In re D.M., B312479

Children (D.M., R.M., I.M.) were removed after domestic violence and child endangerment incidents; parents had prior dependency history and reunified in 2015.
Father (Ricardo M.) completed programs, largely tested negative for drugs, and visited the children intermittently (monitored/unmonitored at different times) over several years.
Department reported concerns about father’s inconsistent visitation, failure to provide an address, and difficulty managing children during visits; reports gave limited detail on the emotional quality of visits or children’s attachment to father.
After reunification services were terminated, the juvenile court held a contested Welfare & Institutions Code § 366.26 hearing and found the parental-benefit (beneficial-relationship) exception did not apply, terminating parental rights.
Father appealed, arguing the juvenile court applied the wrong legal standard and relied on improper factors rather than the test set out in In re Caden C.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper legal standard for parental-benefit exception under § 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)	Court correctly applied the law and concluded exception did not apply	Court used pre-Caden C framework and failed to apply Caden C’s focus on emotional attachment	Court held juvenile court did not apply Caden C and remanded for reevaluation under Caden C
Whether father met the "consistent visitation" element	Visits were inconsistent at times and insufficient	Father regularly visited over years and met the consistency requirement	Court found substantial evidence supported that visits were "fairly consistent" (consistency element met)
Whether the relationship showed benefit and whether severing would be detrimental	Relationship did not rise to parental role; father didn’t know medical needs or attend appointments, so exception fails	Focus should be on substantial positive emotional attachment, not on custodial competence or attendance at appointments	Court found trial judge relied on improper factors (parental role/medical attendance); record lacked adequate evidence on attachment, so findings on benefit/detriment unsupported
Harmless error / remedy	Any error was harmless; father failed to satisfy exception anyway	Error was prejudicial because court might have exercised discretion differently under Caden C	Court rejected harmless-error argument, reversed and remanded for a new § 366.26 hearing applying Caden C principles

In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (2021) (establishes elements and proper analytical focus for parental-benefit exception; warns against comparing parental fitness to prospective adoptive parents)
In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (purpose of § 366.26 permanency plan hearing)
In re B.D., 66 Cal.App.5th 1218 (2021) (application of Caden C; reports should address children’s attachment)
In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (1994) (role of social worker assessments at § 366.26 hearings)
In re Charlisse C., 45 Cal.4th 145 (2008) (errors of law in dispositional orders constitute abuse of discretion)
In re L.S., 230 Cal.App.4th 1183 (2014) (appellate remand guidance for juvenile court to make determinations in the first instance)