beneficial relationship exception in California

2025(Id. at pp. 630–631.) The “ ‘statutory exceptions merely permit the court, in exceptional circumstances [citation], to choose an option other than the norm, which remains adoption.’ ” (Id. at p. 631.) Among the exceptions is the parental-benefit exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 631.) The beneficial parental relationship exception “applies only where the court finds regular visits and contact have continued or developed a significant, positive, emotional attachment from child to parent.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 .) “No matter how

2024But as the juvenile court stated in analyzing whether Kimberly and Orlando had met their burden on the second element of the parental-benefit exception, “there’s always going to be some incidental benefit, and frequent and loving contact is not enough.” (See In re G.H. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 15 , 25 [“Friendly or affectionate visits are not enough.”]; In re Katherine J., supra, 75 Cal.App.5th at p. 318 [“the beneficial relationship exception demands something more than the incidental benefit a child gains from any amount of positive contact with her natural parent”]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 C

2021(Ibid., citing In re Grace P. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 605 , 614–615; In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 299 (S.B.); In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 , disapproved of on other grounds in Caden C. at p. 636, fn. 5.) And she points out that the beneficial relationship exception does not require a showing of “day-to-day contact” between the parent and child or the existence of a “primary attachment.” (See S.B., at pp. 299–301.) We do not disagree with any of the foregoing legal points.

2016(In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1418-1419 .) And even if there is such a bond, the parent must prove that the parental relationship “ ‘promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents.’ ” (In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 , 297, quoting In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 ; accord, In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1345 .) 5 II Estoppel Mother argues that the Department should be estopped from arguing that the beneficial relationship exception to adop

2021(In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314 (Bailey J.).) If a parent meets his or her burden to establish the requirements of the beneficial relationship exception, the juvenile court may choose a permanent plan other than adoption if it finds the beneficial relationship to be “a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B); see Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1315 .) If the beneficial relationship exception applies, the court “shall order that the present caretakers or other appropriate persons shall become l

2021(In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314 (Bailey J.).) If a parent meets his or her burden to establish the requirements of the beneficial relationship exception, the juvenile court may choose a permanent plan other than adoption if it finds the beneficial relationship to be “a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B); see Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1315 .) If the beneficial relationship exception applies, the court “shall order that the present caretakers or other appropriate persons shall become l

2026(See In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 554 [visitation consistent near the section 366.26 hearing, but sporadic overall, is insufficient to meet the first prong of the beneficial relationship exception]; In re I.R. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 201, 212 [significant lapses in visitation fatally undermines any attempt to finding beneficial parental relationship exception].) Mother does not provide any authority to the contrary.

2021(In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 553 .) The first element of the beneficial relationship determination asks the “straightforward” question “whether ‘parents visit consistently,’ taking into account ‘the extent permitted by court orders.’ ” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632.) Courts should concentrate on whether “[v]isits and contact ‘continue[ ] or develop[ ] a significant, positive, emotional attachment from child to parent’ ” as the focus throughout the beneficial relationship analysis “is on the best interests of the child.” (Ibid.; see also Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p

2019(See In re Breanna S. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 636, 646 (Breanna S.); In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1527 .) A court’s determination that “a parent has not satisfied this burden may be based on any or all of the component determinations—[(1)] whether the parent has maintained regular visitation, [(2)] whether a beneficial parental relationship exists, and [(3)] whether the existence of that relationship constitutes ‘a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child.’ ” (Breanna S., at pp. 646–647; see § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); In re K.P. (2012) 203

2019(See In re Breanna S. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 636, 646 (Breanna S.); In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1527 .) A court’s determination that “a parent has not satisfied this burden may be based on any or all of the component determinations—[(1)] whether the parent has maintained regular visitation, [(2)] whether a beneficial parental relationship exists, and [(3)] whether the existence of that relationship constitutes ‘a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child.’ ” (Breanna S., at pp. 646–647; see § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); In re K.P. (2012) 203

2023(In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47, 49 , disapproved of on subd. (a).) The minute orders he attaches make no reference to the beneficial relationship exception but do reflect that the juvenile court ordered the Department to assess the permanent plan of legal guardianship. 6 another ground by In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 636, fn. 5.) 2.

