73 Cal.App.5th 197
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background:
- Children (N., G., and later-born L.) were removed after reports of a filthy, unsafe home and parental methamphetamine use; dependency petitions were filed and reunification services ordered.
- Children were placed with foster caregivers (the B.s) from Aug. 2020; by June 2021 the B.s sought to adopt all three children and the children had been with them ~10 months.
- Parents had supervised weekly visits (mostly supervised), attended consistently but visits were often of poor quality (observed inattention, possible substance impairment, and one video showing slurred speech).
- Visits frequently upset the children—G. had tantrums and long periods of inconsolability after visits; N. showed conflicted feelings but expressed desire to remain with B.s if return was impossible.
- At the §366.26 hearing the juvenile court found the children adoptable, concluded no parental-benefit exception applied (noting parents had not acted in a “parental role in a long time”), and terminated parental rights; parents appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Agency) | Defendant's Argument (Parents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parental-benefit exception under §366.26(c)(1)(B)(i) applies | Adoption preferred; parents’ visits were poor quality and did not produce a substantial beneficial relationship | Regular visitation and emotional bond mean the exception applies and termination would be detrimental | Remanded for reconsideration of the exception under Caden C.; appellate court could not tell if trial court applied correct standard because of its “parental role” language |
| Whether the trial court erred by relying on a “parental role” requirement | Parental-role analysis supported denial because foster parents had acted as parents and parents had not for a long time | Parents contend Caden C. removed any independent “parental role” requirement; courts should focus on whether child has a substantial, positive, emotional attachment to parent | Court held the phrase “parental role” is ambiguous and may reflect impermissible reasoning; directed reconsideration under Caden C.’s framework (focus on substantial, positive, emotional attachment) |
| Whether the juvenile court (or this court) improperly relied on earlier social-worker reports not introduced at §366.26 hearing | Agency relied on evidence before the court at the hearing | Parents argued earlier reports showed exception applied and the court “ignored” them | Court held earlier reports not in evidence at the §366.26 hearing could not be considered on appeal; parties may introduce them on remand if offered into evidence at a new hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Cal. 2021) (supreme-court articulation of parental-benefit exception and focus on whether child has a substantial, positive, emotional attachment)
- In re Beatrice M., 29 Cal.App.4th 1411 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (earlier appellate decision articulating a “parental role” requirement)
- In re J.D., 69 Cal.App.5th 594 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (remand where trial court’s “parental” language left unclear whether Caden C. standards were applied)
- In re D.M., 71 Cal.App.5th 261 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (holding focus should be on substantial positive emotional attachment rather than checklist parental duties)
- In re Malinda S., 51 Cal.3d 368 (Cal. 1990) (discussing admissibility of social-worker reports in dependency proceedings)
- In re George G., 68 Cal.App.3d 146 (Cal. Ct. App. 1977) (due-process concerns where parties did not have access to social-worker reports)