In re S.R. CA4/2, E076576

In May 2018 CFS filed dependency petitions after a half‑sibling suffered serious, suspicious injuries; amended petitions alleged father caused those injuries and domestic violence occurred in the children’s presence. Father initially had custody but the children were removed from his care in August 2018.
The juvenile court sustained most petition allegations, denied father reunification services under the bypass provision, and set a section 366.26 permanency hearing.
Father consistently visited the children, completed parenting classes, and sought reinstatement of services/expanded visitation via two section 388 petitions; both petitions were denied.
The children were placed with prospective adoptive parents and reportedly formed strong attachments to them; however, the children exhibited anxiety/PTSD symptoms (night terrors, diarrhea, tantrums) before and after visits with father.
At the section 366.26 hearing the court found the children adoptable, concluded father satisfied the regular‑visitation element but did not show a sufficiently strong parental bond or that severing the relationship would outweigh adoption’s benefits, and terminated parental rights; this appeal followed.

Issue	CFS's Argument	Father's Argument	Held
Whether the beneficial parent‑child relationship exception to adoption (Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)) applies	Adoption is in children’s best interest; father is essentially a friendly visitor and children are better served by adoptive placement; children’s pre/post‑visit symptoms show visits are harmful	Father has consistent visitation, a loving bond, and completed programs; terminating rights would harm the children and a guardianship is preferable	Father proved regular visitation but failed to show the required substantial, positive, emotional attachment or that severing would be more detrimental than adoption is beneficial; court’s denial of the exception and termination of parental rights affirmed

In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Cal. 2021) (clarifies standards for parental‑benefit exception; hybrid review and child‑focused inquiry)
In re Bailey J., 189 Cal.App.4th 1308 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (statutory rule: adoption favored when child likely to be adopted)
In re Jasmine D., 78 Cal.App.4th 1339 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (parental rights yield to adoptive placement except in extraordinary cases)
In re K.P., 203 Cal.App.4th 614 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (parental role and parental‑benefit exception framework)
In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (requirement of significant, positive emotional attachment for the exception)