In re Caden C.
All too often, children experience harm — and shoulder long-term consequences — because their physical and emotional needs are neglected by their parents. In California, we rely on social services and statutory procedures to strike a delicate balance between protecting children from abuse or neglect and ensuring the continuity of children‘s emotionally important relationships, especially with their parents. The resulting balance sometimes gives a struggling parent enough time and support to overcome deficiencies and regain custody. When such success is not achieved, the dependency statutes require the court to hold a hearing under
When making that fraught determination, a court must sift through often complicated facts to weigh competing benefits and dangers for the child. It must consider practical realities over which it has limited control and envision a child‘s future under contingent conditions. And it must navigate situations that can change as quickly as the children before the court do.
To ease the court‘s difficult task in making this important decision, the statute provides a carefully calibrated process.
In this case, the trial court found that the parent had established the first of the listed exceptions, the parental-benefit exception.2 This exception applies where the parent has maintained regular visitation and contact with the child, the child would benefit from continuing the relationship, and termination of that relationship would impose a detriment on the child. The Court of Appeal reversed. It held that because the parent continued to struggle with substance abuse and mental health issues and because of the risks of foster care and benefits of the potential adoptive home, no reasonable court could find the child‘s relationship with his parent outweighed the benefits of adoption.
The Court of Appeal did not explain how the parent‘s struggles related to the specific elements of the statutory exception: the importance of the child‘s relationship with the parent or the detriment of losing that relationship. Instead, the appellate court treated the lack of progress in addressing substance abuse and mental health issues as a categorical bar to establishing the exception. That conclusion was mistaken, so we now reverse.
I.
Caden C. was born in 2009 and lived with his mother (Mother) until he was four years old. In September 2013, the Marin County Health and Human Services Department removed Caden from Mother‘s custody because Caden and his mother had been living in a car and Mother admitted to recent drug use and suicidal ideation. The court subsequently took and then decided to retain jurisdiction of Caden. It ordered that he remain in foster care and that Mother address her substance abuse and mental health issues and attend parenting classes. Caden was placed in foster care with a nonrelative extended family member, Ms. H. At a review hearing in July 2014, the court adopted the Department‘s recommendation to retain jurisdiction but place Caden with Mother; Mother and Caden subsequently moved to San Francisco.
By June 2016, Mother had relapsed. The San Francisco Human Services Agency (the Agency) then filed a supplemental dependency petition and removed Caden from her custody. (See
The juvenile court eventually held a
The Agency argued that Caden was likely to be adopted, that Mother‘s parental rights should be terminated, and the court should order a permanent plan of adoption. The social worker indicated Mother sometimes discussed the case and her drug treatment in front of Caden, and described reports from caregivers and service providers that Caden talked about alcohol and drug use in detail. She testified that Caden was
What Mother argued is that the court should not terminate her parental rights, because terminating her relationship with Caden would harm him. Numerous witnesses described how they‘d observed the relationship. Mother herself testified that “I don‘t want my son to ever, ever blame himself and think that he did something wrong or feel abandoned because I grew up, I grew up abandoned and feeling those things and I saw to it that my child has known he was loved and that he was a good kid and he had a heart of gold and that his heart resembled god. Like why would you want to take that from him? Because that‘s exactly what it would do if you were to, if you
The court found that Caden was likely to be adopted but that Mother had established the parental-benefit exception, precluding termination of parental rights. The court explained Mother “has been a constant and that is the relationship that the Court does need to focus on.” She “has maintained consistent and regular visitation and contact“; she “does stand in a parental role to her son“; and “the visits themselves have continued the significant emotional attachment that Caden and his Mother did create prior to his removals.” Mother “substantially complied with her case plan and although unsuccessful at times . . . has continued her efforts to maintain her sobriety and address her mental health issues.” As the court summed up its reasoning: “Caden loves his Mother. And he
In an addendum report, the Agency explained that Ms. H. did not feel comfortable with legal guardianship. She had concerns about Mother‘s demands for visitation and use of court process to disturb the placement. She expressed fear for her own safety and that of her family based on Mother‘s erratic behavior over the course of July 2014 to August 2016. Ms. H. instead expressed a preference to further consider legal guardianship but keep Caden in her care for the time being as a foster placement. The court then ordered that Caden remain in foster care subject to periodic review, and the Agency appealed the decision.
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court — but its rationale encompassed a conclusion we now find to be mistaken. (See In re Caden C. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 87, 116 (Caden C.).) The Court of Appeal took particular issue with the trial court‘s suggestion that Mother had ” ‘substantially complied with her case plan’ and ‘continues her efforts to maintain her sobriety and address her mental health issues.’ ” (Id. at p. 110.) In so
We granted review to clarify the applicability of the parental-benefit exception — in particular, whether a parent must show progress in addressing issues such as drug abuse that led to the child‘s dependency in order to establish the exception — and to resolve the standard of review for decisions regarding the parental-benefit exception.3
II.
