Filed 4/30/14 In re Julio C. CA2/1 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT 

DIVISION ONE 

In re JULIO C., et al., Persons Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court Law. 

 B251098 

 (Los Angeles County 

 Super. Ct. No. CK80668) 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY 

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILY SERVICES, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

LESLIE M., 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

 APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Veronica 

McBeth, Judge. (Retired judge of the L.A. Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed. 

 Jonathan B. Steiner and Anne E. Fragasso, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. 

 John F. Krattli, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel, and 

Kimberly A. Roura, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant. 

—————————— 
2

 A mother appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights 

over two of her five sons. She contends that the court erred in terminating her parental rights 

under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 because the beneficial sibling 

relationship exception, found in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v), should apply.1 We 

affirm the juvenile court’s order. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

 Twins Julio C. and P. C., born in March 2011, are the only subjects of this appeal. At 

the time of the twins’ birth, their three older brothers, Giovanny (born September 2002), 

Frankie (born July 2008), and Douglas (born January 2010), were already juvenile court 

dependents. The juvenile court took jurisdiction over the older boys in February 2010, after 

Douglas was born with methamphetamine in his system. The court found the boys’ mother, 

appellant Leslie M. (mother), had a lengthy history of substance abuse which placed the 

children at risk. The three boys were removed from the care of mother and Julio C. (father, 

who is not a party to this appeal), and placed in foster care. The twins were born premature, 

and a hospital referral reported that mother refused to feed or burp them, and appeared 

depressed, distant and unconcerned about the newborns. Mother and father participated in a 

voluntary family maintenance program for the twins from March until October 12, 2011. In 

June 2011, when the twins were about three months old, the three older boys were returned 

to the parents’ care. 

 Respondent Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a new 

referral alleging general neglect in mid-January 2012. According to the referral, mother had 

reported that the boys had been watching TV when father heard screaming. Father found 

Douglas with blood in his nose. Giovanny was also bloodied, and Frankie had bloody nose 

and, possibly, a broken blood vessel in one eye. The responding social worker reported that, 

on the second of two occasions on which she went to investigate the referral, she was almost 

 

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

otherwise indicated. 
3

unable to walk through the family home, which was filthy and full of trash. Mother 

explained that Frankie had been hit by another child, and that Giovanny had also hit Frankie 

the same day, causing a nosebleed. Douglas had a fresh bite mark where Frankie had bitten 

him. Giovanny said Frankie had annoyed him, so he used his hand to hit his brother on the 

head. Frankie had a black eye from an unrelated child. Mother had not sought medical 

attention for Frankie’s injuries. The parents admitted that father, who had a medical 

marijuana card for his back pain, began smoking marijuana again once the parents stopped 

being required to drug test for DCFS. Mother cleared the trash from the home, and took a 

drug test, which was clean. 

 In early February 2012, DCFS filed a nondetained petition, pursuant to section 300, 

subdivision (b) on behalf of the twins, and in order to provide additional services to the 

family. On a subsequent visit to the family’s home for a scheduled appointment, DCFS staff 

found Giovanny, Douglas and the twins home alone. The worker heard the children inside, 

knocked on the door multiple times and called the home phone number with no answer. 

After about 10 minutes, mother emerged from another apartment at the shelter and returned 

to the family’s apartment, which was filthy. DCFS determined it was necessary, due to 

safety and other concerns, to detain all five children from the parents. 

 On February 14, 2012, when social workers came to remove the children, they found 

Giovanny wandering around the shelter. After accompanying him back to the family’s 

apartment, they observed foul odors, old food in one crib and the children were very dirty. 

The maternal grandparents (MGP’s or, when mentioned individually, MGF and MGM), by 

then already caring for Douglas, took in the other four children. The same day, the court 

ordered that the twins be detained in the MGP’s care and gave the parents monitored visits. 

Three days later the court ordered that the older three boys be detained with the MGP’s. 

