In re P.C. CA4/1
D079003
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 27, 2021Background
- 2018: After multiple domestic-violence incidents between the parents (one involving a knife threat and assaults while Mother held the infant), the juvenile court detained P.C. (19 months) and M.C. (3 months) and placed them with the maternal grandmother; Father was later confirmed as their biological parent.
- Mother obtained a restraining order; Father initially had supervised visits, later unsupervised visits, but visitation was reverted to supervised after a March 2020 domestic-violence incident and related conduct (including domestic violence with a later partner and a child removed for methamphetamine exposure).
- Father completed part of a court-ordered domestic-violence program but stopped during the pandemic and delayed re-enrollment; reunification services were terminated at the 18-month review and a section 366.26 hearing was set.
- Social workers reported Father loved the children, parented appropriately during visits, and the children called him “daddy,” but the children had lived with the caregiver most of their lives, were thriving there, and the caregiver intended to adopt.
- At the contested section 366.26 hearing the juvenile court found the children adoptable, concluded the parent-child relationship exception (§ 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)) did not apply given Father’s unresolved domestic-violence history and the advantages of adoption, and terminated Father’s parental rights; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to adoption applies | Agency: Exception does not apply because adoption’s stability and permanence outweigh any benefit from Father’s relationship; Father’s history of domestic violence and limited parental role undercut the exception | Father: He maintained consistent visitation and a beneficial emotional relationship; termination would be detrimental to the children | Court affirmed: exception did not apply; substantial evidence supports that adoption’s benefits outweigh harm from severing the parental relationship |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Cal. 2021) (establishes elements and burden for the beneficial parent-child relationship exception)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (factors for assessing parent-child attachment)
- In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (Cal. 2003) (explains preference for adoption as permanency plan)
- In re Angel B., 97 Cal.App.4th 454 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (children removed young may not form strong attachment to absent parent)
- In re Benjamin D., 227 Cal.App.3d 1464 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) (domestic violence harms children and affects parental fitness)
- In re Breanna S., 8 Cal.App.5th 636 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (parent need not prove every subfactor; court may base denial on any component)
- In re J.D., 69 Cal.App.5th 594 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (purpose and options at a § 366.26 hearing)
- In re B.D., 66 Cal.App.5th 1218 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (analysis of whether parent’s actions developed significant, positive attachment)