In re A.K., C081545

Background

One-year-old A.K. was removed after sustained findings of risk from parental domestic violence and inadequate supervision; parents ordered to complete reunification services.
Both parents completed some services but minimized violence, missed numerous supervised visits, and did not progress to unsupervised visitation; mother later lived with a boyfriend who had numerous CPS referrals and pending sexual abuse charges.
Minor was placed with foster parents from March 2014; foster parents sought to adopt and the child bonded with them and was doing well developmentally.
After reunification services were terminated, the juvenile court held a section 366.26 hearing to determine permanency; parents sought to invoke the beneficial-relationship exception and father sought placement with paternal grandmother.
The juvenile court found the child likely adoptable, rejected the beneficial-relationship exception, terminated parental rights, and selected adoption as the permanent plan.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the beneficial-relationship exception (§ 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)) applied	Department: adoption preference applies when child is adoptable; exception requires substantial positive emotional attachment outweighing adoption benefits	Parents: their regular visits and affectionate interactions created a beneficial parental relationship that would be detrimental to sever	Court: exception did not apply — bond was not sufficiently substantial or beneficial to outweigh adoption's advantages
Whether juvenile court erred by failing to place child with paternal grandmother under relative-preference rules (§ 361.3)	Department: no change of placement required; foster parents wanted adoption so no post-reunification relative-preference trigger	Father: paternal grandmother sought placement and was not adequately investigated; failure to consider her requires reversal	Court: father lacks standing and forfeited the claim by not raising/litigating it below; no reversible error
Standing to challenge alleged failures to investigate relative placement	Department: parent whose reunification services terminated lacks standing to assert a relative’s placement rights	Father: alleged that grandmother placement could support relative-caregiver exception to termination	Court: father lacked standing because placement issues protect the relative’s separate interest, not the terminated parent’s reunification interest
Forfeiture and duty to hold section 361.3 hearing sua sponte	Department: juvenile court had no duty to hold such a hearing absent a timely challenge or need to change placement	Father: court should have held a placement hearing given grandmother’s December 2014 interest	Court: father forfeited by failing to present evidence or request findings; Cesar V. is distinguishable and does not create a sua sponte duty here

Key Cases Cited

In re Ronell A., 44 Cal.App.4th 1352 (1996) (adoption is Legislature’s preferred permanent plan)
In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (1994) (beneficial-relationship exception standard: outweigh adoption benefits)
In re Jasmine D., 78 Cal.App.4th 1339 (2000) (ordinary parent/child bond rarely overcomes adoption preference)
In re Beatrice M., 29 Cal.App.4th 1411 (1994) (need for significant, positive emotional attachment to trigger exception)
Cesar V. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App.4th 1023 (2001) (relative-placement preferential consideration and court’s independent placement duty when new placement needed)
In re C.F., 193 Cal.App.4th 549 (2011) (frequent, pleasant visits alone insufficient for exception)
In re Meranda P., 56 Cal.App.4th 1143 (1997) (appealability framework for dependency proceedings)