In re D.D. CA3, C081001

In Jan 2014 the Sacramento County Department filed dependency petitions alleging Rachel B.’s substance abuse, domestic violence, and the death of an infant sibling put D.D. (then 5) at risk; D.D. was removed and placed with relatives.
Mother received reunification services; D.D. was returned to her care under family maintenance in Aug 2014 but concerns about relapse, unstable housing, and poor compliance arose by mid-2015.
In June 2015 the Department filed petitions to remove D.D. and infant G.L.; the juvenile court sustained the petitions, terminated services, and set a § 366.26 selection-and-implementation hearing.
Both children were placed with a paternal relative who wanted to adopt; social workers and therapists reported visits with mother were generally positive but D.D. showed some post-visit behavioral issues and had been coached by mother when interviewed.
At the contested § 366.26 hearing the court found both children adoptable, acknowledged some parent-child bond (stronger with D.D.), but concluded the benefit of adoption and stability outweighed any detriment from severing parental rights and terminated mother’s rights to both children.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the beneficial parental-relationship exception to termination applies	Mother: she maintained regular, loving contact and D.D. would be harmed by termination	Department: although visits were consistent, the relationship lacked the significant positive attachment required to outweigh adoption benefits	Court: Exception did not apply; termination affirmed for both children
Whether G.L. had a sufficiently developed parental relationship	Mother: contact preserved a bond despite short custodial period	Department: G.L. lived with mother only briefly and bond was "friendly visitor" level	Court: No beneficial parental relationship as to G.L.; rights terminated
Whether D.D. would suffer substantial harm from termination	Mother: D.D. wanted to live with her and would be sad if rights severed	Department: D.D. benefited from stable placement; behavioral improvements showed adoption advantage	Court: Some detriment existed but not great harm; adoption outweighed continued parental bond
Adequacy of evidence and legal standard application	Mother: court failed to apply the beneficial-relationship exception properly	Department: court applied correct balancing test and standards for adoptability and exception	Court: Applied § 366.26 standards correctly and placed burden on mother to prove exception; affirmed

In re Ronell A., 44 Cal.App.4th 1352 (1996) (adoption is the Legislature’s preferred permanent plan; court must terminate parental rights if child is adoptable absent a recognized exception)
In re Melvin A., 82 Cal.App.4th 1243 (2000) (party claiming an exception to termination bears the burden of proof)
In re Cristella C., 6 Cal.App.4th 1363 (1992) (burden of proof and standards for exceptions at § 366.26 hearings)
In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (1994) (formalizes test: exception requires showing severance would deprive child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment causing great harm)
In re C.F., 193 Cal.App.4th 549 (2011) (frequent loving contact alone insufficient to meet exception without significant attachment)
In re I.R., 226 Cal.App.4th 201 (2014) (same; quality of attachment is controlling)
In re Angel B., 97 Cal.App.4th 454 (2002) (short custodial periods and limited contact support classification as a "friendly visitor" relationship, not the type that defeats adoption)