Filed 9/4/15 In re Nathaniel L. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 NATHANIEL L., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CANDY L.,

Defendant and Appellant;

JESUS L.,

Appellant.

 D067280

 (Super. Ct. No. SJ11241D)

APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura J. 

Birkmeyer, Judge. Affirmed.

Monica Vogelmann, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant 

and Appellant Candy L.
2

Neale B. Gold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant Jesus L., 

a Minor.

Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel, John E. Philips, Chief Deputy County 

Counsel, and Jennifer Stone, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Minor Jesus L. and his mother Candy L. separately appeal an order under Welfare 

and Institutions Code section 366.261 selecting adoption as the permanent plan for 

Candy's son and Jesus's sibling Nathaniel L., and terminating parental rights. Candy 

contends the court erred in finding that there was not a beneficial parent-child 

relationship between her and Nathaniel within the meaning of section 366.26, subdivision 

(c)(1)(B)(i) that precluded the termination of her parental rights. Both Candy and Jesus 

contend that the court erred in finding the sibling relationship exception to termination of 

parental rights and adoption under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v) did not apply. 

We affirm.

Overview

The Agency detained Nathaniel and his three older siblings in April 2012 and the 

juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over them in June 2012. In November 2012, Candy 

gave birth to her fifth child, who was not removed from her custody or made a dependent 

of the court. Nathaniel was placed in foster care separately from his siblings. In mid2013, Nathaniel was diagnosed with a chronic, life-threatening kidney condition. At the 

18-month review hearing, the court returned Nathaniel's three older siblings to Candy's 

 

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise 

specified.
3

custody but continued Nathaniel's foster placement largely due to his medical condition. 

After his condition was diagnosed, Nathaniel's medical fragility and special healthcare 

needs became the main focus of his dependency case and the decision to terminate 

parental rights as to him.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

In April 2012, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the 

Agency) detained and filed petitions on behalf of then one-year-old Nathaniel and his 

three older half siblings, eight-year-old Nevaeh, seven-year-old Mia, and five-year-old 

Jesus. Nathaniel's petition alleged under section 300, subdivision (j) that there was a 

substantial risk Nathaniel would be abused or neglected because Mia and Jesus had been

sexually abused by a member of the household. In a second count, the petition alleged 

that Nathaniel's father, Daniel G., had hit Nathaniel's sibling with a closed fist on multiple 

occasions. 

In forensic interviews Mia and Jesus disclosed that their maternal uncle who 

resided in their home had repeatedly engaged in sexual acts with them, including forcing 

both of them to orally copulate him. The maternal uncle confessed to police detectives

that he had forced Mia and Jesus to orally copulate him and had raped Mia. He also told 

the detectives that he might have sodomized Jesus but did not remember. Nevaeh, Mia, 

and Jesus told Agency and forensic interviewers that Daniel had punched them in the 

chest or mouth when they were in trouble. Mia said she had been hit with a hanger and 

belt and had seen Candy hit Jesus in the mouth, which caused bleeding. Jesus said that 

Candy and Daniel hit him on the butt and that his lip bled when Daniel punched it.
4

Nevaeh, Mia, and Jesus were detained in a confidential foster home and Nathaniel was 

detained in his paternal uncle's home. The court ordered liberal supervised visitation for 

Nathaniel's parents. 

The Agency's jurisdiction/disposition report filed on May 11, 2012, noted that 

Candy was pregnant with her fifth child and was living with the maternal grandmother. 

She was no longer in a relationship with Daniel due to domestic violence. She denied 

having any contact with the maternal uncle who sexually abused the children and did not 

want to have any contact with him in the future. She had used marijuana and 

methamphetamine in the past and completed a drug treatment program in 2009. 

Candy was attending three supervised visits with the children per week and the 

visits had gone well. The Agency searched for a placement that would accommodate all 

four children, but Nathaniel remained placed with his paternal uncle while the other three 

children were placed together in a foster home. 

At the jurisdiction/disposition hearing on June 14, 2012, Candy admitted the 

allegations in Nathaniel's petition and the court sustained the petition and made true 

findings on both counts. The court removed Nathaniel from parental custody and ordered 

him placed in the approved home of a relative (the paternal uncle). The court gave the 

social worker discretion to lift supervised visitation and expand to overnight visits or a 

60-day trial visit with the concurrence of Nathaniel's counsel. The court also ordered 

sibling visitation. 

In August 2012, the Agency rescinded its approval of the paternal uncle as a 

placement for Nathaniel and detained Nathaniel in a licensed foster home after it 
5

discovered that the paternal uncle regularly used medical marijuana. The Agency filed a 

section 387 petition alleging that Nathaniel's paternal uncle was no longer able to provide 

adequate care and supervision for Nathaniel and recommending that Nathaniel be placed 

in foster care. The court ordered Nathaniel detained in an approved foster home pending 

further hearing. The Agency considered the older children's foster home as a possible 

placement for Nathaniel, but the older children's caregiver declined to have Nathaniel 

placed with her. 

The Agency's report for the six-month review hearing noted that Candy was 

visiting Nathaniel twice weekly. Nathaniel's caregivers supervised one of the visits and 

the other took place at a visitation center with Candy and the other children. The 

visitation center reported that many of Candy's visits were "unorganized" and "chaotic." 

Candy would laugh when the children misbehaved and not redirect their behavior. She 

appeared to have difficulty managing all four children at the same time. 

At the six-month review hearing, the court found Candy had made substantive 

progress with her case plan. The court continued Nathaniel's foster placement and 

Candy's reunification services, and ordered that Nathaniel have sibling visitation.

