Filed 2/5/14 In re Oscar D. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re OSCAR D., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. B250432 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. CK89585)

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
YASMINE G.,
Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Lo s Angeles County, Jacqueline H. Lewis, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Terence M. Chucas, 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 Co unsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 I. INTRODUCTION

The mother, Yasmine G., a ppeals from an order terminating her parental rights to Oscar D. following a conteste d Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 366.26 hearing. The mother argues the parent-child relationshi p exceptions to adoption apply. We reject these contentions and affirm the pa rental rights termination order.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

1. The petition

On September 6, 2011, the Los Angele s County Department of Children and Family Services (the department) filed a sec tion 300, subdivisions (a) and (b) petition. The department acted on behalf of then th ree-year-old Albert V. and five-month-old
Oscar D. Albert V. and Oscar D. share the sa me mother but have di fferent fathers. The section 300, subdivision (a) count alleges the following. The mother and O.D., Oscar D.’s father, had engaged in a violent confrontation on August 6, 2011. During that altercation, O.D. choked the moth er and pushed her to the floor inflicting a bruise on her knee. O.D. pulled the mother’s ha ir and struck her back with his fists. O.D. pushed the mother against a tras h can. The mother bit O.D.’s arm, inflicting bite marks.
The mother was arrested fo r spousal assault. The section 300, subdivision (b) count alleges the following. The violence between the mother and O.D. endangered th e physical and emotional health of the children. The mother had a history of drug abuse, including methamphetamine use and daily marijuana use. On Augu st 11, 2011, the mother tested positive for marijuana. The

1 All future code references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise noted.3 mother had a filthy and unsanitary home for the children, with tras h, molding food and dirty diapers throughout. O.D. had a histor y of drug use and was a current abuser of amphetamine, methamphetamine, and cocaine. O.D. tested positive for the above illicit drugs on August 24, 2011. O.D. had a prior crimin al conviction for possession of
controlled substance narcotics. On September 6, 2011, the detention hear ing was held. The juvenile court found a prima facie case to detain both children. It ordered temporary plac ement and custody of the children vested with the department. Th e children were placed with the maternal grandmother. The parents were gr anted monitored visitation. On November 1, 2011, the department f iled an amended petition on behalf of the
children. A new count was added under se ction 300, subdivision (b). The new count alleged the mother and O.D. engaged in a vi olent altercation on October 6, 2011. O.D. held the mother against her will in the back room of his residence. O.D. swung a machete at the mother causing her to suffer multiple cuts to her hands which required
stitches. On January 10, 2012, a contested jurisdic tion hearing was held. The juvenile court dismissed the section 300, subdivi sion (a) count in the interest of justice. It dismissed the section 300, subdivision (b) allegation fo r a filthy and unsanitary home. However, it sustained the remaining counts unde r section 300, subdivision (b). On February 22, 2012, the dispositiona l hearing was held. The juvenile court found Oscar D. was a dependent child and re moved custody from the mother. Oscar D. was ordered detained with his maternal gr andmother pending the next hearing. The juvenile court provided the mother with family reunific ation services and monitored
visitation. The mother would have to demons trate an ability to meet Oscar D.’s physical
and emotional needs and the ab ility to provide stable and appropriate housing before reunification would occur. Dispositional issues concerning Albert V. were continued. A.V. is Albert V.’s father. On June 14, 20 12, the juvenile court placed Albert V. with
A.V.4 2. Review hearings

On October 3, 2012, the juvenile cour t found the mother had partially made progress towards alleviating the causes for foster placement care of Oscar D. The juvenile court ordered family reunification se rvices for the mother terminated. Notice was not sufficient, so Oscar D.’s case was co ntinued to November 8, 2012, and then to December 6, 2012. On December 6, 2012, the juvenile court found the department provided O.D. with
reasonable services and that he made minima l progress towards alleviating the causes for foster placement care. Reunification serv ices with O.D. were terminated. The department was ordered to prepare an asse ssment report pursuant to section 366.26 for
Oscar D. Oscar D.’s section 366.26 hear ing was scheduled for April 3, 2013.

