Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
L.G. was five months old when the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency received a referral about markings later determined to be bruises and abrasions consistent with inflicted trauma. The Agency filed a dependency petition in November 2023, and at the detention hearing the juvenile court made true findings and ordered L.G. detained with her parents at the maternal grandmother's home subject to conditions. In December 2023, after a follow-up examination revealed additional injuries consistent with inflicted trauma, the court ordered L.G. detained out of the parents' care with liberal supervised visitation. After an amended petition, the court sustained the serious-physical-abuse allegation, declared L.G. a dependent, and ordered reunification services and unsupervised visitation for Mother. Her placements changed several times, including removal from paternal step-great-grandparents after unexplained injuries. In January 2025, she was placed with her paternal grandmother, where she made developmental progress and received speech and therapeutic behavioral services.
The juvenile court terminated reunification services in April 2025 after finding that returning L.G. to Mother's custody would be detrimental and that Mother had made limited progress despite reasonable services, and it set a section 366.26 hearing. At the permanency hearing, the court accepted the section 366.26 report, three addendum reports, and Dr. Elizabeth Stanton's curriculum vitae and bonding study, and heard testimony from Agency social worker Edwin Laubach, Mother, the paternal grandmother, Dr. Stanton, and L.G.'s therapist Anna Hernandez. The evidence described regular visits, affectionate interactions, and L.G.'s requests for Mother, but also periods without visible distress when Mother was absent. The court found L.G. adoptable by clear and convincing evidence, yet declined to terminate Mother's parental rights, finding that legal guardianship, rather than adoption, was the appropriate permanent plan. L.G. appealed, joined by the Agency through a letter and joinder rather than a formal brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal first rejected L.G.'s challenge to the second element of the parental-benefit exception. Substantial evidence supported the finding that L.G. would benefit from continuing her relationship with Mother. The court cited L.G.'s excitement and affection during visits, her initiation of play, and her efforts to seek Mother's help, guidance, and comfort. It also relied on evidence that L.G. noticed Mother's absence, recognized places associated with her, and called for her. Those circumstances supported a substantial, positive emotional attachment rather than merely pleasant visits, notwithstanding L.G.'s young age and the substantial portion of her life spent outside Mother's custody.
The court nevertheless found an abuse of discretion in the third-element analysis. Under In re Caden C., the juvenile court had to identify the harm caused by losing specific features of the parental relationship and then assess how life in the prospective adoptive home might offset or counterbalance that harm. The juvenile court addressed the first side through findings about possible destabilization and ambiguous loss, but its treatment of adoption consisted essentially of observing that L.G. was thriving with her paternal grandmother. It did not meaningfully determine whether the security and stability of making that placement permanent through adoption could counterbalance the detriment of termination. The appellate court therefore reversed the guardianship order and remanded for a renewed section 366.26 hearing to reconsider the third element. It directed the juvenile court to permit oral argument and consider the record evidence as to whether Mother met the third element in conformity with Caden C., taking into account the family's current circumstances and any developments during the appeal. The court did not itself order termination of parental rights or adoption.
Key Takeaways
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that L.G. had a beneficial emotional relationship with Mother despite her age and extended placement outside Mother's care.
- Evidence of harm from ending a parental relationship does not alone complete the third-element inquiry under the parental-benefit exception.
- The juvenile court must also make meaningful factual determinations about the prospective adoptive home and whether its benefits offset the harm of termination.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the guardianship order and remanded for a renewed section 366.26 hearing rather than directing adoption or termination of parental rights.
- On remand, the juvenile court may receive and consider the previously disputed testimony about L.G.'s relationship with another child in the adoptive home if the parties seek to offer it.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the evidentiary showing needed to establish a beneficial parent-child relationship from the separate balancing required to decide whether terminating parental rights would be detrimental. Even where the relationship satisfies the second element, the juvenile court must evaluate both sides of the adoption comparison and cannot rely solely on a conclusory observation that the child is thriving in the proposed placement.
The remand preserves the juvenile court's role in making the ultimate permanency decision. It requires reconsideration under Caden C., allows oral argument, and permits consideration of changed circumstances and marginally relevant evidence about the adoptive household without predetermining whether adoption or guardianship should ultimately prevail.