 Within two weeks, all the children were removed from the MGP’s care after one of 

the 11-month-old twins was injured in mother’s care during a visit that was supposed to have 

been monitored by MGM. Mother, unsupervised, was in a bedroom with the twins. While 

mother was changing diaper of one of the twins, the other boy pulled a table over and it 

landed on his head. Mother and MGM sought medical attention for the injured infant. On 
4

February 27, 2012, the juvenile court ordered the children removed from the MGP’s care. At 

that time, Giovanny was separated from his brothers and placed by himself in one foster 

home, and the four younger children were placed together in another. DCFS recommended 

the separation because of Giovanny’s “aggressive behaviors with his younger siblings which 

include hitting them in anger and frustration, and rough interactions.” DCFS promised to 

make an effort to ensure regular sibling visits. 

 The adjudication hearing was conducted on March 7, 2012. In its report for that 

hearing, DCFS reported that Giovanny said he “punched Frankie [because] he was getting 

[o]n [his] nerves,” and that Frankie always bit people. Mother told the social worker Frankie 

needed therapy for his biting issues. Giovanny was in therapy to learn to deal with his 

aggressive behavior. The report also reflected DCFS’s observation that mother had ongoing 

issues with depression underlying her substance abuse and parenting problems, and that she 

had not taken advantage of counseling services. The court asserted jurisdiction over the 

children under section 300, subdivision (b), terminated its home of parents order as to the 

three eldest children and ordered permanent placement services for all five children. Mother 

was given monitored visits, and father was permitted unmonitored visitation so long as his 

drug tests were negative. The court ordered relative placement for Giovanny, and suitable 

placement for the other children. 

 Giovanny was again placed with his MGP’s. The four youngest siblings were placed 

together in a foster home. However, in early May 2012, all four children were removed from 

that foster home after the caretakers complained they could no longer work with the parents 

who were disrespectful and critical of them. DCFS tried to, but could not, find a foster home 

willing to take all four siblings. On May 3, 2012, Douglas and Frankie were placed in one 

foster home and the twins in another. The parents and MGP’s visited the children regularly 

and appropriately. Giovanny, who reportedly missed his siblings and was struggling with his 

separation from them, also visited the twins when the MGP’s did so. 

 In August, the twins’ foster mother told DCFS she could no longer care for them 

because they displayed too many negative behaviors, including biting and hitting each other 

and her other foster children. Although the twins had made positive changes, the foster 
5

mother recommended that they be in separate placements because of the risk that they could 

severely hurt one another. By September 28, 2012, the twins had been moved to two more 

foster homes. Their current caretakers were not interested in adoption. Mother, the MGF 

and Giovanny visited the twins twice a week. 

 On October 22, 2012, the juvenile court found that mother and father had not 

complied with their case plans, and terminated reunification services. Monitored visits were 

continued, the court ordered an adoptive home study for the twins and set the matter for a 

selection and implementation hearing in mid-February 2013. 

 In November 2012, DCFS reported that the twins, who had been in five different 

placements, had had 20 sibling visits with Giovanny in the past six months, but none with 

Frankie or Douglas, who were now placed in separate foster homes. All four of the younger 

boys had been moved several times since their February 2012 detention; the boys were 

considered a “handful” and “no foster home wanted them together.” The children’s behavior 

began stabilizing after they were separated. 

 On February 19, 2013, the juvenile court ordered DCFS to provide an update 

regarding adoption for the twins. No prospective adoptive parents had been identified yet, 

and DCFS was ordered to address the possibility of placing them with the MGP’s, in whose 

care Giovanny was doing well. The MGP’s wanted to adopt all five boys. DCFS reported 

that Frankie, Douglas, and the twins were doing well in their foster homes. The twins were 

developing well and enjoyed playing together, but their foster parent was not interested in 

adoption. Visits for the parents and grandparents were scheduled for three separate days and 

times for the twins, Frankie, and Douglas. Giovanny participated in the visits. He expressed 

feeling happy during visits with his brothers, and wanted more visits. 

