In re Y.G. CA4/3, G052993

Y.G., taken into protective custody in Feb 2014 at age 4 due to Mother’s mental health issues, substance abuse, and past physical and emotional abuse; juvenile court declared Y.G. a dependent and ordered reunification services for Mother.
Y.G. remained in the same foster (concurrent planning/adoptive) home since Feb 2014 and made marked developmental, emotional, and school progress in that placement.
Mother had supervised visits throughout, frequently late or canceled, missed therapy and drug tests, and never advanced beyond supervised visitation; contact was regular but often limited in quality.
Over time Y.G. showed decreased verbal/physical engagement with Mother, sought comfort from the foster parents (calling them “Mommy” and “Daddy”), expressed a wish to be adopted by them, and sometimes resisted or wanted to end visits with Mother.
After termination of reunification services at the 18‑month review, SSA recommended terminating Mother’s parental rights at the § 366.26 permanency hearing; the juvenile court found Y.G. likely adoptable and rejected the parental-bond (beneficial relationship) exception.
Mother appealed, arguing the § 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i) parental-bond exception applied because Y.G.’s primary attachment was to her and guardianship — not adoption — should be ordered.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	SSA / Respondent’s Argument	Held
Whether the § 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i) parental-bond (beneficial relationship) exception precludes termination of parental rights	Mother: maintained regular contact and a primary attachment to Y.G.; severing would harm child — guardianship preferable	SSA: Although Mother had regular contact, interaction quality was limited; Y.G. was bonded to prospective adoptive parents and would not be greatly harmed by termination	Court: Exception inapplicable; benefits of adoption outweighed continuing parent-child relationship; terminated Mother’s rights

In re Bailey J., 189 Cal.App.4th 1308 (2010) (standard of review and framework for parental-bond exception analysis)
In re Scott B., 188 Cal.App.4th 452 (2010) (adoption is preferred permanent plan; exception applies only in exceptional circumstances)
In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (1994) (burden on parent to show child would be greatly harmed by severing relationship)
In re Angel B., 97 Cal.App.4th 454 (2002) (definition of substantial positive attachment required for exception)
In re Derek W., 73 Cal.App.4th 823 (1999) (distinguishing friendly visitation from parental relationship for exception purposes)
In re Jasmine D., 78 Cal.App.4th 1339 (2000) (balanced test comparing benefits of adoption versus continued parental relationship)
In re Zachary G., 77 Cal.App.4th 799 (1999) (continued parent-child contact alone usually insufficient to bar adoption)
In re Amber M., 103 Cal.App.4th 681 (2002) (exception applied where bonding study and expert testimony showed parental relationship outweighed adoption)
In re S.B., 164 Cal.App.4th 289 (2008) (reversal where strong primary attachment and bonding study supported potential harm from severance)
In re Celine R., 31 Cal.4th 45 (2003) (guardianship is less permanent than adoption and usually insufficient when adoption is feasible)
In re Marilyn H., 5 Cal.4th 295 (1993) (dependency focus shifts to child’s needs after reunification efforts fail)