1 

Filed 8/13/14 In re L.P. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION TWO 

In re L.P. et al., Persons Coming Under the 

Juvenile Court Law. 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 

CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

R.J., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 E060919 

 (Super.Ct.No. J246227-29) 

 O P I N I O N 

 APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cheryl C. Kersey, 

Judge. Affirmed. 

 Megan Turkat Schirn, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant. 

 Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Danielle E. Wuchenich, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Defendant and appellant, R.J. (Father), appeals orders terminating parental rights 

and placing his three children for adoption: L.P., a girl born in September 2012; I.P., a 

boy born in March 2011; and A.P., a boy born in June 2004.1 Father claims the court 

erroneously refused to apply the sibling relationship exception to adoption. (Welf. & 

Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).)2 We affirm, because substantial evidence 

shows none of the children shared a significant bond with any of their older half siblings, 

and the court reasonably concluded adoption was the best option for the children. 

II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

A. Background 

The family came to the attention of plaintiff and respondent, San Bernardino 

County Children and Family Services (CFS), in September 2012 after L.P. and the 

mother tested positive for methamphetamine when L.P. was born. L.P. was transferred to 

the neonatal intensive care unit due to respiratory problems and withdrawals. The mother 

admitted using methamphetamine during the pregnancy, including the day before L.P. 

was born because she thought she was overdue and wanted to induce labor. 

The parents were not married but had lived together for years. The mother was 31 

years old and had been using methamphetamine since she was 13 years old. I.P. also 

 1 The children’s mother did not appeal. 

2 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless 

otherwise indicated. 
3 

tested positive for methamphetamine when he was born in March 2011.3 A.P. testified 

negative for drugs when he was born in June 2004, but the mother admitted that one year 

was the longest period she had been sober since junior high school. 

Father was 41 years old and was reported to be “out of it” and “stumbling” at the 

hospital when L.P. was born. In addition to the three children he had with the mother, 

Father had five other children between the ages of 12 and 22 by three other mothers. 

Father reported having no contact with his older children and poor relationships with 

their mothers. 

Each parent had several convictions for possessing and/or being under the 

influence of controlled substances. Father also had a 2005 conviction for inflicting 

corporal injury on a spouse/cohabitant and a 2008 burglary conviction. Father was on 

pain medication and collecting state disability payments because he was electrocuted 

while his “friend” was attempting to steal electrical components. Father did not take 

responsibility for his criminal history, claiming he “took the blame for someone else.” 

On October 2, 2012, the children were taken into protective custody and placed in 

foster care. The parents refused to participate in an inpatient treatment program and 

continued to use methamphetamine. In November 2012, the court sustained 

jurisdictional allegations based on the parents’ drug use, their criminal histories, and the 

mother’s related history of anxiety and depression. (§ 300, subds. (b), (j).) At 

 3 The parents were offered services in April 2011, including outpatient treatment 

center referrals, but did not take advantage of them. 
4 

disposition, the children were ordered removed from parental custody (§ 361, subd. (c)), 

and the parents were offered reunification services and visitation.4 

The children were placed with the paternal grandparents in November 2012, but 

were removed from that home in April 2013 after a driver found I.P. running across the 

street at an intersection near the home. While the paternal grandmother was changing 

L.P.’s diaper and the paternal grandfather and an uncle were also in the home, none of 

them noticed I.P. had walked out of the “wide open” front door.5 In May 2013, the court 

sustained section 387 supplemental petitions and ordered the children removed, based on 

the paternal grandparents’ failure to provide adequate care and supervision.6 

The children were returned to foster care in April 2013, and in May the court 

granted CFS’s request to “list” the children on Web sites seeking adoptive families for 

special needs children. I.P. had language delays and hyperactivity, and required special 

 4 The parents appealed the November 2012 dispositional orders, challenging the 

court’s jurisdictional findings and order removing the children from their custody, and 

claiming inadequate notice was given under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 

U.S.C.A. § 1901 et seq.) and related California law (§§ 224.2, 224.3). This court found 

the ICWA notices were inadequate and conditionally reversed the dispositional orders, 

but rejected the parents’ other claims. (In re L.P. (Oct. 29, 2013, E057864) [nonpub. 

opn.].) On remand, CFS gave further ICWA notices. The court found they were 

adequate and reinstated the dispositional orders. 

5 The paternal grandparents had delayed making medical appointments for the 

children and had delayed filling A.P.’s asthma and psoriasis medications. 

6 Both the mother and the paternal grandmother appealed the May 14, 2013, order 

removing the children from the paternal grandparents, and the appeal was assigned case 

No. E058648. This court dismissed the paternal grandmother’s appeal because she was 

not a party and dismissed the mother’s appeal because it was abandoned. 
5 

care and supervision. In his evaluation, I.P. was described as a “very hyperactive, 

uncooperative, almost ‘wild’ child” with “piercing screams” and frequent tantrums. A.P. 

received poor to failing grades in third grade, was being assessed for attention 

deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and required a lot of support at home and at school. L.P. 

was being assessed for special needs. 

