Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. M.P.
213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 714
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- DCFS detained three children (Grace, Marco, Michael) for domestic violence, parental drug use, and gang activity; children adjudged dependents in April 2014.
- Children placed together in foster care, received therapy; issues improved but were not reunited with parents over ~3-year dependency.
- Father maintained consistent, monitored weekly visits, phone contact, and engaged in feeding, playing, and caregiving during visits; visits reported positively by foster parent.
- Father had intermittent incarceration and did not complete all court-ordered programs; Mother continued associating with Father and did not seek a contested hearing on her relationship.
- At the § 366.26 selection and implementation hearing, DCFS reported the children were adoptable; the juvenile court found termination appropriate and denied Father’s request for a contested hearing on the beneficial parent-child relationship exception.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying a contested hearing where Father proffered evidence of regular visitation and a qualitatively significant parent-child relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying a contested § 366.26 hearing on the beneficial parent-child relationship exception | DCFS: Father’s proffered testimony was cumulative of DCFS reports and insufficient to show a relationship strong enough to overcome adoption preference | Father: He maintained regular visitation and would testify the visits were parental in quality and that the children viewed him as a father figure; thus he was entitled to a contested hearing | Reversed and remanded for a contested hearing; where a parent shows regular contact and offers testimony about relationship quality and detriment from termination, denial of a contested hearing is an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Aaliyah R., 136 Cal.App.4th 437 (2006) (articulates two-prong test for beneficial parent-child relationship exception: regular contact and significant bond causing detriment if severed)
- In re Autumn H., 27 Cal.App.4th 567 (1994) (requires balancing natural parent bond against benefit of a permanent adoptive home; lists factors for evaluating bond)
- In re Tamika T., 97 Cal.App.4th 1114 (2002) (due process does not require a contested hearing when a parent cannot present relevant evidence; trial court may demand a specific offer of proof)
- In re Jeanette V., 68 Cal.App.4th 811 (1998) (denial of contested hearing proper where parent failed to maintain regular visitation and thus could not meet both prongs)
- In re I.R., 226 Cal.App.4th 201 (2014) (regular visitation is measured by consistent contact as permitted; significant lapses undermine the exception)
- In re A.B., 230 Cal.App.4th 1420 (2014) (standard of review for denial of contested § 366.26 hearing is abuse of discretion)