 According to DCFS, the children did not have “consistent sibling visits due to long 

distances among foster parents, school schedules of minors Frankie and Giovanny and foster 

parents[’] issue with driving long distances.” On February 21, 2013, DCFS coordinated a 

sibling visit for Frankie, Douglas, and the twins by taking the two older boys to the twins’ 

foster home, where the children spent two hours together. DCFS indicated it would continue 

making reasonable efforts to arrange sibling visits. DCFS noted that in the past, the boys’ 
6

aggressive and disruptive behavior had made it impossible to place the siblings in a single 

placement. But the children had stabilized in their current placements, and their current 

caregivers expressed no concerns. DCFS was concerned that if the children were returned to 

the MGP’s, their disruptive behavior might resurface due to a lack of structure and parenting 

skills in the MGP’s home. DCFS identified prospective adoptive parents in February 2013, 

and began the preplacement process. 

 On March 6, 2013, the juvenile court ordered DCFS to prepare a progress report to 

address the possibility of adoption of the three eldest boys by the MGP’s, and their 

participation in services. DCFS was also ordered to facilitate sibling visits. 

 On March 28, 2013, the twins were placed in a preadoptive home with caregivers 

Mr. A. and Mr. H., with whom they remain. DCFS reported that the twins were adjusting 

well, their caregivers were meeting all their needs and the family was developing a close and 

loving relationship with the children. The caregivers were strongly committed to adopting 

the twins. 

 MGF had weekly monitored visits with the twins, although he missed several in 

April, May, and June. In late April 2013, he began attending parenting classes and 

counseling. MGM had not enrolled in any programs. 

 At a hearing on June 18, 2013, mother’s counsel informed the court that only one 

sibling visit had taken place, and asked that sibling visits immediately be facilitated. DCFS 

was ordered to address “the status of sibling visits” in its next report. That report, submitted 

in July, reflected that Frankie, Douglas, and the twins had one two-hour sibling visit in July 

2013. The boys played soccer, ate snacks and interacted cheerfully at a park. DCFS 

reported that the boys had not had sibling visits due to conflicting school schedules, and 

because some foster parents were unable to drive long distances. DCFS expected the boys 

would have monthly sibling visits during summer, but that the frequency would taper off 

again once school began. DCFS noted that Giovanny saw his siblings during the MGP’s 

visits. 

 On July 9, 2013, separate counsel was appointed to represent the twins after the boys’ 

counsel declared a conflict, and the matter was continued. 
7

 At a hearing on August 20, 2013, father’s counsel informed the court that sibling 

visits had not been occurring as often as they should be. DCFS was ordered to establish a 

regular visitation schedule. Mother requested visits with all five boys together. The court 

ordered DCFS to see if such visits could be arranged. 

 On August 30, 2013, the MGP’s filed a section 388 petition seeking to have all five 

boys placed in their care, on the ground that they wanted to “maintain the strong familial 

bond and relationship.” The allegedly changed circumstances was the MGP’s participation 

in court-recommended services and ongoing weekly visits with the children. 

 In its final status review report for the September 4, 2013 hearing, DCFS reported that 

Giovanny was doing well in the MGP’s home. Through therapy, he had learned ways to 

communicate his needs without responding aggressively toward his peers, and had discussed 

sibling separation and visits. Frankie was doing well in his foster home, but wanted to live 

with his MGP’s. DCFS reported that Douglas was also doing well in his foster home. The 

twins too were doing well in the care of their foster parents, who were committed to adopting 

them. The twins were developing well, and responding to services from the Regional 

Center. The twins’ vocabulary was increasing, and they were learning to feed themselves. 

Their disruptive behaviors had diminished, although some biting was ongoing. One teacher 

told DCFS she believed the biting behavior was the result of the boys’ frustration with an 

inability to communicate and that as their vocabulary increased, the biting would decrease. 

The family continued to develop a close and loving bond. The twins had become very 

attached to their prospective adoptive parents, and “w[ould] run with great joy when [the] 

caregivers show[ed] up to the daycare to take them back home.” 

