parental relationship exception in California

2021(In re A.G., supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 996 [“[t]he burden is on the parent asserting the parental relationship exception to produce evidence establishing that exception”]; In re Grace P., supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 611 [“[i]f the parents have failed to reunify and the court has found the child likely to be adopted, the burden shifts to the parents to show exceptional circumstances exist such that termination would be detrimental to the child”]; In re Breanna S., supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 646 [“[t]he parent has the burden of proving the statutory exception applies”]; 22 In re K.P., supra, 20

2021(In re A.G., supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 996 [“[t]he burden is on the parent asserting the parental relationship exception to produce evidence establishing that exception”]; In re Grace P., supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 611 [“[i]f the parents have failed to reunify and the court has found the child likely to be adopted, the burden shifts to the parents to show exceptional circumstances exist such that termination would be detrimental to the child”]; In re Breanna S., supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 646 [“[t]he parent has the burden of proving the statutory exception applies”]; 22 In re K.P., supra, 20

2020(Tamika T., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1121-1122.) That “offer of proof must be specific, setting forth the actual evidence to be produced, not merely the facts or issues to be addressed and argued.” (Id. at p. 1124.) However, what is not clear from Tamika T. and Grace P. are the standards for determining whether the parent’s offer of proof meets the threshold to require the court to order a contested hearing. 12 It is clear that a parent may not assert the parental relationship exception “simply by demonstrating some benefit to the child from a continued relationship with the parent, or som

2020“Because 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.” (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 , italics added.) “To meet the burden of proof [for the parental relationship exception], the parent must show more than frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits. [Citation.] The parent must demonstrate more than incidental benefit

2024(Caden C., at pp. 633-634; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 .) Mother argues reversal of the order terminating her parental rights is called for because the court was required to, but did not, perform an in-depth analysis of the detriment-benefit element of the parental relationship exception to termination.

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.” (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575 , italics added; see also In re Anthony B., supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at. p. 396 [“question is whether 28 that [parental] relationship remained so significant and compelling in [the child’s] life that the benefit of preserving it outweighed the stability and benefits of adoption”].) The burden is o

2021Mother’s sole challenge is that the juvenile court erred in finding inapplicable the parental relationship exception to adoption. 29 Accordingly, our standard of review here is governed by the hybrid standard (substantial evidence/abuse of discretion) enunciated by a panel of this court in Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at pages 1314-1315.

2021(In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308 , 14 1314.) One exception is the beneficial parent-child relationship exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) “‘To trigger the application of the parental relationship exception, the parent must show the parent-child relationship is sufficiently strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination.’ [Citation.] A beneficial relationship ‘is one that “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.” [Citation.] The existence of thi

2016The parental relationship exception “does not permit a parent who has failed to reunify with an adoptable child to derail an adoption merely by showing the child would derive some benefit from continuing a relationship maintained during periods of visitation with the parent.” (In re Jasmine D., supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at p. 1348 .) “A parent must show more than frequent and loving contact or pleasant visits. [Citation.] ‘Interaction between natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child. . . .’ [Citation.] The parent must show he or she occupies a parental role

2015The parental relationship exception “does not permit a parent who has failed to reunify with an adoptable child to derail an adoption merely by showing the child would derive some benefit from continuing a relationship maintained during periods of visitation with the parent.” (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1348 .) “A parent must show more than frequent and loving contact or pleasant visits. [Citation.] ‘Interaction between natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child . . . .’ [Citation.] The parent must show he or she occupies a parental role

2021(In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308 , 14 1314.) One exception is the beneficial parent-child relationship exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) “‘To trigger the application of the parental relationship exception, the parent must show the parent-child relationship is sufficiently strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination.’ [Citation.] A beneficial relationship ‘is one that “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.” [Citation.] The existence of thi

2020(In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314 .) One exception is the beneficial parent-child relationship exception. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) “‘To trigger the application of the parental relationship exception, the parent must show the parent-child relationship is sufficiently strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination.’ [Citation.] A beneficial relationship ‘is one that “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.” [Citation.] The existence of this r

2014(See In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 467 (Angel B.) [when assessing the parental relationship exception, 2 The trial court’s order states only that the evidence presented at the hearing showed “the best interests of the children in finding permanency in their lives through adoption clearly outweigh[ed]” any detrimental impacts the children might suffer from severing the parental relationship. 15 courts may consider “the age of the child” and “the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody”]; K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 622 [denial of exception supported, in part

