In re Sofia M.

by
Mother made no progress on her case plan for a year, then, as she was about to lose her parental rights, she began eagerly complying with the plan. The twist in this case is that the child, Sofia, was 14 years old, and by the time mother decided to comply with the plan, Sofia was depressed and too hurt to want to spend any time with her. So she refused visits. At the 12-month review hearing, mother complained that she had been prevented from visiting Sofia. The court left the visitation order in place, and even authorized visitation in a therapeutic setting, but terminated reunification services and set a selection and implementation hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 (.26 hearing). Sofia continued refusing visits and threatened to run away from therapy sessions if she were pressured. At the .26 hearing mother filed a section 388 modification petition, seeking to reinstate services, arguing she had been denied the ability to establish the “beneficial relationship exception” to adoption. The court denied the petition, terminated parental rights, and selected adoption as a permanent plan. On appeal, mother contended Sofia’s refusal to visit amounted to a failure by the court to enforce its order. The Court of Appeal disagreed: the trial court’s visitation order was appropriate, and it granted every visitation accommodation mother requested. "The fact that no one was able to persuade Sofia to visit her mother does not amount to an error by the court. Accordingly, we affirm." View "In re Sofia M." on Justia Law