Even when a court proceeds to select a permanent placement for a child who cannot be returned to a parent‘s care, the parent may avoid termination of parental rights in certain circumstances defined by statute. One of these is the parental-benefit exception. What it requires a parent to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, is that the parent has regularly visited with the child, that the child would benefit from continuing the relationship, and that terminating the relationship would be detrimental to the child. (See
A.
If the court cannot safely return a dependent child to a parent‘s custody within statutory time limits, the court must set
At the
Instead, the goal at the
In interpreting the exceptions, we are guided by the relevant statutory provisions, read in context. (See, e.g., Ryan v. Rosenfeld (2017) 3 Cal.5th 124, 128.) In particular, we take account of the connection the statute establishes — when an exception applies — between the “best interest” of the child and the continuation of parental rights. Parallel to the provision detailing the exceptions (
The exception at issue in this case is limited in scope. It applies where “[t]he court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child due to one or more of the following circumstances: [¶] (i) The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (
The first element — regular visitation and contact — is straightforward. The question is just whether “parents visit consistently,” taking into account “the extent permitted by court
As to the second element, courts assess whether “the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (
Concerning the third element — whether “termination would be detrimental to the child due to” the relationship — the court must decide whether it would be harmful to the child to sever the relationship and choose adoption. (
In each case, then, the court acts in the child‘s best interest in a specific way: it decides whether the harm of severing the relationship outweighs “the security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer.” (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) “If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that,” even considering the benefits of a new adoptive home, termination would “harm[]” the child, the court should not terminate parental rights. (Ibid.) That subtle, case-specific inquiry is what the statute asks courts to perform: does the benefit of placement in a new, adoptive home outweigh “the harm [the child] would experience from the loss of [a] significant, positive, emotional relationship with [the parent?]” (In re S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 300.) When the relationship with a parent is so important to the child that the security and stability of a new home wouldn‘t outweigh its loss, termination would be “detrimental to the child due to” the child‘s beneficial relationship with a parent. (
When it weighs whether termination would be detrimental, the court is not comparing the parent‘s attributes as custodial caregiver relative to those of any potential adoptive parent(s). Nothing that happens at the
What‘s more, understanding the harm associated with severing the relationship is a subtle enterprise — sometimes depending on more than just how beneficial the relationship is. In many cases, “the strength and quality of the natural parent/child relationship” will substantially determine how detrimental it would be to lose that relationship, which must be weighed against the benefits of a new adoptive home. (Autumn
This is a case in point. The experts agreed that Caden‘s relationship with Mother had potentially negative features. Dr. Molesworth indicated that Caden‘s bond to Mother might be “narrow“: Caden was preoccupied with Mother in a way that could impede forming other relationships. And Dr. Lieberman highlighted this aspect of the relationship. They disagreed, though, about how negative this feature actually was. Dr. Molesworth thought the “narrow” bond had not in fact impeded Caden from forming other relationships. Dr. Lieberman opined that it had. And most relevantly for whether termination would be detrimental, the experts disagreed about the effects of severing the relationship given Caden‘s preoccupation with Mother. Dr. Molesworth opined that termination could be more detrimental on account of Caden‘s preoccupation than if Caden were less preoccupied with Mother. Dr. Lieberman, on the other hand, opined that termination could, in this respect, even be beneficial because it would allow Caden to focus on other relationships or activities. The trial court seems to have credited Dr. Molesworth on the ground that Dr. Lieberman hadn‘t interviewed or met with Caden. A different court in a different case could find as the trial court did here that a potentially or actually negative aspect of a relationship might make termination even more detrimental. It could also find that terminating a relationship with negative aspects would have
To gauge and balance these weights can be a daunting prospect for trial courts. But it‘s what the statute requires — and the legislative history confirms it. In interpreting the dependency scheme in general and
The history of the statute also underscores that these three elements — visitation, a beneficial relationship, and detriment from losing it — are what the parent has to prove. Subsequent to Autumn H., the Legislature amended the statute to require a parent to show a “compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child . . . .” (
But ASFA didn‘t specify what would count as a “compelling reason.” The Legislature accordingly specified that existing reasons in the statute to delay setting a
What this means is that the parent asserting the parental benefit exception must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, three things. The parent must show regular visitation and contact with the child, taking into account the extent of visitation permitted. Moreover, the parent must show that the child has a substantial, positive, emotional attachment to the parent — the kind of attachment implying that the child would benefit from continuing the relationship. And the parent must show that terminating that attachment would be detrimental to the child even when balanced against the countervailing benefit of a new, adoptive home. When the parent has met that burden, the parental-benefit exception applies such that it would not be in the best interest of the child to terminate parental rights, and the court should select a permanent plan other than adoption.