In May 2013, the Agency filed a report for the 12-month review hearing. The 

Agency reported that in November 2012 Candy had given birth to her fifth child,

Sebastian G., who remained in her care. Candy and Sebastian lived with the maternal 

grandmother. Candy had complied and made progress with her case plan. She was 

allowed unsupervised visitation with the children and was in the process of starting 

overnight visits. 
6

An "FFA Angels"2 social worker expressed concerns about Candy's visitation 

with Nathaniel. Candy had transported all of the children in her vehicle although there

were only five seat belts in the vehicle. She agreed to use public transportation to 

transport the children and later purchased a vehicle that could accommodate all of the 

children, but she needed to register the new vehicle. The social worker was also 

concerned that Candy was not bathing Nathaniel and possibly not feeding him before 

returning him to his foster home. Candy admitted that on two occasions she had not 

bathed Nathaniel before returning him—once when they were out and she did not have 

enough time to bath him before having to drop him off by a certain time, and once when 

he had been sick and she did not want to take him out into the cold after bathing him. 

She said she fed Nathaniel before returning him to the foster home. Nathaniel was 

developmentally on track but his doctor was concerned about his low weight. 

At the 12-month review hearing on June 4, 2013, Candy requested that trial be set 

on the issue of Nathaniel's return to her custody. The court admonished Candy 

"regarding being lawfully permitted to drive and ensuring [Nathaniel] is properly 

restrained in the car." (Capitalization omitted.) 

On June 10, Nathaniel's foster mother reported that when she met Candy at a park 

on June 6 to pick up Nathaniel, she saw Nevaeh, Mia, and Jesus hiding on the floor of the 

backseat of Candy's car. The foster mother waved at the three children who were hiding 

and they acted as if they should not have been found. The FFA social worker was 

 

2 The Agency's reference to "FFA Angels" presumably was intended as a reference 

to Angels Foster Family Network.
7

concerned that the incident indicated Candy was continuing to transport all four children 

together even though she knew she was not supposed to do so. The social worker was 

also "very concerned that [Candy] may be asking the children to 'hide' and thus 

compromising their safety and asking them to be deceitful."

At a pretrial status conference on July 16, 2013, Candy withdrew her trial set and 

the court continued Nathaniel's foster placement and reunification services for the 

parents. The court ordered that "Mother may not transport [Nathaniel] in any motor 

vehicle, unless Mother has a driver['s license], insurance, vehicle registration; all 

appropriate minor car seats, comply with California law regarding transportation and 

never instruct the minor to hide from the view of other vehicles." (Capitalization 

omitted.)

In its 18-month review report, the Agency recommended that Nevaeh, Mia, and 

Jesus be placed with Candy and that Nathaniel continue to be placed in his foster home. 

Nathaniel had recently been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease and would need a 

kidney transplant. His kidneys were functioning at only 30 percent, and his right kidney 

was worse than his left kidney. He was also diagnosed with failure to thrive. He was at 

.23 percent body weight for his age and needed to follow a strict diet that was high in fat 

and calories. Candy attended a medical appointment at Rady Children's Hospital, where 

Nathaniel was seen by the nephrology department and a dietician. She was provided a 

list of foods that Nathaniel should eat and a list of foods he should avoid.

The following day (August 27, 2013), Nathaniel was with Candy for an overnight 

visit. During the visit Candy fed Nathaniel food he was to avoid. The Agency expressed 
8

"extreme concerns that [Candy] is [noncompliant] with [Nathaniel]'s diet." The Agency 

noted that Candy had a history of noncompliance and would "continue to do things even 

when told not to. . . . She [did] not seem to be taking [Nathaniel]'s medical needs 

seriously."

Nathaniel's caregiver expressed concern about Candy not attending medical 

appointments and not providing Nathaniel with the special diet he required. The FFA 

social worker also expressed concern that Candy was not providing a nutritional diet to 

Nathaniel on overnight visits, not providing Nathaniel a scheduled nap time, and not 

attending medical appointments regarding his newly discovered kidney disease.

The children's court-appointed special advocate (CASA) expressed similar 

concerns about Nathaniel in a report that she filed for the 18-month review hearing. The 

CASA stated: "I have had concerns regarding Nathaniel from the beginning, as he is the 

youngest and the older siblings compete for [Candy]'s attention. His recent chronic 

kidney disease diagnosis makes me even more concerned about his health and wellbeing. I feel that if he is returned to his mother he will not receive the care he needs. The 

three older children are aggressive in their pursuit of attention, and the mother's nondependent baby is naturally the focus of both the mother and the other children. 

Nathaniel has neither the experience nor the vocabulary to make his needs known among 

the other four. I question whether he will receive the specialized diet he requires, or the 

medical attention he will eventually require." The CASA stated that her concern was 

"multiplied" because of a prior dependency case in which Nevaeh was removed from 
9

Candy's care as an infant because she was severely underweight and Candy was not 

following medical directions for her care.

The Agency filed an addendum report on October 10, 2013, with an attached letter 

from Natalie Martinez, a certified pediatric nurse practitioner with Sharp Rees-Stealy

who had followed Nathaniel's medical care for one year. Martinez noted Nathaniel had 

failure to thrive secondary to chronic kidney disease with renal failure. His medical goal 

was to gain enough weight to be eligible for a kidney transplant.

Martinez reported that because Nathaniel's "kidneys do not filter well, he needs to 

be on a controlled potassium, phosphorous and sodium diet. If these minerals build up in 

his blood at dangerous levels, they can cause problems for his bones, heart, muscles, 

eyes, lungs and blood vessels. He also needs to limit his sodium to prevent water 

retention and control blood pressure." Martinez noted that both Candy and the foster 

mother had been provided a detailed special diet for Nathaniel by Rady Children's renal 

clinic, which specifically excluded "fast foods." It had come to the medical staff's 

attention that Candy often took Nathaniel to McDonald's when he stayed with her and 

that he was often sick with abdominal pain or diarrhea when he returned to his foster 

home. Martinez suggested that supervision of Nathaniel's diet during his visits with 

Candy may be required.