 MGF had consistent weekly monitored visits with the twins, who responded well to 

him. MGM had visited inconsistently, and the twins often ran from, and refused to interact 

with her, unless she offered them junk food. The parents’ visits were inconsistent, but they 

acted appropriately when they came. The report indicated that an August 2013 sibling visit 

had been considered, but did not say whether one occurred. MGF was taking parenting 

classes and counseling, and MGM had begun parenting courses. 
8

 On September 4, 2013, the juvenile court first addressed the MGP’s section 388 

petition, and observed that it lacked any new information. Mother’s counsel requested that 

all five boys be placed with their grandparents. Counsel for the three oldest children asked 

that plans be made to return Frankie and Douglas to the grandparents, noting they were “very 

differently situated from the younger twins,” and argued it was in the three older boys’ best 

interest to be together. Counsel for the twins requested that the petition be denied as to them. 

He noted that one of the twins had been injured due to MGM’s failure to supervise mother, 

and that the grandparents had not visited often: MGF came about twice a month, and MGM 

had hardly visited at all until recently. Moreover, it was not in the twins’ best interest to be 

returned to their grandparents. The children were “thriving in the home,” of their prospective 

adoptive parents and would be adopted if parental rights were terminated. 

 The court agreed and denied the petition as to the twins. The court observed that the 

cause for the children’s removal from the MGP’s had been very serious. Moreover, the twoyear-old twins were not bonded to their older brothers in the same way the older siblings 

might be to them. In addition, five children was a lot for two older adults to care for. The 

court observed that the twins appeared to be thriving in their preadoptive home. The court 

also denied the petition as to the three older boys, but observed that as those boys were on a 

“totally different track” than the twins, their plan was to work toward placing them with the 

MGP’s. 

 The court then proceeded to the section 366.26 hearing as to the twins. 

 Mother testified that at first, the twins had not wanted to leave when visits ended. 

Now they seemed to have adjusted. In recent visits, she had tried to explain to the twins who 

their mother, grandparents and oldest brother was. They ran to her during visits, were happy 

and called her “mommy” or “mama.” They used “papa” to refer, not to father, but to their 

foster father. Mother believed there had been two sibling visits in 2013 between the four 

younger children, and that Giovanny visited his siblings with his MGF. Giovanny told the 

court he wanted his brothers to be with him on his upcoming birthday. 

 Mother argued the parental and sibling relationship exceptions should apply to 

prevent termination of parental rights. With regard to the sibling relationship exception, she 
9

asserted that DCFS had not made reasonable efforts to facilitate sibling visits. Father joined 

mother’s argument. 

 Counsel for the three oldest boys informed the court that her clients wished to be 

reunited with their brothers. 

 The twins’ attorney urged the court to terminate parental rights. He noted that the 

twins had been separated from their siblings since they were 11 months old, and that under 

the circumstances, it was difficult to argue that the siblings had formed a significant bond. 

Counsel argued it was in the twins’ “best interest to remain with the current adoptive parents 

as they are thriving . . . , and it would be a detriment for them to be removed from that 

setting.” 

 The juvenile court agreed. The court observed that after having had to be moved 

from several foster homes, the twins had found “a place where they’re thriving, doing 

exceptionally well.” The court also observed that, while it did not “doubt that the older 

children are bonded to the younger children, . . . it would be very difficult for [it] to see these 

younger children are bonded in that way to the older kids.” After expressing its hope that 

future sibling visits could be facilitated, the court found the twins adoptable, found that no 

exception applied and terminated parental rights as to them. 

 Mother’s counsel asked that the twins’ matter be referred to the Consortium for 

Children, indicating that the prospective adoptive parents had indicated their willingness to 

allowing ongoing sibling visits. The court agreed a referral was appropriate “to see if we can 

work out future sibling visits.” Mother filed this timely appeal. 

DISCUSSION 

 Mother contends that the juvenile court erred in terminating her parental rights 

because it should have applied the sibling relationship exception to termination under section 

366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v). 