3. Modification petition

On December 17, 2012, th e mother filed a section 388 petition. The mother requested the juvenile court modify its order granting her monitored visits with Oscar D. She requested her visits become liberalized and unmonitored. She alleged changed circumstances since the juvenile court made its monitored visitation order. She alleged compliance with her case plan. She alleged the foster family limited her visits with Oscar D. to one visit per week for two hours. Th e mother alleged unmonito red visits would be
in Oscar D.’s best interest because she was very bonded to him. Unmonitored visits would allegedly allow the juvenile court to assess the mother’s parenting skills and ability to have Oscar D. in her care and custody. On December 17, 2012, th e maternal grandmother f iled her own section 388 petition. She requested Oscar D. be returned to her home. Oscar D. had been removed from her custody on December 6, 2012. Th e juvenile court denied the maternal grandmother’s modification pe tition without a hearing. On February 27, 2013, the juvenile court denied the mother’s section 388 petition after a contested hearing. The5 juvenile court found the best interests of Oscar D. would not be served by placing him with the mother. No appeals were take n from the denial of the two modification petitions.

4. Termination of reunification services

At the contested six-month review hearin g on October 3, 2012, the juvenile court
terminated reunification servic es. On October 6, 2012, th e social worker told the maternal grandmother that the juvenile c ourt had ordered the department to find a permanent home for Oscar D. On December 4, 2012, Oscar D. wa s removed from his maternal grandmother’s home and placed in foster care. On De cember 6, 2012, the juvenile court set the matter fo r a section 366.26 selection and implementation hearing on April 3, 2013. On December 19, 2012, Osca r D. was placed in the prospective adoptive home. Oscar D. remained in the prospec tive adoptive home to th e present.

5. Parental rights termination hearing

On June 3, 2013, the parental rights te rmination hearing was held. Previously, on May 17, 2013, the mother filed her second section 388 petition. She argued that her
visits with Oscar D. be liberalized to unmon itored visits with the goal of having overnight
visits within two months. The issue of the second modification hearing was resolved at the June 3, 2013 parental ri ghts termination hearing. At the contested section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court found Oscar D. was adoptable. The juvenile cour t found no satisfactory exceptio ns to adoption applied in the case. The juvenile court term inated the mother and O.D.’s parental rights to Oscar D. The juvenile court denied her section 388 petition without hear ing on June 3, 2013. The mother appeals from the June 3, 2013 parental rights termination order. No issue has been raised on appeal concerning the summary denial of the mother’s second modification petition.6 B. Factual Background