In October 2013, the court placed Nathaniel's three older siblings with Candy. At 

the Agency's request, the court continued Nathaniel's 18-month review hearing to 

December 5, 2013, to provide Candy additional services to address Nathaniel's medical 

concerns. 
10

On December 3, 2013, the Agency filed an addendum report in which it 

recommended that the court terminate the parents' reunification services and set a section 

366.26 hearing for Nathaniel. Candy had not been following Nathaniel's special diet 

during her unsupervised visits with him. On October 18, 2013, the foster mother found a 

McDonald's flier in Nathaniel's lunch box and Nathaniel said he had eaten French fries 

and ketchup. On November 1, Nathaniel's daycare reported that the only thing packed 

for Nathaniel's lunch was a peanut butter sandwich on white bread, foods that Nathaniel 

was to avoid. Upon questioning Candy, the Agency learned there were at least two 

instances of her failure to follow Nathaniel's diet. The Agency suspected there were 

more occurrences, but noted it was "very difficult to find out what [Nathaniel] is really 

eating versus what [Candy] says she is feeding him." Nathaniel's nephrologists were 

concerned that Candy's disregarding Nathaniel's strict diet could become a problem for 

him.

On December 11, 2013, the Agency filed a petition under section 342, alleging, 

under section 300, subdivision (b), that there was a substantial risk Nathaniel would 

suffer serious physical harm or illness because Candy was not able to strictly adhere to 

the special diet he required. The Agency filed a detention report on December 12 that 

addressed Candy's failure to adhere to Nathaniel's diet, and additionally noted that 

Nathaniel had received a bite mark on his right cheek, a bruise on his forehead, and a rash 

on his left cheek during his visitation with Candy. He suffered the bruise when Candy 

opened a door that he and Jesus were hiding behind and the door hit his forehead. The 

Agency concluded that "[t]he risk of neglect in the mother's care is high and court[-] 
11

ordered services are necessary to mitigate the risk of future neglect. . . . The mother has 

been educated on how to meet Nathaniel's special needs, however, the mother has failed 

to utilize the services to effectively meet Nathaniel's needs during unsupervised visits." 

The Agency recommended that Nathaniel continue to be placed in out-of-home care and 

that the parents be ordered to participate in reunification services.

At a contested adjudication and disposition hearing on the section 342 petition on 

January 17, 2014, the court found that Nathaniel continued to be a person described in 

section 300, subdivision (b). The court continued Nathaniel's foster placement and 

ordered additional reunification services for the parents. The court ordered Candy to 

attend all medical appointments for Nathaniel concerning his kidney condition and to 

keep a food log for him. The court found extraordinary circumstances under section 352 

to continue the 18-month date and set an 18-month review hearing for April 3, 2014.

In a status review report filed on March 21, 2014, the Agency reported that Mia 

had disclosed that Jesus had sexually molested her multiple times. Candy responded 

appropriately and implemented a safety plan that included separating the children and 

monitoring their sleeping arrangements. 

On April 3, 2014, the Agency filed an addendum report in which it again 

recommended that the court terminate reunification services and set a section 366.26 

hearing for Nathaniel. Nathaniel's foster mother observed Nathaniel fondling his penis 

on March 15 and 16, 2014. She asked him if anyone had touched his penis and he replied 

that both Jesus and Mia had touched it. The Agency temporarily canceled Candy's 
12

overnight visits with Nathaniel pending an investigation of the matter. Candy told the 

social worker that Jesus admitted he had touched Mia but denied touching Nathaniel. 

The Agency filed an addendum report on April 3, 2014, that included a letter from 

the Angels Foster Family Network social worker who had worked with Nathaniel and his 

foster parents for one and a half years. The social worker noted that Candy had not 

consistently attended Nathaniel's medical appointments, had been late to appointments, 

and often did not pay attention during appointments. She had to be prompted to pay 

attention, and she did not take notes or ask questions about Nathaniel's care or condition. 

Candy was dismissive of Nathaniel's medical condition, stating that she knew "someone 

else who had the same thing as Nathaniel" and they "got better." Candy also had 

remarked that she did not believe Nathaniel was born with his kidney condition and that 

it was the result of being removed from her. Nathaniel's doctors explained to Candy that 

Nathaniel's condition would never improve.

The Agency's assessment was that the parents were not capable of meeting 

Nathaniel's special needs or able to adequately supervise him on a full-time basis. The 

Agency reported that Candy had made some progress in being able to meet Nathaniel's 

special needs, but not substantial progress. In addendum reports filed on May 7 and June 

3, 2014, the Agency reiterated that assessment and recommended that the court terminate 

reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. 

In the latter addendum, the Agency reported that Walmart employees called the 

police to report that Mia and Sebastian had been left unattended in a van for over a half 

an hour. The police arrived 15 minutes later and Candy returned to the van 15 minutes 
13

after the police arrived. Thus, the children were unattended in the van for over one hour. 

The windows were rolled up and the car was not running. Sebastian was asleep in his car 

seat and was drenched, and Mia had sweat beads on her forehead. Candy claimed she 

was in Walmart for only 10 to 15 minutes. She told the Agency social worker that Mia 

did not want to go into the store because she had just hurt her ankle at a gas station, and 

that she did not take Sebastian into the store because Mia asked her to leave him in the 

car with her. Candy agreed to a safety plan that included never leaving the children 

unsupervised in the home, vehicle, or in public.

The June 3 addendum report included another letter from pediatric nurse 

practitioner Martinez. Martinez reported that Nathaniel was "at the 1 percentile for 

height and weight." He had been cleared for a kidney transplant, but to postpone that 

surgery as long as possible, it was of the "utmost importance" that his daily health care 

needs were met. In addition to his special diet and medications, Nathaniel needed to 

receive daily growth hormone injections that had "to be given in a clean environment by 

a responsible person who has been trained to do this and is competent in the skill." The 

injections were currently being given only by his foster mother, who had been trained to 

give them and whose household met the appropriate standards. Martinez also noted that 

it was important that Nathaniel not have infections. She stressed the need to maintain a 

clean environment and to avoid being around others who were sick. Martinez also 

advised that Nathaniel should be in a safe and stable household without undue stress. In 

summary, Martinez stated that "Nathaniel's growth and developmental success . . . is 

dependent on maintaining a rigorously healthy and structured environment. Since he is a 
14

medically fragile child, deviation from this can be detrimental to his health. Optimizing 

his health has a direct impact on his long[-]term survival and avoiding any unnecessary 

complications."

