87 Cal.App.5th 1155
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- M.V., a young child, was removed after law enforcement discovered child pornography on her parents’ devices and parents admitted involvement; M.V. was placed with paternal grandparents.
- Parents received reunification services and regular monitored visitation (multiple times per week); grandparents sought to adopt and were primary caregivers during dependency.
- After reunification services were terminated, the court appointed Dr. Alfredo Crespo to prepare a Welfare & Institutions Code § 730 bonding study to evaluate the child–parent bond and effects of severance.
- Crespo’s report was primarily remote, focused on detailed psychological testing of the parents, included minimal direct observation of M.V., and recommended adoption—reasoning that guardianship could create false hope for reunification; parents requested a supplemental in‑person bonding study.
- The juvenile court refused to order a supplemental study, relied on Crespo’s report, found M.V. adoptable, concluded no statutory exception to adoption applied, and terminated parental rights; the Court of Appeal reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff (DCFS) Argument | Defendants (Mother/Father) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by refusing to order a supplemental bonding study after receiving Crespo’s nonresponsive § 730 report | Initial 730 was adequate; any deficiencies could be addressed in argument and did not warrant further delay | Crespo’s report was nonresponsive: no in‑person observations of child/parent interaction, failed to assess the effects of severing the parental bond; requested supplemental in‑person study | Reversed: court abused discretion; supplemental bonding study required on remand |
| Whether the court properly applied the beneficial parental‑relationship exception under In re Caden C. (11 Cal.5th 614) | Termination appropriate because permanency (adoption) outweighed continued parental contact | Parents argued regular visitation and a meaningful parent–child relationship existed such that severance would be detrimental | Reversed: court failed to analyze whether M.V. had a "substantial, positive, emotional attachment" (Caden C. framework) and must reevaluate after a proper bonding study |
| Whether the court properly relied on Crespo’s opinions about guardianship vs. adoption and on anticipated post‑adoption contact | Crespo’s views on permanency and open adoption were permissible to consider | Crespo relied on legally irrelevant assumptions (unenforceable promises of post‑adoption contact), and his report exceeded the § 730 scope | Court erred to give weight to those improper considerations; must assume severance ends legal parent–child relationship and not rely on unenforceable visitation promises |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Cal. 2021) (sets framework for beneficial parental‑relationship exception and advises courts to consider bonding studies when appropriate)
- In re Lorenzo C., 54 Cal.App.4th 1330 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (no absolute requirement to obtain a bonding study, but courts should consider one when requested and appropriate)
- In re M.G., 80 Cal.App.5th 836 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (identifies minimum factors a bonding study should address: child’s age, portion of life in parent custody, quality of interactions, and child’s needs)
- In re Richard C., 68 Cal.App.4th 1191 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (permissible to deny belated bonding study requests that would unreasonably delay permanency)
- In re L.A.-O., 73 Cal.App.5th 197 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (day‑to‑day custody is typical but not required to show a significant emotional attachment)
- In re S.B., 164 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (courts should not base termination on unenforceable promises of post‑adoption visitation)