In re Steven M. CA1/4
A160705
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 7, 2021Background
- In July 2018 Alameda County filed a dependency petition for then-16-month-old Steven based on parents’ domestic violence and substance abuse; the child was placed with his maternal grandmother.
- The court sustained the petition and ordered reunification; reunification services were later terminated (May 2019) after continued domestic violence and inconsistent progress.
- Mother maintained regular, positive visits (in-person twice weekly, calls/FaceTime weekly or more) and participated in dyadic therapy; grandmother provided day-to-day care and was willing to adopt or consider guardianship.
- The agency recommended termination of parental rights and adoption by the grandmother; the court found Steven adoptable and terminated parental rights in August 2020.
- The trial court rejected the parental-benefit exception, citing mother’s failure to complete her case plan and perceived parenting shortcomings as reasons the parent/child relationship would not outweigh adoption benefits.
- After the trial decision, the California Supreme Court decided In re Caden C., clarifying how courts must assess the parental-benefit exception; the appellate court reversed and remanded for reconsideration under Caden C. because the record was ambiguous about whether the trial court relied on factors Caden disapproved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parental‑benefit exception (§ 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)) applies | Agency: Steven is adoptable; any parental relationship does not outweigh adoption benefits, so terminate rights | Mother: Visitation was regular and relationship beneficial; severing would harm Steven, so exception applies | Court: Reversed and remanded for reconsideration under In re Caden C.; could not determine trial court avoided proscribed factors |
| Whether the trial court properly considered mother’s case‑plan compliance | Agency: Mother’s failure to complete case plan supports denial of exception | Mother: Case‑plan noncompliance is not dispositive; focus must be on child’s harm from severing relationship | Court: Noted trial court cited case‑plan noncompliance; under Caden C. such struggles are relevant only as they inform whether the child would be harmed—remand required to apply that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Caden C., 11 Cal.5th 614 (Cal. 2021) (clarifies elements of parental‑benefit exception and standard of review; courts must weigh harm from severing relationship against benefits of adoption)
- In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (Cal. 1993) (purpose of § 366.26 hearing to select permanent plan after reunification fails)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (factors to assess whether child would benefit from continuing parent/child relationship)
- In re Noah G., 247 Cal.App.4th 1292 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (court previously required case‑plan compliance for exception; disapproved in part by Caden C.)