The court held the contested 18-month review hearing over two days in June 2014

and heard testimony from the Agency social worker and Candy. The court noted Candy 

had made some limited progress with services concerning Nathaniel's medical condition, 

but stated "it was insubstantial progress on the key issues that go directly to the safety 

and well-being of Nathaniel." The court terminated the parents' reunification services 

and set a section 366.26 hearing for October 23, 2014.

Social worker Charese Phillips prepared the Agency's section 366.26 report dated 

October 23, 2014, which included the Agency's recommendation that the court terminate 

parental rights and order adoption as Nathaniel's permanent plan. Nathaniel's food 

journal showed that Candy was struggling to follow Nathaniel's special diet, which 

required, among other things, foods that were low in sodium per serving. 

Phillips observed four of Candy's unsupervised visits with Nathaniel. In August 

2014, she attended for approximately one hour a visit that Nathaniel had with Candy, his 

siblings, and the maternal grandmother at Candy's apartment. The apartment was warm 

and stuffy and smelled of urine and trash. There were numerous flies in the apartment 

and there was dirt on the carpet, trash piled in the trash can, and dirty dishes in the sink. 

The kitchen table was sticky and the children were all barefoot and the bottoms of their 

feet were grey with dirt. Nathaniel, Jesus, and Sebastian had difficulty sharing their toys 

and often became upset and cried. When Candy tried to redirect them, they often did not 
15

listen. Candy denied that she had ever had difficulty following Nathaniel's diet, and 

complained that the diet was often changed so that foods that were allowed one day were 

not allowed the next. Both Candy and the maternal grandmother implied that Nathaniel 

was not ill and that the foster mother was making him sick.

Phillips observed three additional unsupervised visits between Candy, Nathaniel, 

and Sebastian in September 2014 at Candy's apartment. Nathaniel and Sebastian had 

difficulty sharing their toys during the visits and often became upset and cried and did not 

listen when Candy attempted to redirect them. During one of the visits, Nathaniel had 

diarrhea in his diaper and Candy was unable to find wipes. During the next visit

Nathaniel asked to brush his teeth while Candy was dressing him. Candy could not 

locate his toothbrush. When Phillips arrived at Candy's apartment to observe a fifth visit, 

Candy told Phillips she was not ready. The apartment smelled strongly of urine and dirty 

diapers and there were items strewn all over the living room, including toys, clothes, and 

bed linens. Candy explained that Jesus made the mess when he became angry because 

she told him he could not play outside.

Nathaniel's caregiver reported that Nathaniel separated from Candy at the end of 

visits without emotional turmoil. After visits, he was overly tired and "cranky," and 

would use curse words and display more aggressive behavior than usual. When Phillips 

spoke with the caregiver about different permanent plan options for Nathaniel, the 

caregiver immediately indicated that she and her husband preferred to adopt Nathaniel, 

and in later discussions reaffirmed that she and her family were committed to offering 

Nathaniel permanence through adoption.
16

Phillips assessed Nathaniel to be specifically and generally adoptable and, on 

behalf of the Agency, recommended adoption as his permanent plan. Phillips

acknowledged that Nathaniel and Candy cared for each other and that spending time with 

Candy was a fun and positive experience for Nathaniel. However, she concluded that 

"[t]he significance of this relationship . . . does not outweigh the benefits of Nathaniel 

being placed in a permanent home that has the ability to meet his significant medical 

needs. . . . Nathaniel shows no signs of emotional distress when separating from the 

mother, nor does he ask for her when he is with the caregivers. Furthermore, the mother's 

continued difficulty with following Nathaniel's strict diet and her loose supervision of 

him around his siblings calls into question her judgment and capacity to remain in a 

parental role."

Phillips concluded that Nathaniel's bond with his siblings was "not so significant 

that it would outweigh the benefits of permanency for Nathaniel. He appears to enjoy 

spending time with his siblings, however, he does not ask for his siblings when he is not 

with them, nor does he have difficulty separating from them at the end of their visits. 

Based on Nathaniel's significant medical needs, and the fact that he is a preschooler who 

has been in the dependency system for 30 of his 45 months of age, he is in critical need of 

the permanence and stability that adoption provides. These needs far outweigh any 

detriment that severing the sibling bond may cause Nathaniel."

The CASA filed a report dated October 23, 2014, in which she recommended 

adoption as Nathaniel's permanent plan. The CASA observed Nathaniel in Candy's home 

twice. The CASA reported that the home appeared dirty and disorganized and although 
17

Candy responded to Nathaniel's needs when he asked for something, "she did not seem 

interested in interacting with Nathaniel or concerned about his interactions with [the 

CASA] or his siblings." The CASA concluded: "Though Nathaniel does have a 

relationship with his mother and siblings, I believe the risks of him being in an unsafe 

environment are greater to his health and well-being than the separation from these 

family members, [whom] he has not lived with on a full-time basis for the majority of his 

life."

On the date initially set for the section 366.26 hearing, Candy requested a trial on 

the issues of the parent-child bond and the sibling bond exception. The court ordered that 

Nathaniel be made available for a bonding study upon Candy's request and set the section 

366.26 hearing for December 12, 2014.

Phillips filed an addendum report on November 25, 2014, noting that on October 

8, 2014, the caregiver reported that Nathaniel had lice after he returned home from an 

overnight visit with Candy. Candy denied that she or her children had lice, but bought a 

new mattress and box spring and the carpet in her apartment was changed. When the 

caregiver picked Nathaniel up from an overnight visit on November 3, he fell asleep for 

four to five hours, which was unusual for him. The caregiver called Candy to ask if 

anything had happened during the visit. Candy told her that she had mistakenly sent 

Nathaniel home with the maternal grandmother's medication, but denied that she had 

given Nathaniel the medication.