B.
We now turn to whether and how a parent‘s continued struggles with the issues that led to dependency relate to application of the parental-benefit exception.
A parent‘s continued struggles with the issues leading to dependency are not a categorical bar to applying the exception. As the parties before us all agree, making a parent‘s continued struggles with the issues leading to dependency, standing alone, a bar to the exception would effectively write the exception out of the statute. In cases like this one, when the court sets a section 366.26 hearing, it terminates reunification services for the parent. (See
But the parties likewise agree on something else: issues such as those that led to dependency often prove relevant to the application of the exception. We agree. A parent‘s struggles may mean that interaction between parent and child at least sometimes has a ” ‘negative’ effect” on the child. (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576.) For example, there was some evidence in this case that, perhaps as a result of her mental health issues, Mother sought to undermine at least some of Caden‘s foster placements, which could certainly have had a negative effect on him. Conversely, a parent who gains greater understanding of herself and her children‘s needs through treatment may be in a better position to ensure that her interactions with the children have a ” ‘positive’ . . . effect” on them. (Ibid.; see In re E.T., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 77 [“the insight [Mother] has into her own development and the love and care she has for her children was clear in her testimony. Mother recognized that her behavior was traumatic for the children . . .“].) In both scenarios, the parent‘s struggles speak to the benefit (or lack thereof) of continuing the relationship and are relevant to that extent. And issues such as those leading to dependency may also be relevant to the detriment from terminating parental rights. There was some evidence in this case that Mother‘s continuing substance abuse and mental health issues contributed to Caden forming what might have
Nonetheless, the parent‘s struggles with issues such as those that led to dependency are relevant only to the extent they inform the specific questions before the court: would the child benefit from continuing the relationship and be harmed, on balance, by losing it? The parent‘s continuing difficulty with mental health or substance abuse may not be used as a basis for determining the fate of the parental relationship by assigning blame, making moral judgments about the fitness of the parent, or rewarding or punishing a parent. (See Cynthia D., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 254 [“It is not the purpose of the section 366.26 hearing to show parental inadequacy . . . [or] that the parents are ‘at fault’ “]; see also Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 305; Amber M., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 690; Goldstein et al., Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1979) p. 79.)
Nor could a parent‘s struggles be relevant simply because they might conceivably affect the parent‘s ability to regain custody of the child. As we have previously explained, return to the parent‘s custody is not an option at the section 366.26 hearing. (See Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 304–305.) Accordingly, whether the parent is or is not “ready for the children‘s return to her custody” is not, by itself, relevant to the application of the parental-benefit exception. (Amber M., supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 690.) If termination of parental rights would, when weighed against the offsetting benefits of an adoptive home, be detrimental to the child, the court should not terminate parental rights, even if the parent has not
Mother argues that a parent‘s struggles should only be relevant to whether the child would benefit from continuing the relationship. They should not be considered “a second time” in deciding whether termination would be detrimental. A parent‘s struggles may be most directly relevant — as Mother suggests — to the ” ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ effect of interaction between parent and child” (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576) and then somewhat more indirectly to the harm of removing such interactions from the child‘s life. (See also Zeth S., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 412, fn. 9.) But how and how much the loss of a relationship with a parent may be harmful, how and how much that harm might be offset by a new family are complex questions not always answered just by determining how beneficial the child‘s relationship with the parent is. Though there is no reason for a court to consider “a second time” the same struggles in the same way, a parent‘s struggles with substance abuse, mental health issues, or other problems could be directly relevant to a juvenile court‘s analysis in deciding whether termination would be detrimental.
When courts make decisions about whether to apply the beneficial relationship exception, their decisions are subject to review. What standard applies is another question we granted review to resolve.
Courts of Appeal have come to use three different standards. Many courts review all the trial court‘s findings for substantial evidence. (See, e.g., Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575.) Other courts have suggested that the appropriate standard is abuse of discretion because the “juvenile court is determining which kind of custody is appropriate for the child.” (Jasmine D., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1351 [analogizing § 366.26 hearing to custody determinations at other stages of dependency proceedings].) And yet others, including the Court of Appeal in this case, have adopted a “hybrid” standard. They review whether there has been regular visitation and whether there is a beneficial relationship for substantial evidence but whether termination would be detrimental for abuse of discretion. (See In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314–1315.)
We agree with the general consensus: a substantial evidence standard of review applies to the first two elements. The determination that the parent has visited and maintained contact with the child “consistently,” taking into account “the extent permitted by the court‘s orders” (Brandon C., supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 1537) is essentially a factual determination. It‘s likewise essentially a factual determination whether the relationship is such that the child would benefit from continuing it.