2013Finally, the mother has pointed to no evidence indicating that the child “has any particular needs that can be met by [m]other but not by the [adoptive maternal grandparents].” (Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 468 [mother’s failure to identify any needs that could not be met by adoptive parents supported juvenile court’s finding that the parental relationship exception did not apply].) The DCFS reports make clear that Raymond has thrived under the care of his maternal grandparents, who have “done an excellent job of meeting the minor’s needs” and are “committed to meeting his needs on a

2024“The statutory exceptions merely permit the court, in exceptional circumstances [citation], to choose an option other than the norm, which remains adoption.” (In re Celine R. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 45, 53 .) In order to establish the parental relationship exception 8 under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), a parent must prove three elements: (1) “regular visitation and contact with the child, taking into account the extent of visitation permitted”; (2) that “the child has a substantial, positive, emotional attachment to the parent—the kind of attachment implying that the child would benefit

2024As the Supreme Court in In re Caden C. cautioned, the legislative preference is adoption; the parental relationship exception, like the other exceptions to termination of parental rights, applies only in “‘exceptional circumstances.” (In re Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 631; accord, In re Celine R., supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 53 .) When the benefits of a stable, adoptive, permanent home 19 outweigh the harm the child would experience from the loss of a continued parent-child relationship, the court should order adoption.

2021Under this exception as provided in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), the juvenile court will not terminate parental rights if it “ ‘finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child’ because ‘[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.’ The exception does not require proof the child has a ‘primary attachment’ to a parent or the parent has ‘maintained day-to-day contact’ with the child. [Citation.]” (In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102, 123-124 .) B

2013(In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102, 129 .) The second determination in the exception analysis is whether the existence of that relationship or other specified statutory circumstance constitutes “a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B).) In In re K.P., supra, 203 Cal.App.4th 614 , the juvenile court found that the bond between mother and K.P. was not “strong enough” to rise to the level meriting the application of the parental relationship exception to the termination of parental rights because it did not constitute

2022Instead, relying on pre-Caden C. case law, the court simply found neither Mayra nor William H., Sr. had “assumed a parental role in the lives of these children for a significant period of time.” (See, e.g., In re Breanna S. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 636, 646 [“[n]o 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”’”], disapproved on a related ground in Caden C., at p. 637, fn. 6.) Yet the analysis in Caden C. made clear that proving a parental role had

2021(In re A.G., supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 996 [“[t]he burden is on the parent asserting the parental relationship exception to produce evidence establishing that exception”]; In re Grace P., supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 611 [“[i]f the parents have failed to reunify and the court has found the child likely to be adopted, the burden shifts to the parents to show exceptional circumstances exist such that termination would be detrimental to the child”]; In re Breanna S., supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 646 [“[t]he parent has the burden of proving the statutory exception applies”]; 22 In re K.P., supra, 20

2020Those three “ ‘component determinations [are]—[(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.” ’ [Citations.]” (Caden C., supra, 34 Cal App.5th at p. 104, rev. granted; see also In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1316 [mother demonstrated regular visitation but not a beneficial parental relationship].)9 9 Case law discussing the parental relationship exception gene

2015If 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.” (Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575 .) This requires a showing of “more than frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits -- the parent must show that he or she occupies a parental role in the life of the child. [Citation.]” (In re I.W. (2009) 16 180 Cal.App.4th 1517 , 1527.) Factors courts con

2021Mother suggests that a different result is required by S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 299, because the parental relationship exception does not turn on whether a child has a “primary attachment” to the parent.

2021Mother suggests that a different result is required by S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 299, because the parental relationship exception does not turn on whether a child has a “primary attachment” to the parent.

2021(In re A.G., supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 996 [“[t]he burden is on the parent asserting the parental relationship exception to produce evidence establishing that exception”]; In re Grace P., supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 611 [“[i]f the parents have failed to reunify and the court has found the child likely to be adopted, the burden shifts to the parents to show exceptional circumstances exist such that termination would be detrimental to the child”]; In re Breanna S., supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at p. 646 [“[t]he parent has the burden of proving the statutory exception applies”]; 22 In re K.P., supra, 20

2020(See In re Grace P. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 605, 614-615 (Grace P.).) It is not clear from the record here whether the juvenile court properly exercised its discretion (1) by requiring that mother address in her offer of proof only two of the three components of the parental relationship exception, or required her to address all three components; and (2) in addressing whether the proffer met the specificity requirements of Tamika T., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at page 1124 , construed the offer of proof liberally in favor of deeming it sufficient to warrant the granting of a hearing.

2016(Id. at pp. 468, 471–472.) And in In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681 , the seven-year-old child expressed conflicting wishes about where she wanted to live; the child‟s CASA and an expert psychologist testified about the importance of the bond between the child and her mother; and the appellate court had concerns about the “fragmented” hearing process and the basis for the trial court‟s ruling on the parental relationship exception.