1. Detention report

The September 1, 2011 dete ntion report reveals the fo llowing. On August 6, 2011, a referral regarding Oscar D. and Albe rt V. came to the department alleging physical and emotional abuse and general neglect . O.D. explained that at the time of the incident, he and the mother had plans to go shopping. O.D. stated the mother instead wanted to go smoke marijuana with her frien ds. O.D. said the mother smoked marijuana daily. O.D. confronted the mother about marks and bruise s on Oscar D. O.D. believed
the marks and bruises were inflicted because the mother did not properly supervise Oscar D. O.D. told the mother she was not going sh opping as planned. O.D. said the mother became violent and started fighting with him. O.D. stated the mother punched and hit him. O.D. stated that the mother is good, but when she needs “‘that thing,’” presumably illegal drugs, “‘she loses her mind.’” O.D. ad mitted he had been in prison all his life but he was now an actor and was writing a book.
Oscar D. and Albert V. resided together in the mother’s home from March 2011 until being taken into protective custody on August 31, 2011. During this time, Albert V.
left the mother’s home on weekends to visit his paternal grandparents. Albert V. was placed with his paternal gran dparents following th e mother’s arrest on August 6 until the September 6, 2011 detention hearing. The ma ternal grandmother said the mother had to use marijuana for pain based on her prescrip tion. The maternal grandmother said the mother took care of Oscar D. and fed him properly. According to the maternal grandmother: “‘I have never seen her [lose] her patience with the baby. She is a good
mom.’”
The mother was released from jail on August 11, 2011 . Interviewed upon her release, the mother said on the day of the incident, she a nd O.D. had agreed to go buy
clothes for Oscar D. The mother received a phone call from a friend. The friend was to give the mother a ride to purchase medical ma rijuana. The mother told O.D. she needed7 to buy more marijuana and would return so on to go shopping. O.D. became upset and started arguing and accusing her of being unfaithful. O.D. told her she was not going. The mother ran to prevent any further injury. O.D. chased the mother, grabbed her and threw her against a trash can. O.D. pulled her hair and choked her and the mother bit his
arm. O.D. threw the mother to the floor and punched her on the back. Th e mother had a large scrape on her knee. The mother said O.D. called police officer s he knew. According to the mother, the officer accepted O.D.’s side of the story. The mother was afraid to report what happened because she feared O.D. retaliating against her and her family. The mo ther said O.D. was a gang member. The trial court issued a re straining order against the mother, barring her
from contact with O.D. or Oscar D. The moth er stated she used ma rijuana after receiving a prescription for lower back and pelvic pain following Oscar D.’s birth. The mother reported the department had removed he r children previously because of her methamphetamine abuse. She had a voluntar y case with the department from June 2010 to March 2011, when Oscar D. was born. Th e mother completed parenting classes, drug counseling, and random drug testing as re quired by the voluntar y case plan. On August 24, 2011, O.D. tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine and
cocaine. The social worker info rmed O.D. that Oscar D. would be detained. O.D. stated this was fine and Oscar D. was placed with the maternal grandmother. At the September 6, 2011 detention hearing, Oscar D. and Albert V. we re placed in the maternal grandmother’s home.

2. Sheriff’s report

The sheriff’s report from the August 6, 2011 incident indicated the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department responded to a do mestic violence call at the mother’s home. The mother had slight redness and swelling to her right forehead and an abrasion to her right knee. The mother sarcas tically stated she fell. Duri ng a search of the mother’s purse, deputies found a clear plastic methamph etamine pipe. Based on O.D.’s statements8 and injuries, the deputies arre sted the mother fo r spousal abuse. The deputies observed the residence had a foul odor, with trash and old food on the floor throughout the house. The mother was also charged with narcotic paraphernalia possession and child endangerment.

3. Jurisdiction/disposition and interim review reports

On September 29, 2011, the department submitted a jurisdiction/ disposition report. The mother changed her story ab out the fight with O.D. The mother now stated that she and O.D. were only pushing e ach other, not punching, and she cut her knee because she tripped on her shoe lace. The mother stated the pipe th e sheriff’s deputies discovered was not hers. The mother admitted, “‘I was going to give it to a friend of mine.’” The mother
believed she would benefit from domestic violence and anger ma nagement counseling.
The social worker wrote that on Octobe r 6, 2011, there was another incident between the mother and O.D. According to the mother, O.D. forc ed her back to his
house and threatened to kill he r. The mother alleged O.D. attempted to cut her with a machete and she sustained injuries to her hand s. No arrests were made and no report was
taken. O.D. stated she came to his house upset and already bleeding. The maternal grandmother moved from he r home with Oscar D. and Albert V. on October 12, 2011. On October 25, 2011, the social worker re ported the maternal grandmother initially refused to make the child ren available to the so cial worker. This was because the maternal grandmother feared O.D. would harm her. The maternal grandmother eventually brought the children to a department o ffice. There, the maternal grandmother was told the children were to be removed from her custody temporarily until she obtained an approved home. The children we re placed in separate foster homes. On November 1, 2011, the juvenile court ordere d them placed with the maternal grandmother pending the next hearing. In the January 10, 2012 in terim review report, the mo ther claimed enrollment in parenting, anger management, individual couns eling, and drug and alcohol counseling at9 an outreach program. The mo ther received reunification se rvices, including: parenting education; anger management; a drug rehabilita tion program; and random drug testing. In the February 22, 2012 interim review report, the social worker reported the mother tested positive for marijuana on February 14, 2012. The mother fa lsely stated she
received services from an agency, the Communi ty Outreach Program. But the Community Outreach Program did not provide services but only ma de referrals. The mother missed an intake appointment on Janua ry 3, 2012 and did not reschedule. As a result of her criminal cases, the mother was placed on 36 mont hs of probation and
ordered to attend 12 alcoholics or na rcotics anonymous meetings.