The parents’ services were terminated in June 2013. During a March 7 visit, the 

mother appeared to be under the influence, used profanity in front of the children, and 

was inappropriate with A.P., calling him names and telling him “you suck.” A.P. was 

crying and the mother continued to yell at him. The social worker ended the visit, the 

mother called the social worker “a piece of shit,” and security was called. The mother’s 

visits were suspended on March 27, and were never reinstated. 

 Meanwhile, Father continued with his criminal lifestyle. In December 2012, he 

picked up another conviction for possessing a controlled substance and was placed on 

formal probation. In February 2013, when he was still on probation, Father was 

convicted of burglary and vandalism and sentenced to two years in prison. Father was 

released from custody early, in September 2013, and resumed supervised visits with the 

children. Father did not visit the children while incarcerated, but visits before and after 

his incarceration were consistent, and he was appropriate with the children. 

B. The Section 366.26 Hearing 

 By October 2013, the children were in separate foster care homes and CFS had yet 

to locate an adoptive placement for all three of them. The children had been in multiple 
6 

foster placements since October 2012. Still, I.P. was making “great progress”; he was 

able to be redirected; he no longer cried excessively; and he was happy and affectionate. 

L.P. was being treated for developmental delays in gross motor skills, receptive language, 

and expressive language. She presented as “a happy child” who made good eye contact. 

A.P. was developmentally on target for his age and had an Individual Education Plan for 

a special learning disability. A.P. was friendly and articulate, affectionate toward his 

younger siblings, and engaged easily with adults. A.P. was receiving weekly therapy to 

address his feelings related to domestic violence between his parents. 

 In November 2013, CFS located an out-of-state, adoptive placement for all three 

children. I.P. and L.P. were still too young to understand adoption, but A.P. told the 

social worker he wanted an adoptive family “with a mom and dad, a Dalmation puppy, 

and his siblings.” The adoptive parents had cared for many foster children and had 

adopted four special needs children. Their adopted children were born drug exposed and 

came to their home with aggressive behaviors and developmental delays which had since 

been resolved. 

At the section 366.26 hearing on April 1, 2014, Father and his 19-year-old son 

Jacob testified. According to Father, Jacob regularly saw the children before they were 

detained in October 2012, and one of his older daughters, Alexandra, saw the children 

twice weekly. Thereafter, Jacob and Alexandra saw the children “a few times.” They 

sometimes accompanied Father on his visits with the children, and they often visited the 

children in the paternal grandparents’ home. Jacob and A.P. were “into video games.” 
7 

Jacob testified he lived across the street from Father, the mother, and the children 

before October 2012, when the children were detained, and during that time he saw the 

children five days each week. He would “hang out” “all day” with A.P. and I.P., help 

A.P. with his homework, and play video and other games with the boys. When the 

children were placed with the paternal grandparents, Jacob visited them once or twice 

each week. After the children were returned to foster care, Jacob was able to visit them a 

few times by accompanying his Father on visits. He loved the children; they were his 

“blood,” and he wanted to take them to sporting events and see them grow up. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court terminated parental rights and selected 

adoption as the children’s permanent plan. The court rejected Father’s request to place 

the children in a guardianship based on the parental benefit exception to adoption, and 

each parent’s request to apply the sibling relationship exception. The court indicated it 

was clearly in the best interests of the children to be adopted, and there was no 

compelling reason to apply either exception. Father’s visits had not progressed beyond 

supervised, and the children’s older half siblings had never lived with them. Father 

appealed. 

III. DISCUSSION 

Father claims the court erroneously refused to apply the sibling relationship 

exception to the adoption preference. We find no error. 
8 

A. Applicable Law 

At a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing, the juvenile court determines a 

permanent plan of care for a dependent child. (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 

50.) Permanent plans include adoption, guardianship, and long-term foster care. (In re 

S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 296.) “Adoption, where possible, is the permanent 

plan preferred by the Legislature.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573.) 

Adoption involves terminating the legal rights of the child’s natural parents, but 

guardianship and long-term foster care leave parental rights intact. (In re Autumn H., 

supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 574.) “‘Guardianship, while a more stable placement than 

foster care, is not irrevocable and thus falls short of the secure and permanent future the 

Legislature had in mind for the dependent child.’ [Citation.]” (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 

Cal.4th 45, 53.) 