2015As the court noted in Bailey J., this is “a ‘quintessentially’ discretionary decision, which calls for the juvenile court to determine the importance of the [parental] relationship in terms of the detrimental impact that its severance can be expected to have on the child and to weigh that against the benefit to the child of 15. adoption. [Citation.] Because this component of the juvenile court’s decision is discretionary, the abuse of discretion standard of review applies.” (Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1315 .) Beneficial Parental Relationship “To trigger the application of the pare

2016(In re G.B., supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 1165 ; In re K.P, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 621 .) Appellate courts have adopted differing standards of review for the parental relationship exception determination.

2016We assess whether the court’s order on the parental relationship exception is supported by substantial evidence.4 (In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1166 .) If supported by substantial evidence, the finding here must be upheld, even though substantial evidence may also exist that would support a contrary result and the dependency court might have reached a different conclusion had it determined the facts and weighed credibility differently.

2024Nonetheless, “[t]he burden is on the parent asserting the parental relationship exception to produce evidence establishing that exception.” (In re A.G. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 973 , 996; see also Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at pp. 636-637; In re Melvin A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.725(d)(2).) The parent must show by preponderance of the evidence “regular visitation and contact with the child, taking into account the extent of visitation permitted.

2006As mother recognizes, the party claiming an exception to adoption has the burden of proof of establishing by a preponderance of evidence that the exception applies. ( In re Melvin A. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1243, 1252 , 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 844 ; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1463(e)(3).) We review the juvenile court's decision *885 whether to apply the parental relationship exception to termination of parental rights for abuse of discretion. ( In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1348-1349 , 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 644 ( Jasmine D. ).) Under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1), if the juvenile court fi

2015I(1)(B)(i).) "To trigger the application of the parental relationship exception, the parent must show the parent-child relationship is sufficiently strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination." (In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 .) A 8 beneficial relationship "is one that '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 Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 689 , quoting In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 .) "Overcoming the statutory

2015As the court noted in Bailey J., this is “a ‘quintessentially’ discretionary decision, which calls for the juvenile court to determine the importance of the [parental] relationship in terms of the detrimental impact that its severance can be expected to have on the child and to weigh that against the benefit to the child of 15. adoption. [Citation.] Because this component of the juvenile court’s decision is discretionary, the abuse of discretion standard of review applies.” (Bailey J., supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 1315 .) Beneficial Parental Relationship “To trigger the application of the pare

2021(In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 400 .) Review of a court’s determination of the applicability of the parental relationship exception under section 366.26 is governed by a hybrid standard under which the court’s determination (1) regarding the existence of a beneficial parental relationship is reviewed for substantial evidence; and (2) as to whether the existence of the parental relationship constitutes a compelling reason to conclude that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

2020(In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 400 .) Review of a court’s determination of the applicability of the parental relationship exception under section 366.26 is governed by a hybrid standard under which the court’s determination (1) regarding the existence of a beneficial parental relationship is reviewed for substantial evidence; and (2) as to whether the existence of the parental relationship constitutes a compelling reason to conclude that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

2022(A.G., supra, 58 Cal.App.5th 973 .) We concluded that the record showed “that (1) mother had maintained regular contact with the minor, satisfying the first component of the parental relationship exception [citation]; (2) her written offer of proof was proper in scope in that it addressed mother’s regular contact with the minor and the existence of a parent-child relationship; (3) the offer of proof contained some specifics and was thus partially compliant, but it also included substantial portions that were not compliant with the specificity requirements of [In re Tamika T. (2002) 97 Cal.App.

2020We hold further that a parent’s offer of proof need not address the third component of the parental relationship exception, namely, “ ‘whether the existence of that relationship constitutes “a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child.” ’ [Citations.]” (In re Caden C. (2019) 34 Cal App.5th 87, 104 (Caden C.), review granted Jul. 24, 2019, S255839.) A legally sufficient offer of proof by a parent must also be one that is “specific, setting forth the actual evidence to be produced, not merely the facts or issues to be addressed and argued.” (Tamika T.,

2006To trigger the application of the parental relationship exception, the parent must show the parent-child relationship is sufficiently strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination. ( In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1418 , 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 162 ( Beatrice M. ) [loss of mere "frequent and loving" contact with parent insufficient to show detriment].) The benefit to the child from continuing such a relationship must also be such that the relationship "`promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a perman

2006To trigger the application of the parental relationship exception, the parent must show the parent-child relationship is sufficiently strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination. ( In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, 1418 , 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 162 ( Beatrice M. ) [loss of mere "frequent and loving" contact with parent insufficient to show detriment].) The benefit to the child from continuing such a relationship must also be such that the relationship "`promotes the well-being of the child to such a degree as to outweigh the well-being the child would gain in a perman

