Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 California opinions name it 1 courts 2006–2024 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Daisy D.green2 sentences2024(See In re Rachel M. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295 [“[t]he juvenile court does not have a sua sponte duty to determine whether an exception to adoption applies”]; see also In re Daisy D. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 287, 292 [same, with regard to the beneficial sibling relationship exception]; In re Melvin A., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1252 .) Here, mother’s counsel did not argue at the section 366.26 hearing that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights applied. 2022(See In re Rachel M. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295 [relative caregiver exception; “[t]he juvenile court does not have a sua sponte duty to determine whether an exception to adoption applies”]; see also In re Daisy D. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 287, 292 [same, with regard to the beneficial sibling relationship exception].) Here, mother’s counsel did not argue at the section 366.26 hearing that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights applied. | 3 | 3 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Rosi M.green2 sentences2024(See In re Rachel M. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295 [“[t]he juvenile court does not have a sua sponte duty to determine whether an exception to adoption applies”]; see also In re Daisy D. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 287, 292 [same, with regard to the beneficial sibling relationship exception]; In re Melvin A., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1252 .) Here, mother’s counsel did not argue at the section 366.26 hearing that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights applied. 2022(See In re Rachel M. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295 [relative caregiver exception; “[t]he juvenile court does not have a sua sponte duty to determine whether an exception to adoption applies”]; see also In re Daisy D. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 287, 292 [same, with regard to the beneficial sibling relationship exception].) Here, mother’s counsel did not argue at the section 366.26 hearing that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights applied. | 3 | 3 |
In Re Valerie A.green2 sentences2021(In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1014 .) On the parents’ challenge to the juvenile court in finding the beneficial sibling relationship exception to the termination of parental rights does not apply, “we apply the substantial evidence standard to the juvenile court’s underlying factual determinations, and the abuse of discretion standard to the court’s weighing of competing interests.” (In re D.O. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 166, 174 (D.O.).) We conclude that the juvenile court did not err in finding that the sibling relationship exception did not apply. 2021(In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1013 ; see also In re D.M. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 283, 293 [termination of sibling relationship not sufficiently detrimental despite a “pleasant relationship” 31 between siblings].) Having reviewed the record, we see no error by the juvenile court in finding the beneficial sibling relationship exception to the termination of parental rights does not apply. | 1 | 3 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Tomas L.green2 sentences2021(In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1013 ; see also In re D.M. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 283, 293 [termination of sibling relationship not sufficiently detrimental despite a “pleasant relationship” 31 between siblings].) Having reviewed the record, we see no error by the juvenile court in finding the beneficial sibling relationship exception to the termination of parental rights does not apply. 2014(In re D.M. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 283, 293-294 .) B H.Q. contends the juvenile court erred by finding the beneficial sibling relationship exception inapplicable because termination of parental rights will substantially interfere with Josh and S.Q.'s relationships with Marcos and C.Q.8 With respect to Marcos, the juvenile court found that Josh was bonded to Marcos. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Celine R.green2 sentences2021The beneficial sibling relationship exception to adoption applies if the court concludes that “[t]here would be substantial interference with a child’s sibling relationship, taking into consideration the nature and extent of the relationship, including, but not limited to, [1] whether the child was raised with a sibling in the same home, [2] whether the child shared significant common experiences or has existing close and strong bonds with a sibling, and [3] whether ongoing contact is in the child’s best interest, including the child’s long-term emotional interest, as compared to the benefit o 2020The specified statutory circumstances—actually, exceptions to the general rule that the court must choose adoption where possible—‘must be considered in view of the legislative preference for adoption when reunification efforts have failed.’ [Citation.] At this stage of the dependency proceedings, ‘it becomes inimical to the interests of the minor to heavily burden efforts to place the child in a permanent alternative home.’ [Citation.] The statutory exceptions merely permit the court, in exceptional circumstances [citation], to choose an option other than the norm, which remains adoption.” (C | 1 | 2 |
In Re Natasha A.green2 sentences2006Even if the court mistakenly believed the beneficial sibling relationship exception had already been litigated, any error was harmless because Cherilynn was not entitled to a hearing on her section 388 petition regarding Terrance's best interests or the applicability of the beneficial sibling relationship exception. ( In re Natasha A (1996) 42 Cal. App.4th 28, 38 , 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 332 [we review juvenile court's ruling, not its reasoning, and may affirm if it was correct on any ground].) DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. 2006Even if the court mistakenly believed the beneficial sibling relationship exception had already been litigated, any error was harmless because Cherilynn was not entitled to a hearing on her section 388 petition regarding Terrance's best interests or the applicability of the beneficial sibling relationship exception. ( In re Natasha A (1996) 42 Cal. App.4th 28, 38 , 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 332 [we review juvenile court's ruling, not its reasoning, and may affirm if it was correct on any ground].) DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Francisco W.green2 sentences2006(See *822 Francisco W., supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 708 , 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 171 [the "problem with counsel's position is that in every case we would have to remand for a new section 366.26 hearing, with the attendant delays for notice, trial and appeal"].) E Cherilynn further contends the court erroneously believed, in reliance on County Counsel's representations, that the beneficial sibling relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E) had been previously litigated and affirmed on appeal. 2006(See *822 Francisco W., supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 708 , 43 Cal.Rptr.3d 171 [the "problem with counsel's position is that in every case we would have to remand for a new section 366.26 hearing, with the attendant delays for notice, trial and appeal"].) E Cherilynn further contends the court erroneously believed, in reliance on County Counsel's representations, that the beneficial sibling relationship exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E) had been previously litigated and affirmed on appeal. | 1 | 2 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Ashlee R.green1 sentence2022(In re Isaiah W. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 1, 7 (Isaiah W.).) ICWA provides: “In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child's 5 In her appellant’s reply brief, Mother argues for the first time that the court also erred by finding that the beneficial sibling relationship exception (i.e., § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(v)) applied to preclude the termination of her p | 1 | 1 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Jessica A.green2 sentences2021(In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 1014 .) On the parents’ challenge to the juvenile court in finding the beneficial sibling relationship exception to the termination of parental rights does not apply, “we apply the substantial evidence standard to the juvenile court’s underlying factual determinations, and the abuse of discretion standard to the court’s weighing of competing interests.” (In re D.O. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 166, 174 (D.O.).) We conclude that the juvenile court did not err in finding that the sibling relationship exception did not apply. 2021(See D.O., supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 176 .) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the sibling relationship exception did not apply. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Autumn H.