On November 9, 2014, the caregiver reported that Nathaniel had a severe and 

painful diaper rash when returned from a visit with Candy. Candy told the caregiver that 
18

Nathaniel's diaper had become saturated with urine and overflowed onto his clothing and 

the floor. The caregiver took Nathaniel to urgent care where he was diagnosed with a 

highly contagious fungal infection and prescribed appropriate medication. Candy did not 

attend a doctor's appointment for Nathaniel the next morning. Phillips filed a second 

addendum report on December 11, 2014, to report that on November 22, Candy took 

Nathaniel to the emergency room because he had been vomiting all evening, had not 

eaten anything, and was listless and fatigued. Nathaniel was transferred to Rady 

Children's Hospital where he was treated for dehydration and released. 

Section 388 petitions

On November 12, 2014, Nevaeh, Jesus, and Mia filed section 388 petitions 

requesting to participate in Nathaniel's case and to present argument and evidence 

regarding the sibling relationship exception to adoption. On December 2, 2014, Daniel 

filed a section 388 petition requesting that Nathaniel be returned to his care or, 

alternatively, that the court order a transition plan to expand his visitation with Nathaniel 

to facilitate placement with him. The court granted "the siblings' request to participate in 

the trial[,]" but denied Daniel's petition. (Capitalization omitted.)

Section 366.26 hearing

The court held a contested section 366.26 hearing over two days—December 12

and December 29, 2014. On the first day of the hearing the court received into evidence

the section 366.26 report dated October 23, 2014; the addendum reports filed on 

November 25 and December 11, 2015; and the CASA's report dated October 23, 2014.

The court heard testimony from social worker Phillips, and the parties stipulated to 
19

testimony from Nathaniel's older siblings. Nevaeh's and Mia's stipulated testimony was 

that they loved Nathaniel and did not want him to be adopted; they wanted to live with 

Nathaniel; they would be sad if they could not visit Nathaniel; when he visits they play 

with him and watch his favorite television shows with him; and they would like to see 

him more than once a week. Jesus's stipulated testimony was that he wanted Nathaniel 

"to stay with us[;]" he liked playing and visiting with Nathaniel and let him win when 

they played together; he would be sad if he could not see Nathaniel anymore and would 

feel angry if Nathaniel "was taken away from us."

When the hearing continued on December 29, the court received into evidence a 

bonding study authored by Sonia Carbonell, Psy.D., a psychologist, and her curriculum 

vitae. The study assessed the bond between Candy and Nathaniel. Based on her 

observations of interactions between Candy and Nathaniel and her "review of literature 

explaining the basis of attachment [as] part of the theoretical framework used for [her] 

opinion[,]" Dr. Carbonell concluded that severing Nathaniel's "natural parent-child 

relationship should greatly deprive Nathaniel of a substantial, positive emotional 

attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed." Dr. Carbonell noted that 

although the foster mother spoke to Nathaniel exclusively in Spanish, he responded to her 

predominately in English, which is Candy's language of preference. Dr. Carbonell stated 

that "Nathaniel's language preference suggests that the birth mother continues to be his 

primary attachment."

The court also received into evidence an Agency addendum report filed on 

December 24, 2014. The report included criticism of Dr. Carbonell's bonding study and a 
20

paper by a psychologist entitled "Second Language Acquisition in Early Childhood," in 

which the author notes that when a young child is learning two languages simultaneously, 

it is normal for one language to predominate as the child learns and becomes more 

comfortable with the second language. 

After hearing argument on the section 366.26 issues, the court found by clear and 

convincing evidence that Nathaniel was likely to be adopted and that none of the 

circumstances specified in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B) that would make 

termination of parental rights detrimental to him existed. The court acknowledged that 

termination of parental rights would affect Nathaniel's sibling relationships, but found 

that maintaining those relationships did not outweigh the benefits of adoption. 

The court acknowledged there was "a bond or a relationship" with Candy but 

thought Nathaniel had developed more of a mother-child relationship with his foster 

mother. The court concluded: " . . . I do not find that it has been established . . . or there 

is evidence supporting a conclusion that severing a natural parent[-]child relationship 

would deprive Nathaniel of a substantial positive emotional attachment such that he 

would be greatly harmed." The court found that Dr. Carbonell's conclusion to the 

contrary was largely "based on theory and not so much on what is before the [c]ourt."

Considering Nathaniel's special needs, the court added: "I think it would be a 

travesty for him if he remained in a permanent plan that was foster care, quite frankly, 

and the instability of foster care." The court rejected a suggestion by Candy's counsel 

that "we should grill the foster mother as to whether she really meant that she didn't --
21

that she wouldn't consider legal guardianship first, I note the benefits of adoption for this 

child are extraordinary. Permanence is extraordinary."

The court terminated parental rights and referred Nathaniel to the Agency for 

adoptive placement.

DISCUSSION

I. Beneficial Parent-Child Relationship Exception

Candy contends the court erred in finding that there was not a beneficial parentchild relationship between her and Nathaniel within the meaning of section 366.26, 

subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) that precluded the termination of her parental rights. " 'At a 

permanency plan hearing, the court may order one of three alternatives: adoption, 

guardianship or long-term foster care. [Citation.] If the dependent child is adoptable, 

there is a strong preference for adoption over the alternative permanency plans.' 

[Citation.] 'Once the court determines the child is likely to be adopted, the burden shifts 

to the parent to show that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child 

under one of the exceptions listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1). [Citations.] 

Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), provides an exception to termination of parental 

rights when "[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child 

and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." ' " (In re G.B. (2014) 227 

Cal.App.4th 1147, 1165 (G.B.).)

This court has interpreted "the 'benefit from continuing the [parent[-]child]

relationship' exception to mean the relationship promotes the well-being of the child to 

such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home 
22

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." (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 

575 (Autumn H.).)

