parental bond exception in California

2026(In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573 (Autumn H.).) “[I]t is only in an extraordinary case that preservation of the parent’s rights will prevail over the Legislature’s preference for adoptive placement.” (Jasmine D., at p. 1350.) To avoid this outcome, the parent must show that termination of parental rights “‘would be detrimental to the minor’ due to any of certain specified circumstances.” (Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 249 .) One circumstance, the parental bond exception, applies where the parent can show they “have maintained regular visitation and contact wi

2026Avoiding termination would have required father to show that 10 termination of parental rights “ ‘would be detrimental to the minor’ due to any of certain specified circumstances.” (Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 249 .) One such circumstance, the parental bond exception, applies where the parent can show they “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).) There are three elements to this exception: “(1) regular visitation and contact, and (2) a relationship, the co

2021(In re Caden C. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 87, 106 , review granted July 24, 2019, S255839.) Some have reviewed the decision for abuse of discretion and others for substantial evidence.

2020(In re Caden C. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 87, 106 , review granted July 24, 2019, S255839.) Some have reviewed the decision for abuse of discretion, others have reviewed it for substantial evidence, and still others have combined the two and taken a hybrid approach, as we do.

2024Under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), one such exception exists where “[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” A beneficial relationship is established if it “ ‘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 Brandon C. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1534 .) Our Supreme Court in Caden C. clarified the proper application of the parental bond exception.

2021Under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), one such exception exists where “[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” A beneficial relationship is established if it “ ‘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 Brandon C. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1530, 1534 .) Our Supreme Court recently clarified the proper application of the parental bond exception.

2021If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent’s rights are not terminated.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 (Autumn H.); Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 633.) When “assessing whether termination would be detrimental, the trial court must decide whether the harm from severing the child’s relationship with the parent outweighs the benefit to the child of placement in a new adoptive home.” (Caden C

2020(Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1314 .) “A showing the child derives some benefit from the relationship is not a sufficient ground to depart from the statutory preference for adoption. [Citation.] No matter how loving and frequent the contact, and notwithstanding the existence of an ‘“emotional bond”’ with the child, ‘“the parents must show that they occupy ‘a parental role’ in the child’s life.”’” (In re Breanna S. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 636, 646 .) In determining whether the exception applies, “the court balances the strength and quality of the natural parent/child relationship in a t

2014Moreover, even if we were to consider that Mother maintained visitation, she cannot show that their 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.’ [Citations.]” (In re K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 621 .) Here, although Mother had been present for a large portion of the lives of N.P. and L.P., this did not mean the relationship was beneficial.

2013(In re K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at pp. 621-622, quoting In re Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1314-1315.) We therefore conclude the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the parental bond exception.

2013(In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 853 .) Father did not offer her any significant benefits.

2013(In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 853 .) Father did not visit the children and he did not offer them any significant benefits.

2022(See, e.g., In re J.S. (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1071, 1080-1081 [mother appeared at section 366.26 hearing, but court refused to permit her to testify regarding potential sibling bond exception to termination of parental rights]; In re Clifton V. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1400 , 1406 [juvenile court erred by precluding mother’s live testimony at section 366.26 hearing].) Here, there is no indication the juvenile court would have precluded mother from testifying about the parental bond exception had she appeared at the section 366.26 hearing.

2022But father “must show more than frequent and loving contact or pleasant visits.” (In re C.F. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 549, 555 .) Father conflates the second and third elements of the parental bond exception and wrongly assumes that the evidence showing that he had a beneficial relationship with Lilianna necessarily also shows that terminating his parental rights would be detrimental to her.

2021PARENTAL BOND EXCEPTION Father claims he had a significant bond with C.L., and a bond with E.L., and that the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the parental bond 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.’

2021This “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 , overruled on other grounds in In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 413-414 .) While it can have merit in an appropriate case (e.g., In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 296-301 ), this is not such a case. 1.

2021The department’s reports indicated that Mother had regularly participated in visitation 11 Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 . 12 People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 . 13 The parental bond exception is a statutory exception to the preference for termination of parental rights and selection of a permanent plan of adoption and “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 ; see § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) 18 throughout the d

2021This “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 , overruled on other grounds in In re Zeth S. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 396, 413-414 .) While it can have merit in an appropriate case (e.g., In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 296-301 ), this is not such a case. 1.

2021The department’s reports indicated that Mother had regularly participated in visitation 11 Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18 . 12 People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 . 13 The parental bond exception is a statutory exception to the preference for termination of parental rights and selection of a permanent plan of adoption and “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 ; see § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) 18 throughout the d

2021“At a permanency planning hearing, the court may order one of three alternatives — adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care. [Citation.] If a child is adoptable, there is a strong preference for adoption over the alternative permanency plans. [Citations.] If the court determines that a child is likely to be adopted, the burden shifts to the parent to show that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child under one of the exceptions listed in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1). [Citation.] “An exception to termination of parental rights applies where ‘[t]he parents h

2016(Ibid.) “Because a parent’s claim to such an exception is evaluated in light of the Legislature’s preference for adoption, it is only in exceptional circumstances that a court will choose a permanent plan other than adoption. [Citation.]” (In re Scott B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 452, 469 .) To establish the parental bond exception, Mother first had to demonstrate she maintained regular contact with Y.G. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) Once that was established, she had the burden of demonstrating Y.G. would benefit from continuing the relationship to an extent that outweighed the benefits of ado

2016(In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 .) She had to show that severing “the natural parent-child relationship would deprive [Y.G.] of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed. [Citations.]” (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 466 .) The Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) did not contest Mother met the first prong and the juvenile court did not discuss it.

2015PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP EXCEPTION At the section 366.26 hearing, the issue “‘is whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the child is adoptable.’” (In re Josue G. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 725 , 732- 733; see § 366.26, subd. (c).) “Adoption, where possible, is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573 .) The parental benefit or “beneficial relationship” exception set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), is an exception to adoption and applies where “‘[t]he parents . . . have maintained regular visitation and contact wi

2014(In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 422-423 .)3 In doing so, we do not reweigh the evidence or exercise our independent judgment.