green
2 sentences2024We reject Mother and Father’s argument. “[T]he goal at the section 366.26 hearing is ‘specifically … to select and implement a permanent plan for the child.’” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 630.) “Adoption, where possible, is the permanent plan preferred by the Legislature.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573 ; accord, In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 997 .) If the court finds a child is likely to be adopted if parental rights are terminated, it must select adoption as the permanent plan unless it finds termination of parental rights would be detrimental to th 2013(In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575 ; In re Jason J., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 936 .) III V.W. contends that the court erred by not applying the beneficial sibling relationship exception to preclude terminating her parental rights. | 2 | 2013–2024 |
In Re LYL
green
2 sentences2023(In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942 , 949 (L.Y.L.).) This is considered “a heavy burden.” (In re Daniel H. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 804, 813 .) Although any sibling relationship necessarily involves two or more siblings, a court considering the exception must focus its analysis on the child 5 To the extent the parents raised additional issues in their notices of appeal that were not subsequently briefed on appeal, we deem them forfeited and do not address them. 2021The beneficial sibling relationship exception to adoption applies if the court concludes that “[t]here would be substantial interference with a child’s sibling relationship, taking into consideration the nature and extent of the relationship, including, but not limited to, [1] whether the child was raised with a sibling in the same home, [2] whether the child shared significant common experiences or has existing close and strong bonds with a sibling, and [3] whether ongoing contact is in the child’s best interest, including the child’s long-term emotional interest, as compared to the benefit o | 2 | 2021–2023 |
In Re Melvin A
green
1 sentence2024(See In re Rachel M. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295 [“[t]he juvenile court does not have a sua sponte duty to determine whether an exception to adoption applies”]; see also In re Daisy D. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 287, 292 [same, with regard to the beneficial sibling relationship exception]; In re Melvin A., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1252 .) Here, mother’s counsel did not argue at the section 366.26 hearing that the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights applied. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Daniel R.
green
1 sentence2024(In re Andrea R. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1108 ; In re Valerie A., supra, at p. 997.) “‘[T]he statutory exceptions merely permit the court, in exceptional circumstances [citation], to choose an option other than the norm, which remains adoption.’” (In re Caden C., supra, at p. 631 .) One of these is the beneficial sibling relationship exception found in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(v). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Daniel H.
green
1 sentence2023(In re L.Y.L. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 942 , 949 (L.Y.L.).) This is considered “a heavy burden.” (In re Daniel H. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 804, 813 .) Although any sibling relationship necessarily involves two or more siblings, a court considering the exception must focus its analysis on the child 5 To the extent the parents raised additional issues in their notices of appeal that were not subsequently briefed on appeal, we deem them forfeited and do not address them. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Margaret M.
green
1 sentence2023DISCUSSION Mother and Father challenge the juvenile court’s finding that the beneficial sibling relationship exception did not apply.5 “Adoption is the preferred plan and, absent an enumerated exception, the juvenile court is required to select adoption as the permanent plan.” (In re Fernando M. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 529, 534 .) The sibling relationship exception to adoption applies where the court concludes “[t]here would be substantial interference with a child’s sibling relationship, taking into consideration the nature and extent of the relationship, including, but not limited to, [1] whe | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Zeth S.
green
1 sentence2022(In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 641; In re Zeth S., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 410 .) Mother and father argue that the juvenile court erred in finding the beneficial sibling relationship exception to adoption did not apply because the evidence showed a bond between S.D. and Greyson that outweighed the benefits to adoption. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re Jason J.
green
1 sentence2013(In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575 ; In re Jason J., supra, 175 Cal.App.4th at p. 936 .) III V.W. contends that the court erred by not applying the beneficial sibling relationship exception to preclude terminating her parental rights. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re SB
green
2 sentences2013Although we recognize that sibling relationships are worthy of protection (In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 998 ), we must apply a deferential standard of review and again conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the court's finding that the sibling relationship exception did not apply here. 16 S.W.'s reliance on In re C.B., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at pages 128-129 and In re S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at page 300 , is misplaced. 2013Although we recognize that sibling relationships are worthy of protection (In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 998 ), we must apply a deferential standard of review and again conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the court's finding that the sibling relationship exception did not apply here. 16 S.W.'s reliance on In re C.B., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at pages 128-129 and In re S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at page 300 , is misplaced. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. C.K.
green
1 sentence2013Although we recognize that sibling relationships are worthy of protection (In re Valerie A. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 987, 998 ), we must apply a deferential standard of review and again conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the court's finding that the sibling relationship exception did not apply here. 16 S.W.'s reliance on In re C.B., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at pages 128-129 and In re S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at page 300 , is misplaced. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. Patricia J.
green
1 sentence2013(See Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1315 ; In re K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at pp. 621-622.) DISPOSITION The orders are affirmed. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.