2014The child has a compelling right 'to [have] a placement that is stable, permanent, and that allows the caretaker to make a full emotional commitment to the child.' [Citation.] Adoption is the Legislature's first choice because it gives the child the best chance at such a commitment from a responsible 3 caretaker. [Citations.]" (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1348 .) "If the court finds that a child may not be returned to his or her parent and is likely to be adopted, it must select adoption as the permanent plan unless it finds that termination of parental rights would be detrime

2014(In re Derek W., supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 826 ; In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1345 .) "'To trigger the application of the parental relationship exception, the parent must show the parent-child relationship is sufficiently strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination.' [Citation.] A beneficial relationship 'is one that "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." [Citation.] . . .'" (In re Marcelo B. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 635, 643 .) Only in the "

2024“The application of any of the exceptions enumerated in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1) depends entirely on a detailed 9 analysis of the relevant facts by the juvenile court. [Citations.] If a parent fails to raise one of the exceptions at the hearing, not only does this deprive the juvenile court of the ability to evaluate the critical facts and make the necessary findings, but it also deprives this court of a sufficient factual record from which to conclude whether the trial court’s determination is supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395 , 402–403.)

2022(See In re Rachel M. (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1295 [relative caregiver exception; the “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 beneficial sibling relationship exception].) At the section 366.26 hearing, father’s counsel did not argue the parental relationship exception to termination of 8 parental rights applied, nor did father or his counsel provide any evidence to support application of the parental relationship exception.

2022(In re J.W. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 263, 266 ; In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 , 630 (Caden C.); Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242 , 249–250.) Then, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence the child is likely to be adopted, the statute mandates judicial termination of parental rights unless the parent opposing termination can demonstrate one of the enumerated statutory exceptions applies. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A) & (B); see Caden C., at p. 630.) 9 One of the statutory exceptions to termination is the parental relationship exception, contained in section 366.26,

2021(See generally In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 [“[i]n any custody determination, a primary consideration in determining the child’s best interests is the goal of assuring stability and continuity”]; In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307 [once reunification efforts have been found unsuccessful, the court then must “concentrate its efforts . . . on the child’s placement and well-being, rather than on a parent’s challenge to a custody order”]; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 250, 259 [when the child is adoptable and declining to apply one of the statutory exce

2021(See generally In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 [“[i]n any custody determination, a primary consideration in determining the child’s best interests is the goal of assuring stability and continuity”]; In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307 [once reunification efforts have been found unsuccessful, the court then must “concentrate its efforts . . . on the child’s placement and well-being, rather than on a parent’s challenge to a custody order”]; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 250, 259 [when the child is adoptable and declining to apply one of the statutory exce

2021As to the second part of that standard of review, “[a]n abuse of discretion occurs when the juvenile court has exceeded the bounds of reason by making an arbitrary, capricious or patently absurd determination. [Citation.]” (In re Marcelo B., supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at p. 642 , quoting and citing In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318 .) C.

2021A. Law Regarding the Parental Relationship Exception Termination of parental rights and adoption must normally be ordered if the juvenile court finds a child is adoptable unless the 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).) “[T]he burden is on the party seeking to establish the existence of one of the section 366

2020If 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., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 575 , italics added; see also In re Anthony B. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 389, 396 [“question is whether that [parental] relationship remained so significant and compelling in [the child’s] life that the benefit of preserving it outweighed the stability and benefits of adoption”].) The burden is o

2021A. Law Regarding the Parental Relationship Exception Termination of parental rights and adoption must normally be ordered if the juvenile court finds a child is adoptable unless the 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).) “[T]he burden is on the party seeking to establish the existence of one of the section 366

2020The mother points to In re E.T. (2018) 31 Cal.App.5th 68 , where the reviewing court found the mother had met the parental relationship standard.

2021(See generally In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 [“[i]n any custody determination, a primary consideration in determining the child’s best interests is the goal of assuring stability and continuity”]; In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 307 [once reunification efforts have been found unsuccessful, the court then must “concentrate its efforts . . . on the child’s placement and well-being, rather than on a parent’s challenge to a custody order”]; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 250, 259 [when the child is adoptable and declining to apply one of the statutory exce

2020Although at the stage of dependency proceedings involving the 366.26 hearing, “the focus” is upon “the needs of the child for permanency and stability” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 ), it is also in the child’s best interests for the parent to be given the opportunity to establish the parental relationship exception to adoption through probative, relevant, and admissible evidence as proposed in an offer of proof.