In re S.B. CA1/4, A170448

The mother, T.W., appealed the juvenile court’s termination of her parental rights to two children, S.B. and Princeton, following serious injuries to Princeton attributable to non-accidental trauma.
Princeton, who was diagnosed with cerebral palsy and subsequently suffered catastrophic brain and bodily injuries, was placed in protective custody along with his siblings after findings of abuse and neglect.
The children were placed in foster/resource family homes and the mother’s visitation was supervised and later severely limited due to concerns about her ability to care for and emotionally connect with the children.
Over time, mother’s participation in reunification services and visitation was inconsistent, particularly with Princeton, prompting social services to recommend against reunification.
At the contested section 366.26 hearing, social workers and care providers testified that termination of parental rights would not be detrimental to the children, who were adoptable, well-cared-for by their placements, and had formed stable attachments with caregivers.
The juvenile court found the parental-benefit exception to adoption inapplicable, terminated mother’s rights, and approved adoption as the permanent plan for the children.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the parental-benefit exception applied	Mother argued regular visitation and strong bonds	Agency argued no substantial, positive child-parent benefit	Exception not met; regular visitation & benefit not proven
Whether mother had substantial visitation	Argued consistent, regular visits (esp. with S.B.)	Agency noted highly limited visits with Princeton	First prong arguably met for S.B., not for Princeton
Whether children benefited from relationship	Claimed children had substantial, positive attachment	Noted negative impacts, withdrawal, and lack of sensitivity	No substantial benefit to children from continued relationship
Whether termination would be detrimental	Argued severance would harm children emotionally	Agency asserted no evidence of detriment, strong caregiver ties	No detriment outweighed benefit of adoption

In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1993) (explaining the purpose of section 366.26 hearings to secure permanent plans for children)
In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (Cal. 2003) (noting adoption is the norm at 366.26 hearings except in exceptional circumstances)
In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (providing the standard for the parental-benefit exception)
In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Cal. 2021) (distinguishing the three-prong standard for the beneficial relationship exception and standards of review)