4. Reunification period

By August 2012, the social worker reported Oscar D. continued to reside with the maternal grandmother in a hom e not approved under the Adopt ion and Safe Fa milies Act. (42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq.) The maternal grandmother, mate rnal aunt, and uncle had not timely returned the required paperwork in orde r to secure approval of the residence. The family had a criminal history. In June 2010, the department substa ntiated physical abuse by the maternal uncle against the mother. The social wo rker reported the maternal grandmother was evasive when questioned. Neither the maternal grandmother nor O.D.
made themselves available for the social worker to contact. A letter from U-Turn Alcohol and Drug Education Program reported that the mother entered drug treatment on May 7, 2 012. The mother was required to attend two or three sessions per week with each se ssion being 90 minutes long. The program’s subjects included alcohol and drug use, domestic violence, anger management, relapse prevention, trigger identification, and pers onal responsibility. The counselors reported the mother was receptive to th e program, though they woul d like her to become more active during group discussions. The mother was drug tested as part of the program. She tested positive for marijuana on May 7 and June 20, 2012 and negative for all drugs on July 27, 2012.10 The mother did not appear as required fo r several department random drug tests, including February 27, March 27, May 12 and 23 , June 7, July 24, a nd August 8, 2012. She tested positive for cannabi noids on March 13, May 23, and June 18 of 2012. The mother reported she visited Os car D. twice a week. The ma ternal grandmother monitored the mother’s visits, which occurred on the week ends because the childre n lived far away. The department recommended the parents’ reunification services be terminated. As of February 13, 2012, the mother was not visiting Oscar D. because of the restraining order. On March 28, 2012, the maternal gr andmother, the mother, and children came to the department office. The mother reported th e restraining order was dropped at her last criminal hearing and she was visiting both childre n. As of June 2012 , the mother lived in Los Angeles and visited Albert V. on Fridays for six hours.

5. Post-reunification services reports

In a January 2013 interim review report, the social worker noted the mother’s 2012 drug tests. She tested positive for ma rijuana on March 13, May 7 and 23, June 18 and 20, 2012. She tested negative on July 27, September 20, Oct ober 2, and November 26 of 2012. She did not appear on February 27, March 27, May 10, June 7, July 24, August 8, and October 10 and 22, 2012. Afte r the mother’s reunification services were terminated, she continued attending the drug treatment program, tho ugh inconsistently. The department recommended the mother conti nue to have monitore d visits with Oscar
D. twice a week for two hours. The mo ther was not enrolled between December 18, 2012, and January 16, 2013, allegedly because of insurance issues. The February 2013 interim review report states the mother had a new apartment. The apartment was shared with the maternal grandmother. The lease was in the maternal
aunt’s name. This was because the mother had a prior eviction on her record. The mother could not provide a contact phone numb er for the manager. The mother worked as an independent salesper son for coffee bags.11 The mother stated she visited Oscar D. for two hours twice pe r week. The mother and the maternal grandmother vi sited on February 7 and 14. The mother visited alone on February 8. During the February 15 and 21, 2013 visits, Oscar D. was very upset. On February 15, every time the mo ther or the maternal grandmot her tried to pick up Oscar D., he would scream at the top of his lung s and hit them. After 10 minutes, the foster father telephoned the social worker to ask wh at to do. The social worker advised the
foster father to walk Oscar D. out of the vi sit. It was hoped this would calm Oscar D. down. Oscar D. was not happy to return to th e visit and it ended earl y. On February 21,
when the mother and the mate rnal grandmother arrived, Oscar D. was again very upset like the last visit and it ended early.
The social worker fou nd the mother had stable housing and the home was appropriate. The social worker expressed co ncerns including the mother failing to drug test consistently for the department. Furthe r, the social worker was concerned because the mother had not completed all court-orde red services. The department recommended the mother be given monitored visits four times per week for two hours and undergo conjoint therapy. The social worker believe d further liberalized vi sits would depend on
the outcome of the recommended visits.

