Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
F.G. was referred to the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services in 2024 after she and her mother tested positive for methamphetamine at her birth. The department filed a section 300 petition alleging the parents’ ongoing substance abuse put F.G. at substantial risk of harm. After the parents failed to comply with the release conditions, the department took F.G. into protective custody. The court sustained the petition, declared F.G. a dependent, ordered reunification services, and placed her with her maternal grandmother.
Visitation fluctuated during reunification. Mother had extended weekend visits during residential treatment but visited only 10 times between mid-March and August 2025 despite at least 44 scheduled visits, and not at all in August. Father stopped visiting in mid-March 2025 and missed appointments. At the 12-month review the court terminated reunification services because the parents continued using methamphetamine and failed their case plans; both then visited more consistently, though father still missed some visits.
Before the section 366.26 hearing, when F.G. was 21 months old, the department recommended adoption and termination of parental rights. Its reports described calm, affectionate visits but noted F.G. used no parental identifiers, showed no behavioral changes around visits or missed visits, and had bonded strongly with her grandmother. Both parents testified to affectionate interactions and occasional distress when visits ended. The juvenile court found neither parent had established the required beneficial relationship and that adoption outweighed any detriment.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal explained that the parental-benefit exception under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), requires proof by a preponderance of regular visitation and contact, a relationship whose continuation would benefit the child, and detriment from termination outweighing adoption’s benefits. The first two elements are reviewed for substantial evidence; the third for abuse of discretion. The juvenile court generously found regular visitation based on improved attendance immediately before the hearing, so the appeal turned on whether either parent proved a substantial, positive, emotional attachment rather than pleasant visits.
For mother, substantial evidence supported the finding: F.G. spent most of her life outside mother’s care, mother’s contact was inconsistent until shortly before the hearing, and F.G. did not consistently reciprocate affection or show emotional changes around visits. The court rejected mother’s objection to considering the absence of “mama,” reasoning F.G.’s age made it reasonable to consider whether she used parental terminology, and distinguished In re B.D. because the juvenile court had considered the pre-dependency relationship and earlier weekend visits. References to a parental role did not show an improper comparison with the grandmother.
For father, his caring conduct and F.G.’s occasional requests to be picked up did not overcome her limited time in his care, the absence of behavioral changes after restricted contact, and his testimony that she had grown accustomed to not seeing him. Because the parents failed the second element, the court alternatively found no abuse of discretion on detriment: the juvenile court properly assumed termination ends the legal parental relationship and could consider adoption’s preservation of broader family connections. Any error in describing all visits as supervised would not have changed the outcome, and father’s unsupported contention was waived. The termination orders were affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Regular visitation alone does not establish the parental-benefit exception; the nature and quality of visits must show a substantial, positive, emotional attachment whose continuation benefits the child.
- A juvenile court may consider inconsistent visitation, limited time in parental care, the child’s responses during visits, and the absence of behavioral changes around visits.
- Considering whether a child recognizes a parent in a parental role is not necessarily an improper inquiry into custody or comparison with an adoptive caregiver.
- The appellate court alternatively upheld the detriment finding even though failure on the second element made that analysis unnecessary.
- The Sixth District affirmed both termination orders in an unpublished October 12, 2026 decision.
Why It Matters
The decision applies In re Caden C. to distinguish affectionate, appropriate visits from the stronger attachment needed to overcome the statutory preference for adoption after reunification fails. The first two elements can overlap: regular visitation may satisfy the first while its inconsistency prevents the beneficial relationship required by the second.
The alternative third-element discussion clarifies that a court must assume termination eliminates the legal basis for the parental relationship rather than presume continued contact, while adoption’s preservation of other family relationships may be weighed in the balance.