12 Cal. App. 5th 492
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- One-year-old child removed after sustained findings of parental domestic violence, inadequate supervision, and father's violent criminal history; parents ordered into reunification services.
- Mother repeatedly minimized risks, moved in with a boyfriend facing serious criminal allegations, and maintained supervised visits; father minimized his domestic violence, violated a restraining order, and missed multiple visits.
- Reunification services were terminated at 12 months; child had lived with foster parents since removal and foster parents sought adoption.
- At the section 366.26 permanency hearing parents contested termination of parental rights, arguing exceptions to adoption applied; father alternatively requested placement with the paternal grandmother.
- Juvenile court found the child likely to be adopted, no applicable exception to adoption, denied placement with the paternal grandmother, terminated parental rights, and selected adoption as the permanent plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether beneficial-relationship exception to adoption applies | Parents: they had sufficient parent-child bond and regular visits to trigger exception | Department: foster placement, parental history, and supervised/limited visits show no exception | Court: exception did not apply; termination affirmed |
| Whether father's challenge to failure to evaluate paternal grandmother under relative-placement statute (Welf. & Inst. Code §361.3) is reviewable | Father: Department/judge failed to give paternal grandmother preferential consideration and investigate, warranting reversal or further hearing | Department: father lacks standing because reunification was terminated; issue was forfeited for failure to litigate below | Court: father lacks standing and forfeited the claim; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Cesar V. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App.4th 1023 (relative-placement preference protects a relative's separate interest and a parent may lack standing after reunification ends)
- In re Lauren R., 148 Cal.App.4th 841 (no relative placement preference at adoption stage)
- In re Esperanza C., 165 Cal.App.4th 1042 (relative caretaker exception to termination of parental rights explained)
- In re Meranda P., 56 Cal.App.4th 1143 (procedural posture and appealability in dependency proceedings under §395)
- People v. Ramirez, 39 Cal.4th 398 (preservation requirement: issues not raised below are forfeited)