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.
8 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2026 3 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 SBgreen2 sentences2022(See S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 300.) Rather, the court first found that the beneficial parental exception did not apply, and then it ordered the Department to “make inquiries with the prospective adoptive parent[] regarding a postadoption contract and ongoing contact” between the parents and the child. 2014Two prior decisions–In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102 (C.B.) and In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 (S.B.)–have held that a juvenile court may not deny the beneficial parental exception based solely on the “the prospective adoptive parents’ willingness to allow the children to have continued contact with mother.” (C.B., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 128 ; S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 300 [“We do not believe a parent should be deprived of a legal relationship with his or her child on the basis of an unenforceable promise of future visitation by the child’s prospective adoptive paren | 2 | 3 |
Stanislaus County Department of Social Services v. Noeline P.green1 sentence2021(In re Rikki D. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1624, 1632 , disapproved on other grounds in In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 624, fn. 12; see In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1164 [“Neither the child nor the law can wait for a parent to decide, at leisure, when he or she will accept in full the responsibilities of parenthood”].) Beneficial Parental Exception To establish the beneficial parental exception to adoption, the parent must show by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) “[R]egular visitation and contact with the child, taking into account the extent of visitation permitted,” ( | 1 | 1 |
In Re Brian R.green1 sentence2021(In re Brian R. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 904, 924 [“[P]leasant and cordial father-son visits are, by themselves, insufficient”].) Even if we were to assume the prong was satisfied, however, father has failed to demonstrate that D.C. has “a substantial, positive, emotional attachment to” him and that “terminating that attachment would be detrimental” to D.C. | 1 | 1 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Ladawn P.green1 sentence2015(See In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 , 293–294, 299–301 [child removed at 3 years old; child wanted to leave with parent at end of visits]; In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 684 , 689–690 [children removed when they were five years, two years, and seven months old; bond of older child confirmed with bonding study; second child had difficulty separating from mother after visits]; In re Jerome D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1203, 1207 [child removed at 6 years old; child wanted to live with mother and parent-child bond confirmed by psychologist].) Mother’s situation is instead sim | 1 | 1 |
Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. Patricia J.green1 sentence2015(In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315 (Bailey J.); In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102, 133-134 ; Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 574 .) The parent must show both that a beneficial parental relationship exists and that severing that relationship would result in great harm to the child. | 1 | 1 |
Ventura County Human Services Agency v. Frank B.green1 sentence2013(In re Marcelo B., supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at p. 644 [“Accordingly, the juvenile court properly found there was no beneficial parental relationship sufficient to overcome the statutory preference for adoption.”].) The juvenile court here properly considered all the facts before it, including the negative aspects of the mother/child relationship that remained unaddressed following failed reunification services, and its implicit rejection of the beneficial parental exception is amply supported by the record. 8 DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights is affirmed. _______ | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. C.K.
green
2 sentences2014Two prior decisions–In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102 (C.B.) and In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 (S.B.)–have held that a juvenile court may not deny the beneficial parental exception based solely on the “the prospective adoptive parents’ willingness to allow the children to have continued contact with mother.” (C.B., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 128 ; S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 300 [“We do not believe a parent should be deprived of a legal relationship with his or her child on the basis of an unenforceable promise of future visitation by the child’s prospective adoptive paren 2014Two prior decisions–In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102 (C.B.) and In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 (S.B.)–have held that a juvenile court may not deny the beneficial parental exception based solely on the “the prospective adoptive parents’ willingness to allow the children to have continued contact with mother.” (C.B., supra, 190 Cal.App.4th at p. 128 ; S.B., supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 300 [“We do not believe a parent should be deprived of a legal relationship with his or her child on the basis of an unenforceable promise of future visitation by the child’s prospective adoptive paren | 2 | 2014–2015 |
In Re Jamie R.
green
1 sentence2026(In re Jaime R. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 766, 774 .) The father’s argument under this heading even more clearly states: “When a parent establishes that a statutory exception applied, as the parents did in this case through the testimonies of the boys, then adoption or termination of parental rights was no longer in the child’s best interest. [Citations.] The court prejudicially erred in finding the beneficial parental exception inapplicable in this case.” We have concluded that the juvenile court did not err in concluding the parents failed to establish that the beneficial parental relationship e | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Orange County Social Services Agency v. Rikky D.
green
1 sentence2021(In re Rikki D. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1624, 1632 , disapproved on other grounds in In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 624, fn. 12; see In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1164 [“Neither the child nor the law can wait for a parent to decide, at leisure, when he or she will accept in full the responsibilities of parenthood”].) Beneficial Parental Exception To establish the beneficial parental exception to adoption, the parent must show by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) “[R]egular visitation and contact with the child, taking into account the extent of visitation permitted,” ( | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Jesusa
green
1 sentence2021(In re Rikki D. (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 1624, 1632 , disapproved on other grounds in In re Jesusa V. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 588 , 624, fn. 12; see In re Meranda P. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1143, 1164 [“Neither the child nor the law can wait for a parent to decide, at leisure, when he or she will accept in full the responsibilities of parenthood”].) Beneficial Parental Exception To establish the beneficial parental exception to adoption, the parent must show by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) “[R]egular visitation and contact with the child, taking into account the extent of visitation permitted,” ( | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Autumn H.
green
1 sentence2015(In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315 (Bailey J.); In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102, 133-134 ; Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 574 .) The parent must show both that a beneficial parental relationship exists and that severing that relationship would result in great harm to the child. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Deborah M.
green
1 sentence2015(See In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 , 293–294, 299–301 [child removed at 3 years old; child wanted to leave with parent at end of visits]; In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 684 , 689–690 [children removed when they were five years, two years, and seven months old; bond of older child confirmed with bonding study; second child had difficulty separating from mother after visits]; In re Jerome D. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1203, 1207 [child removed at 6 years old; child wanted to live with mother and parent-child bond confirmed by psychologist].) Mother’s situation is instead sim | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Rayna N.
green
1 sentence2013(See Tina L. v. Superior Court (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 262, 268 .) III BENEFICIAL PARENT EXCEPTION OF SECTION 366.26, SUBDIVISION (c)(1)(B)(i) Father, joined by Mother, argue that the beneficial parental exception of section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) applied, and the juvenile court erred by terminating their parental rights. | 1 | 2013–2013 |