“Adoption must be selected as the permanent plan for an adoptable child and 

parental rights terminated unless the court finds ‘a compelling reason for determining that 

termination would be detrimental to the child due to one or more of the following 

circumstances: [¶] . . . [¶] (v) There would be substantial interference with a child’s 

sibling relationship . . . .’ (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).) ‘[T]he burden is on the party 

seeking to establish the existence of one of the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) 

exceptions to produce that evidence.’ [Citation.]” (In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 

Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314.) 
9 

“The sibling relationship exception applies where the juvenile court finds that 

‘substantial interference with a child’s sibling relationship’ is a ‘compelling reason’ to 

conclude that adoption would be detrimental to the child. In making this determination, 

the court should take into consideration ‘the nature and extent of the relationship, 

including, but not limited to, whether the child was raised with a sibling in the same 

home, whether the child shared significant common experiences or has existing close and 

strong bonds with a sibling, and whether ongoing contact is in the child’s best interest, 

including the child’s long-term emotional interest, as compared to the benefit of legal 

permanence through adoption.’ (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).)” (In re Bailey J., supra,

189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1317.) 

The mere existence of a sibling relationship is not enough to apply the exception; 

the relationship must be “sufficiently significant” to cause detriment upon its termination; 

otherwise, there is no “substantial interference” with the sibling relationship. (In re 

L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 952 [“Many siblings have a relationship with each 

other, but would not suffer detriment if that relationship ended”].) 

“Moreover, even if a sibling relationship exists that is so strong that its severance 

would cause the child detriment, the court then weighs the benefit to the child of 

continuing the sibling relationship against the benefit to the child adoption would 

provide.” (In re L.Y.L., supra, 101 Cal.App.4th. at pp. 952-953.) 
10 

B. Standard of Review 

Appellate courts have traditionally applied either the substantial evidence test or 

the abuse of discretion test in considering challenges to juvenile court determinations of 

whether one or more of the statutory exceptions to adoption preference applies. (In re 

Scott B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 452, 469.) There is little, if any, practical difference 

between the two. (Ibid.) 

As explained in In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339: “‘[E]valuating the 

factual basis for an exercise of discretion is similar to analyzing the sufficiency of the 

evidence for the ruling. . . . Broad deference must be shown to the trial judge. The 

reviewing court should interfere only “‘if [it] find[s] that . . . no judge could reasonably 

have made the order that he did.’ . . .”’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 1351.) 

More recently, courts have applied a composite standard of review, recognizing 

that the determination whether an adoption exception applies entails both factual and 

discretionary determinations. (In re Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1314-1315 

[substantial evidence standard applies to court’s factual determination whether a 

beneficial relationship exists, and abuse of discretion standard applies to court’s 

discretionary determination whether there is a compelling reason to apply the exception]; 

accord, In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622; In re J.C. (2014) 226 

Cal.App.4th 503, 530-531.) 
11 

C. Analysis 

Father argues the children shared a close relationship with their older half siblings, 

including 19-year-old Jacob, and the loss of those sibling relationships was a compelling 

reason not to place the children for adoption and terminate Father’s parental rights. 

Father’s claim is unavailing because substantial evidence shows the children did not 

share a significant bond or relationship with any of their older half siblings, and the court 

reasonably concluded the children would benefit more from being adopted than from 

being deprived of a permanent, adoptive home for the sake of continuing their 

insignificant relationships with their older half siblings. 

As the court acknowledged, the children had never lived with their older half 

siblings; they shared no significant common experiences; and they shared no close or 

strong bonds. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) I.P. and L.P. were toddlers and barely knew 

any of their older half siblings. Even A.P., who was eight years old when detained, did 

not share a significant emotional attachment to Jacob, even though Jacob used to “hang 

out” with him, help him with his homework, and play video games with him. A.P. was 

close to I.P. and L.P., and told the social worker he wanted to be adopted. In sum, the 

court reasonably determined there was no compelling reason to apply the sibling 

relationship exception. 

Father argues Jacob shared a significant relationship with the children and 

suggests severing that relationship would be detrimental to Jacob, but that is not a reason 

to apply the exception. Though a sibling’s relationship with an adoptive child “might be 
12 

relevant as indirect evidence of the effect the adoption may have on the adoptive 

child. . . . [T]he ultimate question is whether adoption would be detrimental to the 

adoptive child, not someone else.” (In re Celine R., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 55.) And 

here, the court reasonably concluded that severing the children’s relationships with their 

older half siblings would not be detrimental to them. (In re D.M. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 

283, 293 [substantial evidence supported court’s determination that terminating sibling 

relationship would not be sufficiently detrimental to adoptive children to preclude 

termination of parental rights]; In re Jacob S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1011, 1019 [same]; 

cf. In re Naomi P. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 808, 811, 824 [on appeal by social services 

agency, substantial evidence supported court’s determination that sibling relationship 

exception did apply].) 

IV. DISPOSITION 

 The April 1, 2014, orders terminating parental rights and placing the children for 

adoption are affirmed. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS 

KING 

 J. 

We concur: 

RAMIREZ 

 P. J. 

HOLLENHORST 

 J.