6. Section 366.26 report

When originally placed with the foster parents, Oscar D. would scream at nap and bedtime, throw his blankets and stuffed anim als out of the crib, and sometimes undress
himself. At the time of the section 366.26 re port, Oscar D. rarely cried at bedtime and
allowed himself to be tucked in. He lear ned to eat healthy food independently. The social worker noted the foster father implemen ted a daily structure that provided security and consistency, as well as st ructured learning during activ ities. Oscar D.’s preschool reported he had made dramatic improvement since being placed in foster care. The foster father reported Oscar D. had grown very attached to the prospective adoptive parent’s five-year-old daughter. Accord ing to the foster father, Oscar D. was comfortable in the12 adoptive home. The foster fath er had an approved home study. The social worker found the foster father was committed to providing Oscar D. with a lovi ng and permanent home through adoption. Oscar D.’s daycare was located at the foster father’s place of employment. The foster father would regula rly see Oscar D. and often spent the lunch hour with the youngster.
The mother’s visits with Oscar D. in March 2013 were reportedly smoother. The social worker observed a visit on March 28, 2013 . The foster father would first sit with
Oscar D. at a table. The mother would sit at an adjacent table. The mother would start talking to Oscar D. After 10 to 15 minutes, Oscar D. felt comfortabl e enough to go to the mother without struggle. The mother visited Oscar D. three or more times per week from September 6 to December 4, 2012, while he liv ed with his maternal grandmother. After Oscar D. was moved to the foster parents’ home in December 2012, the mother visited him for two hours twice per week.
The social worker noted Oscar D. was co mfortable with his maternal grandmother. However, there was no guarantee the matern al grandmother would cooperate with the department and be approved und er the Adoption and Safe Fa milies Act. Oscar D. had become securely attached to the foster father. Oscar D. looked to the foster father for guidance and comfort. The social worker reported the mother and the maternal grandmother visited Oscar D. twice per week. The visits seemed to be going well as Oscar D. became more
comfortable with the mother. The social wo rker noted that the maternal grandmother provided most of Oscar D.’s pa renting during the visit.
The social worker concl uded the mother did not have a secure recovery nor appeared ready to parent Osca r D. The social worker fo und the mother’s relationship with Oscar D. to be more like a sibling than a parent. The social worker in the section 366.26 report noted a connecti on between Oscar D. and Albert V. The social worker
believed it would be ideal for the mother an d the maternal grandmother to continue visiting and appropriate for Albert V. and Oscar D. to keep in touch. The social worker recommended Oscar D. be adopted.13 7. Section 366.26 hearing

The section 366.26 hearing was held on Ju ne 3, 2013. The moth er testified at the contested 366.26 hearing that she had monitore d visits with Oscar D. twice per week for
two hours each visit. The mother testified Albert V. was sometimes present when the mother and the maternal grandmother visited Oscar D. The mother stated: “[U]sually,
now he cries when he leaves. He cries that he doesn’t want to leave from the visit.” The
mother described the reaction of Oscar D. upon seeing Albert V. thusly: “As soon as he sees Albert, . . . he’s really ha ppy. And he approaches him, a nd he just want[s] to be with Albert and plays around. He follows Albe rt everywhere.” The mother stated the maternal grandmother was present at all visits. The maternal grandmother confirmed sh e normally was present during the twiceweekly visits with Oscar D. at the park. When asked wh ether Oscar D. said anything when he saw the mother, the maternal grandmother stated: “No, no. Well, when we arrived, he’s a little bit withdrawn, like he doe sn’t want to.” Oscar D. eventually would
come to the mother and call her, “Mommy.” The maternal grandmother stated, “The child loves [the mother] very much, even though they haven’t been together.”

