In re S.H. CA5
F073667
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 5, 2016Background
- S.H., born ~2010, placed in protective custody Sept 2014 after parents found using methamphetamine; father had prior loss of parental rights for another child.
- Father was homeless, intermittently visited S.H., tested positive for drugs multiple times, and had incidents of domestic violence during reunification services.
- S.H. diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder; lived with foster family since Jan 2016 and was reported to be thriving and likely adoptable.
- Father received reunification services until Nov 2015; services were terminated and the court set a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan.
- At the contested section 366.26 hearing, parties stipulated father had maintained regular visitation and contact and a bond existed; evidence included father’s testimony and witnesses describing the bond, and the social worker’s testimony about disruptive post-visit behavior by S.H.
- Juvenile court found S.H. likely to be adopted, concluded the beneficial-relationship exception did not apply, terminated parental rights, and selected adoption as the permanent plan; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "beneficial relationship" exception to adoption under Welfare & Institutions Code §366.26(c)(1)(B)(i) applies | Dept: Adoption is in child’s best interest; exception inapplicable because severing father’s rights would not substantially harm child | Father: He maintained regular contact, shared a strong bond, was primary caregiver early on, and severance would cause substantial harm—so exception applies | Court: Exception did not apply; evidence did not show father fulfilled a parental role or that severance would cause substantial, demonstrable harm |
| Whether guardianship should be ordered instead of adoption | Dept: Adoption preferable given child’s progress and adoptive placement | Father: Guardianship would preserve relationship with father and avoid harm from termination | Court: Rejected guardianship argument, upheld selection of adoption as permanent plan |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marcelo B., 209 Cal.App.4th 635 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (defines standard for beneficial-relationship exception and factors to consider)
- In re K.P., 203 Cal.App.4th 614 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (explains requirement that parent occupy a parental role beyond an emotional bond)
- In re Angel B., 97 Cal.App.4th 454 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (severing parental relationship must deprive child of substantial positive emotional attachment to avoid adoption)
- In re I.W., 180 Cal.App.4th 1517 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (appellate standard of review when beneficial-relationship finding is challenged)
- In re Megan S., 104 Cal.App.4th 247 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (parent bears burden to prove statutory exception applies)