(Super. Ct. No. JD230902)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mauro , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
J.K. (father) and S.F. (mother) appeal from the juvenile court's order terminating their parental rights as to four-year-old J.F. (minor). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)*fn1 Father contends the juvenile court erred in failing to find applicable the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption. In addition, both parents argue that if we reverse the order terminating parental rights as to one parent, we must also reverse as to the other parent.*fn2
We conclude that the juvenile court's findings are supported by substantial evidence and that the juvenile court did not err in declining to find applicable the beneficial parental relationship exception. We will affirm the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights. Accordingly, we need not address the parents' second contention that if we reverse as to one parent, we must also reverse as to the other parent.
In June 2009, the Riverside County juvenile court ordered that minor be placed in foster care, and offered reunification services to the parents, based on the following facts:
The family home was in deplorable condition. Father had been arrested for possessing child pornography, which he watched on his computer in minor's presence. Father also had a longstanding problem with alcohol abuse. Minor appeared to be developmentally delayed. Mother relocated to Sacramento with minor's younger sibling Ja.F., living with a man who had an open Child Protective Services (CPS) case regarding his own children. Mother had a history with CPS too. Older siblings K.F. and N.F. were adopted by the maternal grandparents in the state of Washington. The maternal grandparents also sought placement of minor, and an Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) assessment found them qualified. Minor was placed with the maternal grandparents in September 2009.
The 12-month status review report, filed in June 2010, recommended: (1) minor should remain in the home of the maternal grandparents, who wanted to adopt him and who had custody of all his siblings (including Ja.F., who was made a dependent of the juvenile court in August 2009); (2) father's services should be terminated; (3) mother's services should be continued for six months; and (4) the case should be transferred to Sacramento County, where mother lived.
In support of these recommendations, the 12-month status review report stated: minor, now three years old, was grossly delayed in speech and learning, but was receiving speech therapy and was evaluated for special education services. According to the maternal grandmother, minor recently had nightmares during which he would repeat "daddy, daddy[,] no."
Father pleaded guilty to bringing child pornography into the state. He was placed on probation and was subsequently accused of violating probation.*fn3 Although he had participated in services, he still lacked insight and saw himself as a victim. Minor would be at risk in father's custody ...