"A parent asserting the parental benefit exception has the burden of establishing 

that exception by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation.] It is not enough to show 

that the parent and child have a friendly and loving relationship. [Citation.] ' "Interaction 

between [a] natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the 

child . . . ." ' [Citation.] For the exception to apply, 'a parental relationship is 

necessary[.]' [Citation.] ' "While friendships are important, a child needs at least one 

parent. Where a biological parent . . . is incapable of functioning in that role, the child 

should be given every opportunity to bond with an individual who will assume the role of 

a parent." ' " (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 529 (J.C.).) The court's finding on 

the issue is reviewed under the substantial evidence rule. (Autumn H., supra, 27 

Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) Under that rule "we must accept the evidence most favorable to 

the order as true and discard the unfavorable evidence as not having sufficient verity to 
23

be accepted by the trier of fact." (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 53 (Casey 

D.).)3

We conclude that Candy has not met her burden of establishing that the beneficial 

relationship exception to adoption applies. There is ample evidence in the record to 

support the finding that Candy failed to assume a parental role in Nathaniel's life,

especially with respect to Nathaniel's special medical needs. In considering whether 

Candy occupied a parental role, and in weighing the harm Nathaniel would suffer from 

severance of the Candy's parental relationship against the benefits he would gain from 

being adopted by his foster parents, the court's primary focus was properly on Nathaniel's 

fragile medical condition and special needs.

Nathaniel's medical providers, through pediatric nurse Martinez, emphasized the

"utmost importance" of meeting his health care needs, which include taking medications, 

receiving daily growth hormone injections, strictly adhering to a special diet, and living 

 

3 The Agency articulates the hybrid standard of review applied in In re Bailey J.

(2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Bailey J.) and J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th 503. In 

published opinions, this court has consistently applied the substantial evidence standard 

of review to challenges to orders determining the applicability of exceptions to adoption. 

(See, e.g., Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576; In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 

Cal.App.4th 942, 947; In re Megan S. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 247, 250-251; In re 

Christopher L. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1333-1334; In re Michael G. (2012) 203 

Cal.App.4th 580, 593-594 (Michael G.).) We need not decide whether to apply the 

hybrid standard in this case because applying that standard of review would not result in 

a different outcome. The analysis is essentially the same under either standard of review

because " '[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 

under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court's action, no 

judge could reasonably have made the order [under review].' " ' " (In re Jasmine D.

(2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351.)
24

in a clean and safe environment. Martinez explained that Nathaniel is a "medically 

fragile" child whose growth, developmental success, and long-term survival depend on 

his being in a "rigorously healthy and structured environment."

There was substantial evidence that Candy repeatedly fell short of meeting 

Nathaniel's critical medical needs. She repeatedly failed to adhere to his strict diet and 

exposed him to unsanitary conditions. During a visit that Phillips observed, there were 

flies in Candy's apartment, dirt on the carpet, trash piled in the trash can, and dirty dishes 

in the sink. Nathaniel returned to his caregiver from a later visit with a painful diaper 

rash and fungal infection caused by a saturated diaper. During another visit Candy took 

Nathaniel to the emergency room where he was treated for dehydration. He also received 

a bite mark on his right cheek, a bruise on his forehead, and a rash on his left cheek 

during his visitation with Candy. The CASA reported that Nathaniel had returned to his 

foster home from visits with Candy "with a fat lip, exhausted, and with diarrhea."

There was evidence that Candy did not take Nathaniel's kidney condition seriously 

despite the information she was provided about the seriousness of the condition. She did 

not consistently attend his medical appointments and was late for appointments. She had 

to be prompted to pay attention and did not take notes or ask questions about Nathaniel's 

condition during appointments. She was dismissive of Nathaniel's medical condition, 

stating that she knew "someone else who had the same thing as Nathaniel" and they "got 

better." She said she did not believe Nathaniel was born with his kidney condition and 

that it was the result of being removed from her. 
25

In addition to evidence that Candy neglected Nathaniel's medical needs, there was 

evidence that she had other lapses in judgment that put her children at risk of harm. She 

had transported her children in a vehicle without enough seat belts for all of them and 

instructed them to hide on the vehicle floor from Nathaniel's foster mother to conceal that 

fact. She left Mia and Sebastian unattended in her vehicle van for over one hour in a 

Walmart parking lot. Nevaeh had been removed from Candy's care as an infant in a prior 

dependency case because she was severely underweight and Candy did not follow 

medical directions for her care.

Phillips assessed Candy as being incapable of meeting Nathaniel's special needs

and reported that her "continued difficulty with following Nathaniel's strict diet and her 

loose supervision of him around his siblings calls into question her judgment and 

capacity to remain in a parental role." The CASA expressed similar concerns that if 

Nathaniel were returned to Candy, he would not receive the care he needs. She observed 

that Candy seemed to be struggling to meet her family's needs while having her other 

four children in her care. The CASA believed that "the addition of Nathaniel into this 

situation on a permanent basis, especially due to his medical condition, would only 

exacerbate [Candy]'s inability to keep her children safe and healthy." She further 

believed that Nathaniel was doing as well as he was "because of the stable environment 

of his foster home[] that he is in six nights a week. If not receiving his medication 

regularly and eating the appropriate diet, Nathaniel could quickly go into kidney failure 

and require dialysis and transplant at a much younger age than necessary." The CASA 

noted that although Nathaniel had a relationship with Candy and his siblings, he had not 
26

lived with them on a full-time basis for most of his life. She concluded that Nathaniel's 

being in an unsafe environment was a greater risk to his health and well-being than 

separation from Candy and his siblings.

There was substantial evidence that Nathaniel was thriving in his foster home. 

The foster mother reported that Nathaniel showed no signs of emotional distress when 

separating from Candy at the end of visits. The CASA reported that the foster parents 

were "very attentive caregivers, and are engaged in ensuring Nathaniel receives the 

medical care he needs." The foster mother was trained and competent to give Nathaniel 

his daily growth hormone injections, which had to be given in a clean environment, and 

her household met the necessary cleanliness standards. The CASA believed Nathaniel's 

foster placement was a "wonderful environment for Nathaniel and has proven to benefit 

his growth and development, along with his overall health." Phillips reported that both 

foster parents loved Nathaniel unconditionally and made meeting his medical needs a top 

priority. Her assessment was that Nathaniel's placement was a safe and nurturing home 

with caregivers who would consistently meet his medical, developmental, educational, 

and emotional needs. 