2021The juvenile court erred by failing to apply the beneficial relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i). “ ‘The objective of the dependency scheme is to protect abused or neglected children and those at substantial risk thereof and to provide permanent, stable homes if those children cannot be returned home within a prescribed period of time.’ [Citation.] When the child is removed from the home, the court first attempts, for a specified period of time, to reunify the family.” (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 52 .) After reunification services are denied or terminat

2016(Id. at pp. 575-576; see also In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 467 .) Moreover, for purposes of the beneficial relationship exception, “pleasant and cordial . . . visits are, by themselves, insufficient to mandate a permanent plan other than adoption.” (In re Brian R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 904, 924 (Brian R.).) Indeed, “frequent and loving contact” may also be insufficient to establish the type of beneficial relationship “contemplated by the statute.” (In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1418 (Beatrice M.).) “Interaction between natural parent and child will always confer som

2015Specifically, we conclude that Mother did not establish she had the type of parental relationship with the children that satisfied the requirements of the beneficial relationship exception, regardless of whether she engaged in regular visitation. 10 of the child." (In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517 , 1527; see In re Jason J. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 922, 936-937 (Jason J.); In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 827 (Derek W.).) The evidence must establish more than merely "a loving and happy relationship" (In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1419 ), and the parent must be more

2026To avoid termination of parental rights, Mother must “do more than demonstrate ‘frequent and loving contact[,]’ [citation] an emotional bond with the child, or that [they] find their visits pleasant.” (In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 827 .) “Friendly or affectionate visits are not enough.” (In re G.H. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 15 , 25; see In re Katherine J. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 303 , 318 [“the beneficial relationship exception demands something more than the incidental benefit a child gains from any amount of positive contact with her natural parent”].) “A positive attachment between p

2024(In re J.D. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 833 , 859.) However, “[f]riendly or affectionate visits are not enough.” (In re G.H. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 15 , 25; see id. at p. 27; accord, In re Katherine J. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 303 , 318 [“the beneficial relationship exception demands something more than the incidental benefit a child gains from any amount of positive contact with her natural parent”].) To avoid termination of parental rights, Mother was required to “do more than demonstrate ‘frequent and loving contact[,]’ [citation] an emotional bond with the child, or that [they] find their visits ple

2025The beneficial relationship exception to the termination of parental rights “may be the most unsuccessfully litigated issue in the history of law.” (In re Eileen A. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1248, 1255, fn. 5 , disapproved on other grounds by In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396 , 413–414.) The first two elements of the court’s analysis are reviewed for substantial evidence.

2024The beneficial relationship exception to the termination of parental rights “may be the most unsuccessfully litigated issue in the history of law.” (In re Eileen A. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1248, 1255, fn. 5 , disapproved on other grounds by In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396 , 413–414.) The first two elements of the court’s analysis are reviewed for substantial evidence.

2019(See Noah G. , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1302, 1304, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 91 [in considering the beneficial relationship exception, "the juvenile court could properly focus on the mother's unresolved substance addiction issues because the children became dependents of the court due to her drug abuse"; citing mother's continuing drug abuse as "evidence continuing the parent-child relationship would not be beneficial "]; Breanna S. , supra , 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 648, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 98 ["in balancing the benefit to [the children] of adoption and the possible detriment from terminating their relat

2019(See Noah G. , supra , 247 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1302, 1304, 203 Cal.Rptr.3d 91 [in considering the beneficial relationship exception, "the juvenile court could properly focus on the mother's unresolved substance addiction issues because the children became dependents of the court due to her drug abuse"; citing mother's continuing drug abuse as "evidence continuing the parent-child relationship would not be beneficial "]; Breanna S. , supra , 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 648, 214 Cal.Rptr.3d 98 ["in balancing the benefit to [the children] of adoption and the possible detriment from terminating their relat

2022I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517 , 1528, disapproved on another ground in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1010, fn. 7.) Under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), it was the father’s burden to establish his entitlement to the beneficial-relationship exception and each element of that 11 exception.