Yet the court must also engage in a delicate balancing of these determinations as part of assessing the likely course of a future situation that‘s inherently uncertain. The decision is not the same as a determination whether to transfer the child from the custody of one caregiver to another, but it does require assessing what the child‘s life would be like in an adoptive home without the parent in his life. (Cf. In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317–318 (Stephanie M.).) The court makes the assessment by weighing the harm of losing the relationship against the benefits of placement in a new, adoptive home. And so, the ultimate decision — whether termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child due to the child‘s
In reviewing factual determinations for substantial evidence, a reviewing court should “not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve evidentiary conflicts.” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 228.) The determinations should “be upheld if . . . supported by substantial evidence, even though substantial evidence to the contrary also exists and the trial court might have reached a different result had it believed other evidence.” (Ibid.; see also 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2020) Appeal, § 365.) Uncontradicted testimony rejected by the trial court ” ‘cannot be credited on appeal unless, in view of the whole record, it is clear, positive, and of such a nature that it cannot rationally be disbelieved.’ ” (Adoption of Arthur M. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 704, 717.)
Review for abuse of discretion is subtly different, focused not primarily on the evidence but the application of a legal standard. A court abuses its discretion only when ” ’ “the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination.” ’ ” (Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318.) But ” ’ “[w]hen two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 319; see also Robert L., supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 1067 [“The reviewing court should interfere only ’ “if . . . under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court‘s action, no judge could reasonably have made the order that he [or she] did” ’ “].)
III.
Having explained the scope of the parental-benefit exception and the standard for reviewing an application of it, we turn to the Court of Appeal‘s decision in this case. The Court of Appeal found substantial evidence supported the trial court‘s determinations that Mother had maintained regular visitation with Caden. (Caden C., supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at pp. 108–109.) It also found that substantial evidence supported the trial court‘s determination that Caden and Mother had a beneficial relationship. (Id. at p. 109.) It held, though, that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the relationship was a
The Court of Appeal rested its decision to reverse on two considerations. First, it concluded that mother had not ” ‘maintain[ed] her sobriety and address[ed] her mental health issues.’ ” (Caden C., supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 110.) It therefore held that “[n]o reasonable court would apply the beneficial relationship exception on this record of mother‘s disengagement from treatment and case plan, inability or unwillingness to remain sober, and deficient insight regarding her parenting.” (Id. at p. 112.) Second, it reasoned that “although Caden enjoyed visiting with mother, their interactions were often detrimental to his well-being” (id. at p. 114) by contrast with his relationship with Ms. H., “the only caregiver in Caden‘s life who had enabled him ‘to feel that he is in the care of a consistent and predictable adult who keeps him safe and reliably looks out for his physical and emotional needs’ ” (id. at p. 115). It therefore concluded that “when the strength and quality of mother‘s relationship with Caden in a tenuous placement is properly balanced against the security and sense of belonging adoption by Ms. H. would confer, no reasonable court could have concluded that a compelling justification had been made for forgoing adoption.” (Ibid., italics added.)
The first consideration supporting reversal was improper. Even where a parent continues to struggle with addiction — and even if she believes that her addiction doesn‘t make her an unfit parent — a reasonable court could conclude that termination of parental rights would, on balance, be detrimental to the child. (See Caden C., supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 111.) Mother was not required, in order to establish that the parental-benefit
Because we find that the Court of Appeal‘s first consideration was erroneous, we reverse. Accordingly, we do not address the court‘s second consideration in detail. In particular, we don‘t decide whether the Court of Appeal failed to view “all the evidence, . . . most favorably in support of the trial court‘s actions” (Robert L., supra, 21 Cal.App.4th at p. 1067) or improperly “substitute[d] its own judgment” (Zeth S., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 410) for the trial court‘s.
The juvenile court declined to terminate parental rights nearly three years ago. We now hold that the Court of Appeal, in reversing that decision, erred. And so, we reverse the Court
IV.
The dependency statutes were enacted to prevent harm to children. They prevent harm at the outset of the dependency process by removing children from situations where they are likely to suffer abuse or neglect. But they also prevent harm in the process of selecting permanent placement through the parental-benefit exception, by allowing certain children to preserve emotionally important parental relationships. This exception allows a child a legal basis for maintaining a relationship with the child‘s parent if severing that relationship would, on balance, harm the child. The exception preserves the child‘s right to the relationship even when the child cannot safely live with that parent. What it does not allow is a judgment about the parent‘s problems to deprive a child of the chance to continue a substantial, positive relationship with the parent. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand with directions to dismiss the appeal as moot.
CUÉLLAR, J.
We Concur:
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.
CORRIGAN, J.
LIU, J.
KRUGER, J.
GROBAN, J.
JENKINS, J.