III. DISCUSSION

A. Overview

The mother does not dispute Oscar D. is adoptable. However, the mother contends the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the beneficial parenting or sibling relationship exceptions pursuant to secti on 366.26, subdivisions (c)(1)(B)(i) and (v), respectively. The juvenile court stated it co uld not find that Oscar D. had such a strong relationship with either the mother or Albert V. that it would outweigh the benefits of a stable and permanent home. The juvenile cour t stated: “I would no te today that there was even discrepancy between the mother’s st atements as well as . . . the grandmother’s14 in regards to Oscar’s relationship with his mo ther. [¶] Mother te stified . . . from her perspective, that Oscar’s thrilled to see her, calls or ‘mommy.’ Everything is great. Grandmother, who wasn’t in here for that testimony, comes in and says, ‘Well, he’s hesitant to go up to her, but he eventually warms up.’” The juven ile court further noted the mother had never made enough progress to achieve unmonitored visits. The juvenile court terminated parental rights over Oscar D., ordered a permanent adoption plan, and designated the foster father as the prospectiv e adoptive parent. The mother appealed the
order.

B. The Beneficial Parental Relati onship Exception Is Not Applicable

Section 366.26, subdivision (c )(1) requires the juvenile court to terminate parental rights if the child is found likely to be adopted by clear and convincing evidence. At a section 366.26 hearing, if the child is likely to be adopte d, adoption is the preferred permanent plan. ( In re Celine, R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1348.) Certai n exceptions exist. The beneficial relationship exception applies when, “The parents have maintained regular visitati on and contact with the child
and the child would benefit from continui ng the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Our Fourth Appellate District colleagues have held: “[W]e interpret 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 perman ent home with new, adoptive parents. In other words, the court balances the strengt h and quality of the natural parent/child relationship in a tenuous placement against th e security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer. If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attach ment such that the ch ild would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcom e and the natural parent’s rights are not terminated.” ( In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App. 4th 567, 575; see In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621 [same].) The parent has the burden of proving that termination15 would be detrimental to th e child under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A). ( In re
L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.Ap p.4th 942, 947; In re Jasmine D. , supra , 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1350.) The court’s factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. ( In re Autumn
H. , supra , 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576; see In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315 [applying substantial evidence sta ndard to whether beneficial relationship
exists and abuse of discretion standard to juvenile court’s determination of relationship’s importance].) The Court of Appeal has expl ained, “‘Broad deference must be shown to the trial judge. The reviewing court should inte rfere only if [it] find[s] that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the tria l court’s action, no judge could reasonably have made the order th at he did.’ [Citations.]” ( In re Jasmine D. , supra , 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1351; see In re K.P. , supra , 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 621.) The mother argues she main tained regular visitation with Oscar D. When Oscar D. resided with the maternal grandmother, th e mother visited Oscar D. multiple times per week. However, from August 20 11 to February 2012, she wa s unable to visit Oscar D.
after his removal from her care because of a restraining order. Substantial evidence exists which indicated regular visitation di d not occur for six months following Oscar
D.’s removal from th e mother’s care. The mother also contends her relationship with Oscar D. is beneficial. As noted,
the mother’s visits with Oscar D. in Februa ry 2013 after placemen t with the prospective adoptive family were not ideal. Oscar D. re fused to go to the moth er; throwing temper tantrums, screaming, and hur tling himself on the floor. In March 2013, a new system was used, in which the foster father and Oscar D. would sit at a table. The mother would sit at a nearby table. The moth er would talk to Oscar D. until he felt comfortable to go to her, usually after 10 to 15 minutes. The grandm other testified that Oscar D. was hesitant to approach the mother at the start of visits. The mother always had monitored visits. The mother almost always had other relative s present at the visits, which reduced the amount of bonding time between the mother a nd Oscar. D. The social worker noted the maternal grandmother provided most of the parenting for Oscar D. in the past. The
mother has not been alone with the child since August 6, 2 011. Further, the mother who16 is on probation for conduct i nvolving domestic violence, is a narcotic abuser who regularly missed drug tests. There is no meri t to the mother’s argument she can benefit the child apart from her role as an occasional visitor. Subs tantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that the beneficial parental relationship exception does not apply. The benefits of the mother mainta ining a relationship w ith Oscar D. did not outweigh his need for a full emotional comm itment from a responsible caretaker. (See In
re Jasmine D. , supra , 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1350 [“[A] ch ild should not be deprived of an adoptive parent when the natural parent ha s maintained a relationship that may be beneficial to some degree but does not meet the child’s need for a parent.”]; accord, In re
Jason J. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 922, 937.)