2019(See In re Breanna S. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 636, 646 (Breanna S.); In re I.W. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1527 .) A court’s determination that “a parent has not satisfied this burden may be based on any or all of the component determinations—[(1)] whether the parent has maintained regular visitation, [(2)] whether a beneficial parental relationship exists, and [(3)] whether the existence of that relationship constitutes ‘a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child.’ ” (Breanna S., at pp. 646–647; see § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); In re K.P. (2012) 203

2026(See In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 554 [visitation consistent near the section 366.26 hearing, but sporadic overall, is insufficient to meet the first prong of the beneficial relationship exception]; In re I.R. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 201, 212 [significant lapses in visitation fatally undermines any attempt to finding beneficial parental relationship exception].) Mother does not provide any authority to the contrary.

2026(Id. at pp. 575–576.) To satisfy the exception, “a parent must prove all three components of the beneficial relationship exception,” and a “failure of proof on any one of them is fatal.” (In re Katherine J. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 303 , 322, fn. 10.) The parental-benefit exception requires a parent to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) “the parent has regularly visited with the child,” taking into account the extent of visitation permitted; (2) “the child has a substantial, positive, emotional attachment to the parent—the kind of attachment implying that the child would benefi

2025(In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 , 296–297.) At issue here is the beneficial relationship exception, which applies when “[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.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) A parent must prove three elements to establish this exception: “(1) regular visitation and contact, and (2) a relationship, the continuatio

2025(In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 , 296–297.) At issue here is the beneficial relationship exception, which applies when “[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.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) To establish this exception, a parent must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, three elements: (1) regular visitation and contact

2021(In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 529 .) “We apply the substantial evidence standard of review to the factual issue of the existence of a beneficial parental relationship, and the abuse of discretion standard to the determination of whether there is a compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child.” (In re Anthony B. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 389, 395 .) The first element that must be established under the beneficial relationship exception requires a showing that the parent maintained regular visitation and contact with the child. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)

2016(In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 12 . 1308, 1314 (Bailey J.).) One of these statutory exceptions is the beneficial relationship exception to adoption, which applies when it would be detrimental to the child to terminate parental rights if “[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) “A parent asserting the parental benefit exception has the burden of establishing that exception by a preponderance of the evidence.” (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 529 .) O

2021(See In re Brian R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 904, 924 ; In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1418 (Beatrice M.).) “ ‘Interaction between [a] natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child[,]’ ” but the beneficial relationship exception 8 contemplates that the parents have “occupied a parental role.” (Beatrice M., supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 1419 .) While mother’s visits with C.H. were positive, her relationship with him cannot reasonably be described as parental in nature.

2021(See In re Brian R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 904, 924 ; In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1418 (Beatrice M.).) “ ‘Interaction between [a] natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child[,]’ ” but the beneficial relationship exception 8 contemplates that the parents have “occupied a parental role.” (Beatrice M., supra, 29 Cal.App.4th at p. 1419 .) While mother’s visits with C.H. were positive, her relationship with him cannot reasonably be described as parental in nature.

2019For example, in the seminal case of In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 , 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 , the father admitted to using methamphetamine " 'on and off' " for 30 years. ( Id. at p. 293, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 .) However, after the child was removed from the father's custody, he complied with every aspect of his case plan including maintaining his sobriety. ( Ibid. ) The child welfare agency acknowledged " 'consistent efforts' " on the father's part " 'to alleviate and or mitigate the reasons his family was brought to the attention of the court.' " ( Id. at p. 294, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 .) In conc

