CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Selection & Implement. Hrg.
.........Termination of Parental Rights
............Required Findings/Standard
 19 Cards On This Topic:
  • Preponderance of evidence standard to terminate parental rights at W&I 366.26 hearing satisfies due process in context of Cal. dependency statutory scheme.
  • Juvenile court denied F due process by terminating his parental rights without finding of unfitness or detriment by clear and convincing evidence.
  • Juvenile court did not err by terminating biological F's parental rights without making an express finding of unfitness.
  • Due process prohibited termination of parental rights where DCFS never alleged F was unfit and trial court never made that finding.
  • Court properly terminated parental rights and ordered adoption by grandmother; that potential adoptive parent is a relative not a Welf. & Inst. Code §366.26 (c) exception to adoption.
  • Where DCFS failed to show by clear and convincing evidence M likely to be adopted, within court’s discretion to order legal guardianship as permanent plan.
  • Court did not abuse discretion by considering M’s bond with prospective adoptive parents or comparing this bond with bonding between M and F.
  • Court may terminate parental rights without further evidence of incarcerated father’s unfitness to parent.
  • Termination of mother’s parental rights not affected by "best interests" exception based on M’s relation to grandmother.
  • Court rejects boilerplate constitutional and other arguments re termination of parental rights to dependent children.
  • No basis to avoid termination hearing where mother did not cooperate with DSS, and had only casual contact with M at paternity testing.
  • Detriment findings made at review hearings preceding W&I 366.26 hearing sufficiently establish parental unfitness to satisfy due process.
  • Terminating F’s rights by less than clear and convincing standard does not violate due process when previous findings on removal, reunification and adoption made on clear and convincing standard.
  • W&I §366.26 termination does not violate parents’ EP rights; showing of parental unfitness required under both W&I §366.26 and CC §232; parents not similarly situated.
  • Because parents whose rights terminated under CC §232 and W&IC §366.26 not similarly situated, no equal protection violation.
  • Grant of motion to modify findings precludes termination of parental rights; inherent factual contradictions justify reversal.
  • Court must determine whether minor would benefit from further contact with parents before ordering reference for termination.
  • Court properly terminated rights of biological (but not presumed) father who had no familial relationship with minor and showed no commitment to parental responsibilities.
  • Finding of parental unfitness not part of 366.26 hearing; burden of proof.


    •