In its oral ruling, the court noted that Nathaniel would need a kidney transplant in 

the future and stated it had "relied on the medical assessments . . . of the need . . . of 

being in a clean home. A home that will keep him infection free, that follows routines 

and that can meet his medical needs, including the administration of medications to 

him . . . . And ultimately be a home that can also meet his needs as he ultimately 

recovers from a kidney transplant . . . ." The court further noted "how debilitating it is for 
27

[Nathaniel ] when the routine is not followed, when the diet is not acknowledged and 

followed, when he's exposed to filth or germs that can make him sick, or a fungus that 

can make him sick and perhaps unavailable should he get to the point where he's in need 

of a transplant. [¶] . . . And so I note in terms of his physical and medical needs, 

[Nathaniel] deserves a permanent, loving home [and caregiver] that can say I will stick 

by you no matter how sick you get, what the needs are[—][w]ho can be with him when 

procedures are painful. [¶] . . . He's different now than other almost[-]four-year-olds . . . . 

He's a child that still has to be watched like a much younger child because of the 

restrictions on his diet, because of the need of cleanliness and order."

The court found that Nathaniel had "thrived" and "done exceedingly well" in his 

current caregivers' home, which had "provided him permanence." The court found that 

the benefits of Nathaniel being adopted by someone who is "mindful of all of his whole 

constellation of needs is extraordinary[,]" and further found that "the benefits to date that 

he's enjoyed under the [c]ourt's supervision with a stable, loving and nurturing and 

medically mindful home are particularly extraordinary." The evidence before the court 

strongly supported these findings.

Candy cites Dr. Carbonell's bonding study as expert evidence supporting a finding 

that she and Nathaniel share a strong attachment and that Nathaniel would suffer great 

harm if their relationship were severed. The court stated that it had carefully considered 

Dr. Carbonell's curriculum vitae and bonding study. The court noted that Dr. Carbonell 

reviewed only the Agency's detention report, section 366.26 report, and April 3, 2014,

addendum report and thus did not have "the benefit of reviewing the many, many more 
28

reports, even that preexist the [section 366.]26 report." As an example, the court noted 

Dr. Carbonell did not have the benefit of much of the information regarding the physical 

effects of Nathaniel's past visitation with Candy, including "illnesses or coming back with 

bruises, bumps, fungal infection relating to a dirty diaper, very severe diarrhea, having to 

be sent to the hospital. A failure to give appropriate and careful supervision of the child 

while he was in the mother's home." The court believed that Dr. Carbonell's assessment 

was "affected by the limited amount of information that she had."

The court further noted that Dr. Carbonell viewed this case "as a competition or a

conflict of interest between the foster mother and the birth mother." The court disagreed 

with that view and stated that it thought "Dr. Carbonell jumped to a conclusion without 

having reviewed [all of the relevant information]." The court found that "the multitude of 

evidence" did not support Dr. Carbonell's view that Candy's struggle to comply with 

medical directives was in part due to the foster mother's behavior. The court stated that it 

had "significant concerns that Dr. Carbonell, having not reviewed all of the information 

in the case, is essentially seeing this through a lens of [it being] foster mother versus 

mother. . . . And so in this [c]ourt's mind, . . . it lessens the credibility of [Dr. 

Carbonell's] report." The court was "not overly persuaded" by Dr. Carbonell's conclusion 

that Nathaniel's language preference indicated his primary attachment was to Candy, 

noting that Dr. Carbonell did not support that conclusion with any citation to authority.

It is the trial court's role to assess the credibility of witnesses and resolve the 

conflicts in the evidence; we cannot reweigh the evidence, second-guess the trial court's 

credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. (Casey 
29

D., supra, 70 Cal.App.4th at pp. 52-53.) The juvenile court was entitled to give Dr. 

Carbonell's opinion little weight as not being based on a review of the entire record. 

Further, as the Agency's and Nathaniel's counsel both argued and the court observed, 

none of the research that Dr. Carbonell cited in her bonding study addressed language 

preference as an indicator of a primary attachment. Thus, her suggestion that Nathaniel's 

preference to speak in English evidences a primary attachment with Candy was 

unfounded. The court was entitled to give greater weight to Phillips's opinions and 

assessments (id. at p. 53), and to find the CASA credible. Substantial evidence supports 

the court's finding that there was not a parent-child relationship between Candy and 

Nathaniel within the meaning of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) that precluded 

the termination of parental rights.

II. Beneficial Sibling Relationship Exception

Candy and Jesus contend that the court erred in finding the sibling relationship 

exception to termination of parental rights and adoption under section 366.26, 

subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v) did not apply. As noted, " '[o]nce the court determines the child 

is likely to be adopted, the burden shifts to the parent to show that termination of parental 

rights would be detrimental to the child under one of the exceptions listed in section 

366.26, subdivision (c)(1).' " (G.B., supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 1165.) " 'The statutory 

exceptions merely permit the court, in exceptional circumstances [citation], to choose an 

option other than the norm, which remains adoption.' " (In re Hector A. (2005) 125 

Cal.App.4th 783, 791.)
30

"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).)" (Bailey J., supra, 189 

Cal.App.4th at p. 1317.) "A sufficiency of the evidence standard of review applies to the 

sibling relationship exception." (In re D.M. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 283, 291 (D.M.).)