2019For example, in the seminal case of In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 , 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 , the father admitted to using methamphetamine " 'on and off' " for 30 years. ( Id. at p. 293, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 .) However, after the child was removed from the father's custody, he complied with every aspect of his case plan including maintaining his sobriety. ( Ibid. ) The child welfare agency acknowledged " 'consistent efforts' " on the father's part " 'to alleviate and or mitigate the reasons his family was brought to the attention of the court.' " ( Id. at p. 294, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 .) In conc

2020In order to overcome the statutory preference for adoption, the parent must prove he or she occupies a parental role in the child’s life, resulting in a significant, positive emotional attachment of the child to the parent.” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 229 .) Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s determination that the beneficial relationship exception did not apply.

2016(In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 574 (Autumn H.).) The Autumn H. court recognized that “[i]nteraction between natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child.” (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575 .) “To meet the burden of proof, the parent must show more than frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits.” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 229 .) The beneficial relationship exception applies only when the relationship with the natural parent “promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree

2022The beneficial relationship exception, like the other circumstances specified in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B), “ ‘merely permit the court, in exceptional circumstances [citation], to choose an option other than the norm, which remains adoption.’ ” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 631, quoting In re Celine R., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 53 .) It is the parent’s burden to establish the exception.

2021“The Legislature has thus determined that, where possible, adoption is the first choice . . . ‘because it gives the child the best chance at [a full] emotional commitment from a responsible caretaker.’ [Citation.] ‘Guardianship, while a more stable placement than foster care, is not irrevocable and thus falls short of the secure and permanent future the Legislature had in mind for the dependent child.’” (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53 .) Because the child was living with caregivers who were committed to adopting him, and the beneficial relationship exception did not apply to preclude

2023(See Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 633.) While it was mother’s burden, not DCFS’s, to establish the beneficial relationship exception, “in evaluating the record, we cannot overlook the fact the agency provided very little information in its [ ] reports during the case about the quality of mother's relationship with [K.R.] or even the nature of her interactions with [her] during visitation. . . . [DCFS’s reports] should already have provided objective, disinterested information about the quality of [K.R.’s] attachment to [her] mother, which would have assisted the court in evaluating the be

2019For example, in the seminal case of In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 , 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 , the father admitted to using methamphetamine " 'on and off' " for 30 years. ( Id. at p. 293, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 .) However, after the child was removed from the father's custody, he complied with every aspect of his case plan including maintaining his sobriety. ( Ibid. ) The child welfare agency acknowledged " 'consistent efforts' " on the father's part " 'to alleviate and or mitigate the reasons his family was brought to the attention of the court.' " ( Id. at p. 294, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 449 .) In conc

2021(See § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) If so, and if the court finds that there has been a previous determination that reunification services be terminated, then the court shall terminate parental rights to allow for adoption. [Citation.] But if the parent shows that termination would be detrimental to the child for at least one specifically enumerated reason, the court should decline to terminate parental rights and select another permanent plan.” (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 630–631.) The statutory reasons for departing from “ ‘the norm’ ” of adoption apply only in “ ‘exceptional circumstances

2016The First Prong-Visitation The regular visitation and contact element of the beneficial relationship exception “is somewhat self-explanatory.” (Seiser & Kumli, Cal. Juvenile Courts Practice and Procedure (2014) Permanency Planning Procedures, § 2.171[5] [b][ii][A], pp. 2-590 to 2-591.) It does not require the parent to have “‘maintained day-to-day contact’” (In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102, 124 ), but it does require the parent to have “maintained regular visitation and contact” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i), italics added).

