In re E.J. CA1/4, A161744

Minor (E.J.) was declared a dependent after allegations Mother (E.P.) exhibited violent, erratic, and sexually accusatory conduct in Minor’s presence; court ordered supervised visitation and reunification services.
Mother repeatedly assaulted or threatened social workers, was subject to restraining orders, and had multiple arrests and periods of incarceration in 2018–2019; reunification services were terminated after the 12‑month review.
Visits occurred regularly while Mother was in local jail; a transfer to state prison briefly interrupted visits, but the Agency arranged visits promptly after Mother’s December 2019 release.
During 2020 the Agency scheduled monthly visits (third Wednesday) requiring Mother to confirm the day before; COVID‑19 moved contacts to telephone/virtual formats; several scheduled contacts were missed—often because Mother failed to confirm or appear, or had technical/email issues.
Minor moved with foster parents to another state, expressed a strong wish to be adopted and to cease contact with biological family; an expert testified Mother and Minor shared a secure bond from observed visits but Minor’s therapists supported cautious reintroduction.
The juvenile court found Mother had not shown the “beneficial relationship” exception, terminated parental rights under § 366.26, and denied Mother’s request for a continuance; Mother appealed and the court affirmed.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Agency/Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether Mother was denied due process because lack of visitation prevented her from establishing the beneficial‑relationship exception to adoption	Mother: COVID and Agency failures (email/phone contact, arranging prison visits) made visitation effectively unavailable, so she couldn’t prove regular contact or detrimental effect of termination	Agency: Visits were available; many missed contacts were due to Mother’s failure to confirm, appear, or timely communicate; Agency reasonably accommodated prison and remote visits	Court: No due process violation; record shows visitation was arranged and Mother failed to avail herself; beneficial‑relationship exception not established
Whether juvenile court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to allow further visitation/relationship remediation	Mother: A continuance was needed to remedy visitation shortfalls and preserve due process (citing Hunter S. and S.S.)	Agency: Significant delay already, Minor’s clear desire to be adopted, and lack of proven deprivation of visitation made continuance contrary to Minor’s best interests	Court: No abuse of discretion; given delays, Minor’s adoption preference, and absence of a due process violation, denial was reasonable

In re Dakota H., 132 Cal.App.4th 212 (Cal. Ct. App.) (dependency due process framework; children’s interest in permanency shifts post‑reunification)
In re Hunter S., 142 Cal.App.4th 1497 (Cal. Ct. App.) (denial or non‑enforcement of visitation can violate due process when it prevents parent from establishing beneficial‑relationship exception)
In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Cal.) (elements and burden to establish beneficial‑relationship exception to adoption)
In re Valerie A., 152 Cal.App.4th 987 (Cal. Ct. App.) (erroneous denial of visitation compromises parent’s due process rights to litigate beneficial‑relationship claim)
In re S.H., 111 Cal.App.4th 310 (Cal. Ct. App.) (child’s aversion to visits may be considered but cannot be sole factor to prevent visitation)
In re Brittany C., 191 Cal.App.4th 1343 (Cal. Ct. App.) (child may refuse particular visits but agency must assure future visits are offered)
In re David D., 28 Cal.App.4th 941 (Cal. Ct. App.) (suspension of visitation by court can foreclose parent’s ability to meet regular‑visitation requirement)
In re Precious J., 42 Cal.App.4th 1463 (Cal. Ct. App.) (incarceration at moderately distant facility may affect reasonableness of visitation efforts)
In re S.S., 55 Cal.App.5th 355 (Cal. Ct. App.) (agency obligations to facilitate reunification and visitation when practical barriers exist)