Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Five-month-old L.G. came to the attention of the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency after a referral alleged unusual markings on her body, later determined to be bruises and abrasions consistent with inflicted trauma. The Agency filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, and the juvenile court eventually sustained the petition, declared L.G. a dependent, and ordered reunification services for her mother, T.W. After several unsuccessful placements, L.G. was placed with her paternal grandmother in January 2025, where she made significant developmental progress. The juvenile court later terminated reunification services and set a permanency planning hearing under section 366.26.
At the contested section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that L.G. was adoptable but declined to terminate Mother's parental rights, concluding the parental-benefit exception to adoption applied. The court found Mother maintained regular visitation and that L.G. would benefit from continuing the relationship, citing positive interactions and Dr. Elizabeth Stanton's bonding study. The court selected legal guardianship rather than adoption as the permanent plan. L.G. appealed, joined by the Agency, arguing the court lacked substantial evidence for the second element and abused its discretion on the third element of the exception.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that Mother satisfied the second element of the parental-benefit exception. The court pointed to evidence that L.G. looked forward to visits, sought comfort and guidance from Mother, and maintained an awareness of their relationship even in Mother's absence. The court rejected arguments that L.G.'s young age and time out of Mother's care negated the benefit, noting that Mother had been a constant presence and that Dr. Stanton described their interactions as indicative of a healthy relationship.
However, the court held the juvenile court abused its discretion on the third element by failing to complete the weighing process required under In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614. The juvenile court found termination would harm L.G. but did not meaningfully assess whether the benefits of an adoptive home would offset and counterbalance that harm. The court's only observation about the adoptive home was the conclusory statement that L.G. was thriving in her grandmother's care. Because the court addressed only one side of the required inquiry, the Court of Appeal reversed the order selecting guardianship and remanded for a renewed section 366.26 hearing to reconsider the third element in conformity with Caden C.
Key Takeaways
- The juvenile court must weigh the benefits of an adoptive home against the harm of severing the parent-child relationship when applying the third element of the parental-benefit exception.
- Substantial evidence supported the finding that L.G. would benefit from continuing her relationship with Mother, despite L.G.'s young age and time spent out of Mother's custody.
- A conclusory statement that a child is thriving in a prospective adoptive home does not satisfy the court's duty to assess how adoption might counterbalance the harm of terminating parental rights.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the guardianship order and remanded for a renewed section 366.26 hearing to reconsider the third element under the principles articulated in Caden C.
- On remand, the juvenile court must permit oral argument and consider record evidence, including any developments in the dependency proceedings during the appeal.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the California Supreme Court's holding in In re Caden C. that juvenile courts must conduct a complete balancing analysis when applying the parental-benefit exception to adoption. It clarifies that finding harm from termination is not enough; the court must also assess whether the security and stability of an adoptive home would offset that harm. The ruling provides guidance for juvenile courts and practitioners on the specific factual determinations required at section 366.26 hearings.