In re Kevin O. CA4/1
D069485
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Mother Cheryl O. and father Richard R., both deaf, had three children: Sarah (9), Kevin (5), Tommy (3). Dependency proceedings were initiated due to parental substance abuse and domestic violence.
- Richard has a long criminal history and incidents of violence (including an episode where he cut Cheryl and where Sarah witnessed violence). Cheryl has a history of methamphetamine use and prior loss of parental rights to older children.
- Children were removed; reunification services were provided then terminated. The Agency placed the children with caregivers who later sought to adopt; children bonded with caregivers and showed improving behavior.
- At the permanency (§ 366.26) stage, the juvenile court found the children adoptable and rejected the beneficial parent/child relationship exception as to Cheryl and Richard, terminating parental rights.
- Richard obtained presumed-father status as to Kevin and Tommy and requested visitation shortly before the § 366.26 hearing; the juvenile court ordered supervised visitation, a ruling the Court of Appeal found to be an abuse of discretion after parental rights were terminated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Parent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "beneficial parent/child relationship" exception (§ 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)) applies | Adoption preference applies; parents must show relationship promotes child’s well-being to a degree that outweighs adoption | Cheryl: court misapplied precedent by requiring a balancing third prong; Richard: he had beneficial parental relationships with all three children | Court: Autumn H. balancing test is proper; parents failed to show exception—parental rights terminated |
| Whether Bailey J. created an improper extra prong to the exception | N/A | Cheryl: Bailey J. wrongly imposes a third prong beyond statutory two-part test | Court: Bailey J. merely restates Autumn H.; balancing inquiry is required and lawful |
| Whether Richard had a beneficial parent/child relationship with Sarah, Kevin, Tommy | Agency: Richard lacked a significant positive attachment with the children | Richard: asserted he was a father figure and had regular visitation/supportive relationship | Court: Richard’s claim is frivolous—evidence shows children did not view him as father; no beneficial relationship |
| Whether trial court erred in granting visitation to Richard for Kevin and Tommy near § 366.26 hearing | Agency/boys: visitation at that late stage would be detrimental and disruptive to attachment with prospective adoptive parents | Richard: sought presumed-father status and visitation; boys had previously seen him | Court: appeal moot as to paternity after termination, but court reviews visitation as public-importance issue and holds ordering visitation then was abuse of discretion and prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (1994) (establishes test: parent/child relationship must promote child’s well-being to a degree that outweighs adoption)
- In re Bailey J., 189 Cal.App.4th 1308 (2010) (interprets beneficial-relationship inquiry as a discretionary balancing assessment consistent with Autumn H.)
- In re Angel B., 97 Cal.App.4th 454 (2002) (factors for assessing relationship: age, time in custody, interaction quality, child’s needs)
- In re Michael G., 203 Cal.App.4th 580 (2012) (standards for labeling an appellate argument frivolous)
- In re Brittany C., 191 Cal.App.4th 1343 (2011) (visitation orders reviewed for abuse of discretion; detriment includes emotional harm)
- San Diego County Dept. of Social Servs. v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 882 (1996) (adoption preference in dependency law)