The statutory language requiring the court to find a compelling reason to 

determine that substantial interference with a sibling relationship would be detrimental to 

the child creates "a heavy burden for the party opposing adoption. . . . Furthermore, the 

language focuses exclusively on the benefits and burdens to the adoptive child, not the 

other siblings. The court is specifically directed to consider the best interests of the 

adoptive child, not the siblings, and must ultimately determine whether adoption would 

be detrimental to the adoptive child, not the siblings." (In re Daniel H. (2002) 99 

Cal.App.4th 804, 813 (Daniel H.), italics added.) "[A]pplication of the sibling 

relationship exception will be rare, particularly when the proceedings concern a young 

child . . . whose need for a competent, attentive and caring parent is paramount." 
31

(Michael G., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 593; In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 

987, 1014.)

In the present case, the court found that maintaining Nathaniel's sibling 

relationships did not outweigh the benefits of adoption. The court stated it had 

considered the statutory factors, including the fact that Nathaniel had lived with his three 

older siblings for the first 15 of the 47 months of his life, and had been having overnight 

visits with his siblings during the past year. The court also considered the nature of 

Nathaniel's sibling relationships as reflected in the reports of his visitation and noted that 

"Nathaniel clearly enjoys his visitation with his siblings." The court concluded: "And 

having considered all of the factors and noting the extreme benefits of legal permanence 

and stability through adoption, I do not find that . . . the sibling relationship exception has 

been demonstrated. [¶] I do not . . . find that it has been demonstrated maintaining the 

sibling relationship outweighs the benefits of adoption. The court acknowledged that 

termination of parental rights would affect Nathaniel's sibling relationships, but correctly 

noted, "That's not the primary focus. I'm more focused on the balancing in terms of 

whether the benefits of adoption outweigh the maintenance of the sibling relationship and 

having taken into consideration everything that the statute requires the [c]ourt to do." 

The court found that the benefit Nathaniel would gain from being adopted by his foster 

parents was "extraordinary," and that the benefits he had "to date . . . enjoyed . . . with a 

stable, loving and nurturing and medically mindful home are particularly extraordinary." 

The court stated it was "mindful of the impact on [the siblings], but the focus of this 
32

particular hearing is the impact on . . . Nathaniel, so I do not find that [the sibling 

relationship] exception exists."

The court's assessment was reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. As 

this court has noted, 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.' " (D.M., supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 293.) In 

doing so here, the court properly considered Nathaniel's best interests rather than the 

siblings' best interests (Daniel H., supra, 99 Cal.App.4th at p. 813), and reasonably 

determined that adoption would be more beneficial than detrimental to Nathaniel, 

notwithstanding his sibling relationships. In addition to being a young child, Nathaniel 

has a life-threatening medical condition that makes his need for "competent, attentive and 

caring" parents especially "paramount." (Michael G., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 593.)

The court's finding that the benefit Nathaniel would gain from adoption 

outweighed any detriment he would suffer from severing his sibling relationships is 

amply supported by the above-noted evidence regarding Nathaniel's visitation with his 

siblings, the evidence that Candy repeatedly had difficulty following Nathaniel's strict 

diet and otherwise meeting his special medical needs, the evidence that her home 

environment increased the risks to his health and well-being, and the evidence that his 

foster parents provided him excellent care and were attentive to his medical and other 

needs. Nathaniel was a medically fragile child who needed a safe and clean environment 

to help prevent him from getting infections. During his visits with his siblings, he had 
33

sustained scratches and bruises, acquired a fungal infection, and been treated for 

dehydration. Phillips reported that although Nathaniel enjoyed spending time with his 

siblings, he did not ask for them when they were apart and did not have difficulty 

separating from them at the end of visits. She also reported that that both foster parents 

loved Nathaniel unconditionally and made meeting his medical needs a top priority. Her 

assessment was that Nathaniel's placement was a safe and nurturing home with caregivers 

who would consistently meet his medical, developmental, educational, and emotional 

needs. Based on Phillips's assessment and the other evidence before the court, the court 

reasonably found that the benefit Nathaniel would gain from the permanency of adoption 

substantially outweighed any benefit he would gain from maintaining his sibling 

relationships.

Jesus contends the court's finding on the sibling relationship exception is not 

supported by substantial evidence because it was largely based on Phillips's "inherently 

improbable" opinion that the exception did not apply. He argues that Phillips's opinion 

was "inherently improbable" because she spent only one hour observing Nathaniel with 

all of his siblings and did not "rely on a broad or deep understanding of the scientific 

literature."

Phillips's opinion was not inherently improbable evidence. A witness's statements 

are properly rejected as inherently improbable where there exists " 'either a physical 

impossibility that they are true, or their falsity [is] apparent without resorting to 

inferences or deductions. [Citations.] Conflicts and even testimony which is subject to 

justifiable suspicion do not justify the reversal of a judgment, for it is the exclusive 
34

province of the trial judge or jury to determine the credibility of a witness and the truth or 

falsity of the facts upon which a determination depends.' " (Evje v. City Title Ins. Co.

(1953) 120 Cal.App.2d 488, 492.) Evidence may be disregarded as inherently 

improbable only when it is "wholly unacceptable to reasonable minds . . . ." (Kircher v. 

Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co. (1948) 32 Cal.2d 176, 183; Tamble v. Downey (1951) 104 

Cal.App.2d 810, 812 ["Inherent improbability only exists when no reasonable person 

could believe the testimony."].)

Nothing in Phillips's reports and assessments meets the case law definition of 

"inherently improbable" evidence. Phillips's opinion regarding the sibling relationship 

exception was based on her review of the entire file, her experience as an Agency social 

worker, her firsthand observations of Candy and Nathaniel during four visits, including 

one where all four siblings were present, and her conversations with Candy and other 

relevant parties. The fact that Phillips's opinion was not expressly based in part on 

scientific literature does not render it inherently improbable or lacking in evidentiary 

support. The court reasonably relied on Phillips's opinion in deciding whether the sibling 

relationship exception applied, and it is disingenuous to suggest that no reasonable person 

could find her opinion credible. Substantial evidence supports the court's finding that the 

sibling relationship to adoption did not apply.
35

DISPOSITION

The order selecting adoption as the permanent plan for Nathaniel and terminating 

parental rights is affirmed.

HALLER, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

MCDONALD, J.