In re Caden C.
11 Cal.5th 614
| Cal. | 2021Background
- Caden was removed from mother’s custody after homelessness, drug use, and suicidal ideation; after temporary returns he was removed again in 2016 and placed with a long‑term foster caregiver (Ms. H.).
- Mother has longstanding methamphetamine addiction and mental‑health issues; visitation was reduced over time and reunification services were terminated, prompting a section 366.26 permanency hearing.
- The juvenile court found Caden likely to be adopted but applied the parental‑benefit exception, finding Mother maintained regular contact, had a substantial positive emotional bond with Caden, and that severing the relationship would harm him — so it declined to terminate parental rights and ordered continued foster care/consideration of guardianship.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, reasoning Mother’s ongoing substance abuse and mental‑health problems made applying the exception unreasonable.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to clarify (1) whether continued parental struggles categorically bar the parental‑benefit exception and (2) the proper standard of appellate review. It held struggles are not a categorical bar, defined the exception’s elements, and set the review standard.
- The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal; a later, separate section 366.26 hearing resulted in termination of Mother’s parental rights, rendering the earlier dispute moot and directing the Court of Appeal to dismiss the appeal as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a parent’s ongoing substance abuse or mental‑health struggles is a categorical bar to the parental‑benefit exception | Mother’s continued disengagement from treatment and lack of sobriety make the exception inapplicable | Parental struggles alone should not bar the exception; relevance only insofar as they affect the statutory elements | Not a categorical bar; such struggles are relevant only as they bear on the three statutory elements |
| What must the parent prove to invoke the parental‑benefit exception? | Agency emphasized adoption benefits and argued exception unwarranted without parental progress | Parent must prove regular visitation, the child benefits from the relationship, and termination would be detrimental | Parent must prove by preponderance: (1) regular visitation/contact, (2) a substantial positive emotional attachment such that child benefits from continuation, and (3) termination would be detrimental when balanced against adoption |
| How should courts treat parental progress/problems when applying the exception? | Mother’s lack of progress is dispositive; problems justify termination | Problems may inform whether the relationship is positive or harmful but cannot be used as standalone grounds | Parental problems are relevant only to how they affect the relationship’s benefit and the detriment of severing it; cannot be used to punish or to predict reunification ability |
| Standard of appellate review for parental‑benefit determinations | Mixed approaches urged (substantial evidence or hybrid) | Trial court’s balancing should be respected; appellate review should not substitute judgment | Elements (1) and (2): substantial‑evidence review. Ultimate balancing — whether termination would be detrimental given adoption benefits — is discretionary and reviewed for abuse of discretion (with underlying factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (seminal articulation of the parental‑benefit exception and the balancing test)
- Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, 5 Cal.4th 242 (Cal. 1993) (describes purpose and limits of section 366.26 permanency hearing)
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (Cal. 2003) (explains statutory exceptions permit choosing a permanency option other than adoption in exceptional cases)
- In re Zeth S., 31 Cal.4th 396 (Cal. 2003) (section 366.26 hearing may not be used to order reunification)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1993) (clarifies section 366.26 scope and permanency hearing limits)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. 2000) (assumption that termination of parental rights ends legal basis for parent–child relationship)
- In re Robert L., 21 Cal.App.4th 1057 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (substantial‑evidence review of factual basis for discretionary rulings)
- In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1994) (discusses appellate review of discretionary juvenile‑court determinations)