 “At a hearing under section 366.26, the court must select and implement a permanent 

plan for a dependent child. Where there is no probability of reunification with a parent, 

adoption is the preferred permanent plan. [Citation.] To implement adoption as the 

permanent plan, the juvenile court must find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the 
10

minor is likely to be adopted if parental rights are terminated. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) Then, 

in the absence of evidence that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the 

child under statutorily specified exceptions (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)–(B)), the juvenile 

court ‘shall terminate parental rights’ (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)).” (In re K.P. (2012) 203 

Cal.App.4th 614, 620.) 

 “The sibling relationship exception [to termination of parental rights] 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. (2010) 189 

Cal.App.4th 1308, 1317.) The court must also bear in mind that “‘the “sibling relationship 

exception contains strong language creating a heavy burden for the party opposing adoption. 

It only applies 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’ with a sibling relationship.” [Citations.]’” (In re Naomi P. (2005) 

132 Cal.App.4th 808, 823.) Further, the possible detriment to be considered is not detriment 

to any sibling, but only the detriment of the child being considered for adoption. (In re 

Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 54.) 

On appeal, we review the juvenile court’s factual determination as to whether a 

significant sibling relationship exists for substantial evidence. That court’s decision as to 

whether termination of that relationship would be detrimental to the child is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion. (In re K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at pp. 621–622.) 

 Mother maintains that the juvenile court should have applied the sibling relationship 

exception to the termination of parental rights because the twins, who were two and one-half 

years old at the time of the section 366.26 hearing, and had lived with their three siblings for 
11

only about 11 months of their lives, “had as good a sibling relationship as was possible under 

the circumstances,” and because it would be “unconscionable for [DCFS] to prevent a sibling 

relationship from forming by refusing to comply with court orders to facilitate sibling visits.” 

We disagree. 

 The court noted that although it didn’t “doubt that the older children [were] bonded to 

[the twins],” it was “very difficult . . . to see these younger children are bonded . . . to the 

older kids,” and concluded that the sibling exception did not apply. Substantial evidence 

supports the juvenile court’s determination that no significant sibling relationship existed. 

Before the petition was filed in mid-February 2012, the 11-month-old twins had lived with 

their three brothers for only about seven months of their lives. By the end of February 2012, 

Giovanny was separated from the other three boys because of his aggressive and controlling 

behavior with his brothers. By early May 2012, the twins had been removed from the first of 

a series of several foster homes and separated from all three of their brothers because the 

boys hit and kicked one another and other foster children in the home. The twins have been 

apart from their siblings ever since. On this record and in light of their young age and the 

relatively brief period they lived with their brothers, the twins cannot be said to share with 

their siblings the sort of bond this exception was designed to protect. The record contains no 

evidence that prior to separation, the relationship between the twins and their brothers was 

particularly close or strong, or that they shared significant common experiences. Indeed, the 

scant evidence in the record of the nature of the relationship between the siblings, reflects 

one largely characterized by aggression, anger and violence. “Since the undisputed evidence 

did not compel a finding that [the siblings] had a sibling relationship that was beneficial to 

[the twins], the juvenile court’s finding that the sibling relationship exception to adoption did 

not apply was supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 1318, italics omitted.) 

 Even assuming the evidence was sufficient to establish a significant sibling 

relationship, mother could not prevail on appeal. The second prong of the exception 

involves a determination by the court “‘that there is a “compelling reason” for concluding 

termination of parental rights would be “detrimental” to the child due to “substantial 
12

interference” with the sibling relationship’” when weighed against the benefit of legal 

permanence through adoption. (In re Celine R., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 61; § 366.26, 

subd. (c)(1)(B)(v).) We bear in mind that “application of this exception will be rare, 

particularly when the proceedings concern young children whose need for a competent, 

caring and stable parent are paramount.” (In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 

1014.) 