C. The Sibling Relationship Exception Is Inapplicable

The mother also argues th e sibling relationship excep tion applied. The sibling relationship exception applies when: “There would be substantial interference with a child’s sibling relationship, taking into co nsideration the nature and extent of the relationship, including, but not limited to, whet her the child was raised with a sibling in the same home, whether the ch ild shared significant common experiences or has existing close and strong bonds with a sibling, and whether ongoing c ontact is in the child’s best interest, including the child’s lo ng-term emotional interest, as compared to the benefit of legal permanence through adoption.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v); see In re D.M. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 283, 290.) Our Supreme Court has explained the sib ling relationship exception application as follows: “Reflecting the Legislature’s prefer ence for adoption when possible, the ‘sibling relationship exception contains strong langu age creating a heavy bu rden for the party opposing adoption. It only ap plies when the juvenile court determines that there is a “compelling reason” for concluding that the termination of parental rights would be
“detrimental” to the child due to “substantial interference” w ith a sibling relationship.’ [Citation.] Indeed, even if adoption would inte rfere with a strong sibling relationship, the17 court must nevertheless weigh the benef it to the child of c ontinuing the sibling relationship against the benefit the child would receive by gaining a permanent home through adoption. [Citation.]” ( In re Celine R., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 61; see In re
L.Y.L. , supra , 101 Cal.App.4th at pp. 952-953.) An appellate court has explained, “[T]he application of this exception will be rare, particularly when the proceedings concern young children whose needs for a competent, caring and stable parent are paramount.” ( In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App. 4th 987, 1014; accord, In re L.Y.L. , supra , 101 Cal.App.4th at p. 950.) The party assert ing the exception applies has the burden of producing evidence supporting that contention. ( In re Celine R.
, supra , 31 Cal.4th at p. 61; In re Bailey J.
, supra , 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1314 .) We conduct a review for substantial evidence to support the juvenile court’s conclusions. ( In re D.M., supra, 205 Cal.App.4th at p. 291; In re K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at pp. 621-622.) Defendant contends severing Albert V.’s relationship with Os car D. would be so detrimental, it would outweigh the benefits of adoption. As noted, the children were generally raised in the same home from Osca r D.’s birth in Marc h 2011 until June 14, 2012. After June 14, 2012, Albert V. and Oscar D. would see each other only sporadically. Close to a year passed from the date of Albert V .’s placement and Oscar D.’s section 366.26 hearing on June 3, 2013. The evidence presented indicated Oscar D. enjoyed spending time with Albert V. Howe ver, as noted in the section 366.26 hearing report, Oscar D. also enjoyed activities with hi s pre-adoptive sister. Oscar D. and Albert V.’s relationship was not so significant that that it would outweigh a permanent stable home through adoption. The juvenile court di d not err in finding th e sibling relationship exception did not apply.18 IV. DISPOSITION

The order terminating pare ntal rights is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHE D IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

TURNER, P. J.

We concur:

MOSK, J.

KRIEGLER, J.