Filed 4/3/13 In re Jasmine V. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re JASMINE V., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. 2d Juv. No. B242905 (Super. Ct. No. J067367) (Ventura County)

VENTURA COUNTY PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES AGENCY,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
L.G.,
Defendant and Appellant.

L.G. (Mother) appeals an order terminating her parental rights to and designating adoption as the permanent plan fo r her daughter, Jasmine V. (Jasmine). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.) 1 We affirm.
FACTS When Jasmine was six years old, sh e lived with her parents and three brothers: Antonio age ten, Ulises, age seven and three-month-old Jose.

1 All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.2 Antonio had been sexually abused in Mexico when he was six years old. His parents failed to adequately recognize hi s subsequent emotional problems. Ulises reported that Antonio was mole sting him and Jasmine. His parents accused Ulises of lying. The juvenile court re moved Antonio from the home. Shortly after Antonio was removed from the home, Mother saw an adult
male roommate with Jasmine in his room. Th ey both had their pants down. Ulises said that the roommate was trying to have intercours e with Jasmine. Prio r to the incident, the roommate's adult daughter warned Jasmine's Mo ther that the roommate had molested her. In spite of the warning, the Mother allowed Jasmine and Ulis es to watch television with the roommate in his room unsupervised. The juvenile court removed Jasmine, Ulises and
Jose from the home. The parents had two years of reunifica tion services. Mother attempted to comply with her case plan. In spite of her efforts, neither parent progressed enough to
return the children to their care. The HSA report prepar ed for the section 366.26 hearing concluded: "Despite the reasonable efforts pr ovided [by] the Agency to reunify with the child and her siblings, the parents failed to demonstrate[] benefit from the services offered and failed to recognize the ramifications of sexual abuse to their children. . . . With this said, the mother c ontinues to express that she does not know why the Agency
went to the extent of removi ng the child and her siblings from her, despite her efforts to get the police involved."
At the time of the section 366.26 heari ng, Jasmine had been in five foster placements. She suffers from anxiety, depressi on, sexual trauma, and her "IQ" is in the lowest two percentile. She has been with her current foster parents for over a year and they want to adopt her. The foster parents would continue Jasmine' s visits with Ulises.
Jasmine's relations hip with Ulises
Jasmine lived with Ulis es until she was six years old. Ulises is very protective of his sister. Jasmine enjoys thei r visits together and would ask when she was going to visit Ulises. Jasmine's foster pare nts told a social worker that Jasmine was attached to Ulises and were willing to continue the sibling contact.3 DISCUSSION
I.
Mother contends there is substantia l evidence that terminating parental rights would interfere with the sibling relati onship, and that cont inuing the relationship outweighs the benefit of adoption. Adoption where possible is the pe rmanent plan preferred by the Legislature. ( In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573.) Section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v) provid es an exception to the pr eference for adoption as the permanent plan where the court finds termina tion of parental rights would be detrimental to the child because "[t]here would be subs tantial interference w ith a child's sibling relationship, taking into consid eration 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 experience s 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 in terest, as compared to the benefit of legal permanence through adoption." Mother has a "heavy burden" of pr oving the sibling exception applies to overcome the preference for adoption. ( In re Daniel H. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 804, 813.) Historically, courts have applied th e substantial evidence standard of review. ( In re Autumn H. , supra , 27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 575-576.) Recently, In re Bailey
J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1 314-1315, applied the substan tial evidence standard to
the trial court's determination whether a bene ficial relationship exists, and the abuse of
discretion standard to the court's determina tion whether the relationship is so important that it compels a plan other than adoption. Here we affirm under either standard. "In viewing the evidence, we look only to the evidence supporting the prevailing party. [Citation.] We discard evid ence unfavorable to th e prevailing party as not having sufficient verity to be accepted by the trier of fact . [Citation.] Where the trial court or jury has drawn reasonable inferences from the evidence, we have no power to draw different inferences, even though diffe rent inferences may also be reasonable.4 [Citation.] The trier of fact is not required to believe even uncontradicted testimony. [Citation.]" ( Rodney F. v. Karen M. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 233, 241.)
Here there is much evidence that Ja smine and Ulises have a close bond. Undoubtedly, there will be some detriment to Jasmine if the bo nd is broken. But it is not enough simply to show a detriment to Jasmin e. The detriment mu st be such that it overcomes the benefit of legal pe rmanence through adoption. (See In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942, 947.) Mother argues there is no substantial evidence that the benefits of adoption outweigh the importance of maintaining the si bling relationship. The argument misses the point. It is Mother's burden to show th e sibling exception applies. When parental rights are terminated, it is presumed that adoption is the proper permanent plan.
Substantial evidence is not n ecessary to support a finding th at the sibling relationship exception does not apply. In any event there is mo re than ample evidence to support the conclusion that the benefit of adoption outweighs any de triment that may be caused by severing the sibling relationship. Jasmine is a special needs child. She suffers from anxiety, depression, and has an IQ in the lowest tw o percentile. She has b een sexually molested multiple times by two different people. Even after mother was warned one of the persons is a child molester, she failed to protect Jasm ine. After two years of services, Jasmine's parents still fail to recognize the ramifications of sexual abuse to their children. Mother continues to express that she does not know why HSA removed Jasmine from her care.
II.
Mother contends the trial court e rred in finding that the parental relationship exception does not apply. The Legislature has provided an ex ception to adoption as the permanent plan where the court finds termination of pare ntal rights would be detrimental to the child because "[t]he parents have maintained regu lar visitation and contact with the child and
the child would benefit from c ontinuing the relationship." (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) In order to qualify for the exception, a parent must show that the beneficial relationship5 with the child "promote s the well-being of the child to su ch a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a perman ent home with new, adoptive parents." ( In re
Autumn H. , supra , 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.)
Here the evidence shows that Mother has maintained regular contact with
Jasmine. But the evid ence also shows that the trial court did not err in concluding that maintaining the parental relationship with Mother does not outweigh the benefits of adoption. For reasons previously stated, it is clear that Jasmine is in need of a stable home where she can be protected from being sexually molested. Mother is unable to provide that. The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.Ellen Gay Conroy, Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura

________________ ______________

Amy Z. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Leroy Smith, Ventura County Counsel , Linda Stevenson, Assistant County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.