 Here, the balance between the sibling relationship versus the benefits of adoption tilts 

strongly in favor of adoption. By the time the section 366.26 hearing, the twins had spent 

approximately five months in the home of their prospective adoptive parents, a home DCFS 

characterized as close and loving. The twins were reportedly thriving in the care of foster 

parents, who were prepared to adopt them and who attended to their physical, emotional, and 

psychological needs. Failing to terminate parental rights would have deprived the twins of 

the permanent home their caregivers were prepared to provide. Their immediate need is for 

stability and permanence. In rare cases, a closely bonded relationship between siblings 

constitutes sufficient reason to preclude the termination of parental rights of an otherwise 

adoptable child. This is not the “rare” case in which the sibling relationship exception 

applies. (In re Valerie A., supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p.1014.) 

 This case thus bears a marked resemblance to In re Valerie A., supra, 152 

Cal.App.4th 987. There, toddler twins and their half-sibling, who was six years older, had 

daily contact before the twins were removed from parental custody. (Id. at pp. 994, 1010, 

1013.) The siblings subsequently lived together for about seven months, from the time the 

twins were 17 months to about two years old, before the siblings were separated. (Id. at 

pp. 994, 1010.) The court concluded that “the record clearly shows the children’s best 

interests were served by adoption and the sibling relationship exception did not apply to 

preclude termination of parental rights. The children . . . were raised in the same home for a 

relatively short period of time. Although they had contact . . . since birth, the trial court 

reasonably could infer the experiences the children shared . . . would not be as meaningful to 

them, as infants and toddlers, as the experiences were to [a child], who was six years older. 

Even though . . . interactions . . . were loving, affectionate, playful and nurturing, the court 
13

reasonably could determine the children’s long-term emotional interests, due to their ages 

and needs, were better served by the permanency of adoption rather than by continued 

sibling contact.” (Id. at p. 1013, fn. omitted.) 

 The record does not reflect that the twins suffered emotional distress from missing 

their brothers either between their sporadic visits, or that they encountered any difficulty 

separating from them at the end of the few visits they did have. Moreover, the twins’ 

prospective adoptive parents reported a willingness to facilitate future visits between the 

siblings. Thus, “termination of parental rights [will] not necessarily foreclose the 

continuation of the sibling relationships.” (In re Valerie A., supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at 

p. 1014.) Here, as in Valerie A., the trial court justifiably was not convinced there would be a 

disruption in the siblings’ relationship. (Ibid.) 

 Finally, we reject mother’s assertion that the order terminating parental rights must be 

reversed because to affirm would permit the “unconscionable” result of allowing DCFS to 

“prevent a sibling relationship from forming by refusing to comply with court orders to 

facilitate sibling visits.” We turn again to Valerie A., in which the mother argued that 

because of an improper denial of sibling visitation, she was denied a fair opportunity to 

litigate the sibling relationship exception to termination of parental rights. The court 

observed that statutory considerations relevant to determining the nature and extent of the 

sibling relationship include the disjunctive alternative factors of “whether the child shared 

significant common experiences with a sibling or whether the child has existing bonds with a 

sibling.” (Valerie A., supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 1008.) The juvenile court is thus able to 

consider whether the child shared significant common experiences with his or her siblings in 

the past and to evaluate the strength of their relationship, before regular visitation became 

difficult or impossible. In other words, the Legislature recognized that children involved in 

dependency proceedings often exert little or no control in maintaining sibling relationships. 

Further, in contrast with the section 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i) “beneficial relationship” exception to 

termination of parental rights, the juvenile court need not consider whether a child has 

maintained regular visitation and contact with his or her siblings to determine the 

applicability of the sibling relationship exception. In sum, while it should certainly not be 
14

condoned, even an erroneous denial of sibling visitation, as may have occurred in Valerie A. 

or here, will not compromise a parent’s ability to prove the sibling relationship exception. 

(Ibid.) 

 Under these circumstances, any detriment to the twins from the loss of a legal tie to 

their siblings was necessarily outweighed by the benefit of being freed for adoption into a 

loving, permanent home. We find no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s 

determination that the sibling relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision 

(c)(1)(B)(v) did not apply. 

DISPOSITION 

 The order terminating parental rights is affirmed. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 JOHNSON, J. 

We concur: 

 CHANEY, Acting P. J. 

 MILLER, J*

 

* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant 

to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.