In re K.C. CA3, C094953

In Feb 2020 the Sacramento County Dept. filed dependency petitions for three children after mother left them with an unrelated man found unconscious from prescription drugs; children were detained.
Social-worker reports documented mother’s ongoing substance abuse, missed and inconsistent drug testing, intermittent supervised visits, and connections to unsafe individuals; children bonded with foster/resource parents.
Reunification services were terminated on May 27, 2021; Department recommended adoption and resource parents sought permanency.
At the Sept 23, 2021 section 366.26 hearing mother did not attend; her counsel lodged a general objection to termination but did not specifically assert the beneficial parental-relationship exception or present evidence supporting it.
The juvenile court found the children likely to be adopted, ordered adoption as the permanent plan, and terminated mother’s parental rights; mother appealed claiming the court failed to consider the beneficial parental relationship exception.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding mother forfeited the exception by failing to raise and prove it at the 366.26 hearing and noting the record lacked the fact-specific evidence the exception requires.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the juvenile court erred by not applying the beneficial parental-relationship exception to adoption at the section 366.26 hearing	Dept.: Mother forfeited the issue by failing to specifically raise or prove the exception at the 366.26 hearing; record lacks necessary evidence	Mother: She regularly visited and the children would benefit from continuing the parental relationship, so termination is detrimental	Affirmed. Mother forfeited the claim by not asserting or proving the exception at the hearing; appellate court will not decide the exception on an undeveloped record

In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Sup. Ct. 2021) (clarifies elements and heavy fact-specific nature of parental-benefit exception)
In re Erik P., 104 Cal.App.4th 395 (2002) (explains forfeiture consequences when exception not raised at hearing)
In re Rachel M., 113 Cal.App.4th 1289 (2003) (juvenile court has no sua sponte duty to consider exceptions to adoption)
In re D.P., 76 Cal.App.5th 153 (2022) (discusses standards of review and effect of Caden C. on appellate remands)
In re I.R., 226 Cal.App.4th 201 (2014) (definition of regular visitation in parental-benefit context)