In re A.C. CA1/4, A160956

Minor born 2008; maternal grandmother obtained probate guardianship in 2010.
January 2018: minor brought drug paraphernalia found at home to school; dependency petition filed and minor detained; court found continued placement with guardian or mother contrary to welfare and placed minor in foster care.
Juvenile court provided reunification services to the guardian; mother repeatedly told the agency she could not care for the minor, did not request placement or reunification services, and for years had not exercised parental responsibilities.
At the 12‑month review the court terminated the guardian’s services and set a Welfare & Institutions Code § 366.26 hearing to terminate parental rights; mother generally did not object and at times supported adoption by the minor’s adult sister.
The minor consistently expressed no desire to visit mother; the juvenile court found visitation was not in the minor’s best interest and proceeded to terminate mother’s parental rights at the § 366.26 hearing.
Mother appealed, arguing the juvenile court violated due process by failing to make a clear and convincing finding that returning the minor to mother would be detrimental.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether parental‑rights termination required an explicit clear‑and‑convincing finding that awarding custody to the noncustodial mother would be detrimental	Mother: termination violates due process absent an explicit clear‑and‑convincing detriment finding	Agency: mother forfeited this challenge by not raising it below; court had opportunities to address it	Court: affirmed; mother forfeited the claim and the court declines to excuse forfeiture under In re S.B. given case facts
Whether appellate court should excuse forfeiture for a constitutional claim	Mother: constitutional due process claim justifies excusing forfeiture	Agency/Court: stability and permanency concerns counsel against excusing forfeiture; discretion to excuse is rare	Court: declined to exercise discretion to excuse forfeiture because mother failed to seek reunification/placement, supported adoption, and minor sought no contact

In re S.B., 32 Cal.4th 1287 (Cal. 2004) (forfeiture rule applies in dependency cases; appellate discretion to excuse forfeiture is rare because of children’s interest in permanency)
In re T.G., 215 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (a court may not terminate a noncustodial parent’s rights without a clear‑and‑convincing finding of detriment)
In re Frank R., 192 Cal.App.4th 532 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (same limitation on terminating noncustodial parent’s rights absent clear‑and‑convincing detriment finding)
In re Gladys L., 141 Cal.App.4th 845 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (similar due process/detriment requirement for nonoffending noncustodial parents)
In re D.H., 14 Cal.App.5th 719 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (reiterating requirement for clear‑and‑convincing detriment finding in appropriate cases)
In re A.A., 203 Cal.App.4th 597 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (constitutional challenges in dependency proceedings are subject to forfeiture)