2021(In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573 (Autumn H.).) Indeed, when a court finds that a child is likely to be adopted if parental rights are terminated, it must select adoption as the permanent plan unless it finds a reason for determining that “termination would be detrimental to the child” due to one or more of the statutory circumstances delineated in section 366.26. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B); In re A.A. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1292 , 1320.) 6 The statutory exception at issue in these proceedings—the beneficial relationship exception—applies where termination of parental rights woul

2019Under the statutory framework discussed ante , the juvenile court was thus required to terminate parental rights and designate adoption as Caden's permanent plan, absent proof of a "compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child" due to an articulated statutory circumstance such as the beneficial relationship exception. ( § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B) ; A.A. , supra , 167 Cal.App.4th at p. 1320, 84 Cal.Rptr.3d 841 .) In concluding that the beneficial relationship exception applied in this case, the juvenile court first found regular visitation, stating: "The r

2025The beneficial relationship exception to the termination of parental rights “may be the most unsuccessfully litigated issue in the history of law.” (In re Eileen A. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1248, 1255, fn. 5 , disapproved on other grounds by In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396 , 413–414.) The first two elements of the court’s analysis are reviewed for substantial evidence.

2024The beneficial relationship exception to the termination of parental rights “may be the most unsuccessfully litigated issue in the history of law.” (In re Eileen A. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1248, 1255, fn. 5 , disapproved on other grounds by In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396 , 413–414.) The first two elements of the court’s analysis are reviewed for substantial evidence.

2021Moreover, application of the beneficial relationship exception requires the parent to show “more than the relationship is ‘beneficial.’ ” (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 52, fn. 4 .) The parent must demonstrate the relationship “ ‘promote[s] the well-being of the child to such a degree that it outweighs the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents.’ ” (Ibid.; see also In re Elizabeth M. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 318, 324 [parent must occupy more than a “pleasant place” in the child’s life for the beneficial relationship exception to apply]; In re Bea

2015Day-to-day contact is not necessarily required, although it is typical in a parent-child relationship.’ [Citation.] Moreover, ‘[b]ecause a section 366.26 hearing occurs only after the court has repeatedly found the parent unable to meet the child’s needs, it is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent’s rights will prevail over the Legislature’s preference for adoptive placement.’ [Citation.]” (In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621 .) 9 The beneficial relationship exception is “examined on a case-by-case basis,” (In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1166 ) taking i

2021(In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 529 .) “We apply the substantial evidence standard of review to the factual issue of the existence of a beneficial parental relationship, and the abuse of discretion standard to the determination of whether there is a compelling reason for finding that termination would be detrimental to the child.” (In re Anthony B. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 389, 395 .) The first element that must be established under the beneficial relationship exception requires a showing that the parent maintained regular visitation and contact with the child. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)

2021(Anthony B., supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at p. 395 .) The beneficial relationship exception applies where the parent/child “relationship promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a permanent home with new, adoptive parents.

2026(In re Melvin A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252 .) Thus, the parent must prove three elements in order to prevail under the beneficial relationship exception: “(1) regular visitation and contact, and (2) a relationship, the continuation of which would benefit the child such that (3) the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child.” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 631 (Caden C.).) The first element of the beneficial relationship determination asks the “straightforward” question of whether the parent visited consistently, considering the extent permitted by court o

2026(In re Melvin A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252 .) Thus, the parent must prove three elements in order to prevail under the beneficial relationship exception: “(1) regular visitation and contact, and (2) a relationship, the continuation of which would benefit the child such that (3) the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child.” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 631 (Caden C.).) The first element of the beneficial relationship determination asks the “straightforward” question of whether the parent visited consistently, considering the extent permitted by court o

2022(In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1339 .) “The applicable standard of review is whether, under all the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the juvenile court’s action, the juvenile court could have reasonably refrained from ordering a bonding study.” (Id. at p. 1341.) Caden C. emphasized the importance of bonding studies for evaluating the beneficial relationship exception.

2021(In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1339 .) “The denial of a belated request for [a bonding] study is fully consistent with the scheme of the 8 dependency statutes, and with due process.” (In re Richard C. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1191, 1197 .) L.C. and B.G. argue the bonding study was necessary to help establish the beneficial relationship exception as well as the reinstatement of reunification services.

2021I, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th 87 , reversing the juvenile court’s reliance on the beneficial relationship exception to adoption in Caden’s first permanency planning hearing.

2021First, 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