B. ) in support of their contention the parental beneficial relationship excep tion was applicable here. We find both decisions distinguishable. First, Amber M. affirmed a juvenile cour t order finding the exception applicable. Here, we must affirm the j uvenile court’s order finding the exception inapplicable unless there was insufficien t evidence to support that decision. As discussed above, we find substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s order. Second, several professionals expressed conclusions that the mother and the minors in Amber M . were strongly bonded and that interfering with th eir relationships could be harmful to the minors. A psychologist who had conducted a bonding study between Amber and the mother found that they shared a “‘prim ary attachment’” and “‘primary maternal relationship’” that could be detrimental to sever. Amber’s therapist believed she and the mother had a strong bond and that it was im portant their relati onship continue. ( Amber

M. , at p. 689.) The court appointed special advocate (CASA) for one of the other minors26 testified that minor “loved and missed Mother and had difficulty separating from her.” ( Ibid .) The CASA disagreed with the Agen cy’s recommendation of adoption. ( Id. at pp. 689-690.) Thus, unlike the in stant case there was overwhelm ing evidence the mother and the minors had a strong relationship that would detrimental to minors to sever.

In Scott B. , supra , 188 Cal.App.4th 452, the minor was removed at nine years old and was 11 years old at the time of the hearin g. Thus, he had spent almost his entire life

with the mother. The CASA re peatedly stated the mother a nd the minor had a very close relationship which would be detrimental to be disrupted. The minor had repeatedly expressed his preference to live with the mother. ( Id . at p. 471.) Here, minor was four when detained and had been living with the PA Ps for more than three years. No CASA or other professional expressed an opinion th at minor was bonded to parents such that adoption would be detr imental to her. Parents additionally complain parental rights were improperly terminated simply due to minor’s autism and parent s’ inability to care for her. ( In re Paul E. (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 996, 1004 [minor’s autism not dispositive on decision to remove; agency

must show no reasonable means of protecting minor without removal]; Scott B ., supra , 188 Cal.App.4th 452 [parents with autistic ch ild who will likely never be able to reunify does not justify termination of parental ri ghts where minor and parents enjoy strongly bonded relationship the severance of which w ould be detrimental to minor].) However, it is apparent from the record that parents’ parental rights were not terminated simply because minor was autistic and pa rents were unable to care for her. Rather, the beneficial parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights did not apply because27 substantial evidence supported a determina tion minor was not bonded with parents and that continued visitation with pa rents would be detrimental to the progress she had made. Parents finally maintain the juvenile court’s decision was, at least in part, improperly based on its determ ination the PAPs would mainta in visitation between minor and parents. ( In re S.B. , supra , 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 300 [“ We do not believe a parent should be deprived of a lega l relationship with his or her child on the basis of an unenforceable promise of future visitation by the child’s prospectiv e adoptive parents”];

In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102, 129-130 [same].) It is true the social worker

made several references to the maintenance of postadoption visitati on in support of her recommendation. The juvenile court also ex pressed confidence such visitation would be maintained postadoption, even going so far as to pass out paperwork to accomplish this. Nevertheless, it is apparent the juvenile court’s basis for finding the exception inapplicable was that the benefit of perman ency to be found in adoption outweighed any benefit in maintaining the pa rent-child relationship. Thus, the court did not act improperly in terminating pa rents’ parental rights.

B. SIBLING RELATIONSHIP EXCEPTION Parents argue the court erred in dec lining to apply the beneficial sibling relationship exception to the term ination of their parental right s. Again, we disagree. The sibling relationship exception applie s if the court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be de trimental to the child due to a “substantial

interference with a child’s sib ling relationship, taking into consideration the nature and extent of the relationship, including, but no t limited to, whether the child was raised with28 a sibling in the same home, whether the child shared signi ficant common experiences or has existing close and strong bonds with a sib ling, and whether ongoing contact is in the child’s best interest, including the child’s long-term emotiona l interest, as compared to the benefit of legal permanence through adoption.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) “Reflecting the Legislature’s preference for adoption when possible, the ‘sibling relationship exception contains strong langu age creating a heavy bu rden for the party opposing adoption. It only ap plies when the juvenile court determines that there is a “compelling reason” for concluding that the termination of parental rights would be

“detrimental” to the child due to “substantial interference” w ith a sibling relationship.’ [Citation.] Indeed, even if adoption would inte rfere with a strong sibling relationship, the court must nevertheless weigh the benef it to the child of c ontinuing the sibling relationship against the benefit the child would receive by gaining a permanent home through adoption. [Citation.]” ( In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 61.) Parents have

the burden of establishi ng the applicability of th e exception. (See In re Megan S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 247, 252.) In reviewing challenges to a trial court’ s decision as to the applicability of these exceptions, we will employ the substantial evidence or abus e of discretion standards of review depending on the natu re of the challenge. ( In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1315-1316.) We will apply the substantia l evidence standard of review to evaluate the evidentiary showing with respect to factual issues, such as whether the child has a close and strong bond with a sibling (for the sibling relationship exception). ( Id . at p. 1315; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B )(i), (v).) However, a challenge to the trial court’s29 determination of questions such as whether, gi ven the existence of a sibling relationship, there is a compelling reason for determining th at termination of pare ntal rights would be detrimental to the child “is a quintessen tially discretionary determination.” ( Scott B. , supra , 188 Cal.App.4th at p. 469.) We review such decisions for abuse of discretion. In the dependency context, both standards ca ll for a high degree of appellate court deference. ( Ibid .; Jasmine D ., supra , 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1351.) Here, although the court apparently found a sibling bond, it expressly ruled minor’s need for permanence ou tweighed that bond. That determination was within the court’s discretion. First, minor had only ever lived with two of he r siblings at the time she was taken into protective cu stody; one for a little over three years and the other for a little over one year. She had never lived with e ither of her youngest siblings. At the time the juvenile court terminated parents’ parent al rights, three and a half years had elapsed since the department detained minor. Thus , minor had spent more time living away from even her oldest sibling than sh e had spent living with her. Second, although the department initially placed minor with her siblings, it removed minor from that placement due, in pa rt, to aggressive tendencies toward her sisters. When moved, minor’s behavior im proved dramatically Third, as discussed above, minor required “a calm and stable envi ronment [as] paramount to her mental and emotional stability.” Where minor’s visitation with her siblings coul d be construed as a catalyst for regressive behavior, the court acte d within its discretion in determining that the permanency and stability offered by adop tion outweighed any bene fit minor sustained

from a continued relationshi p with her siblings.30 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MILLER J.

We concur:

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

RICHLI J.