91 Cal.App.5th 683
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Child (born ~2014) was detained Jan 6, 2021 after reports mother exposed child to domestic violence and mother’s daily methamphetamine and marijuana use.
- Juvenile court sustained section 300 allegations, removed the child, and ordered reunification services (domestic violence program, substance treatment, counseling, random drug testing, supervised visitation).
- Mother visited regularly but was inconsistent with drug testing/treatment, had visible injuries suggesting ongoing domestic violence, and at times struck the child; reunification services were terminated at the 12‑month review.
- The child was placed with a prospective adoptive foster mother for over a year, was described as well adjusted, and (age ~7 at the hearing) repeatedly told social workers she wanted to live with and be adopted by the foster mother.
- At the section 366.26 hearing the juvenile court found mother had regular visitation but concluded terminating parental rights would not be detrimental because the child wanted permanency with the foster mother and was likely adoptable; mother’s rights were terminated and the order was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CFS) | Defendant's Argument (Mother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parental‑benefit exception (§ 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)) applies | Mother failed to show that terminating the parental relationship would be more harmful than the benefit of adoption; child wants adoption and is well‑adjusted. | Mother had regular visitation and a substantial, positive emotional attachment; losing that relationship would be detrimental. | Exception did not apply; court affirmed termination because child’s clear, repeated preference for adoption and stability outweighed any claimed detriment. |
| Whether the child’s expressed wish to be adopted may be considered in the detriment analysis | Child’s statements favoring adoption are relevant evidence that severance would not be detrimental. | Mother contends that a child’s preference for the caregiver is not dispositive and should not substitute for the required harm showing. | The court properly considered the child’s consistent, uncontradicted statements about wanting to be adopted as highly relevant to the detriment inquiry. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (2021) (defines three elements of parental‑benefit exception and prescribes mixed standards of review)
- Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (2020) (preponderance standard means more likely than not)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (1994) (adoption is the legislature’s preferred permanent plan)
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (2003) (adoption is the norm when parental rights are terminated)
- In re Christopher L., 143 Cal.App.4th 1326 (2006) (agency reports and child statements may inform the court about the child’s wishes)
- In re Scott B., 188 Cal.App.4th 452 (2010) (child’s feelings about adoption are relevant to the parental‑benefit exception)
- In re Michael D., 51 Cal.App.4th 1074 (1996) (child testimony supporting placement preference can be powerful evidence)