CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Selection & Implement. Hrg.
.........Termination of Parental Rights
............Exceptions to Adoption
51 Cards On This Topic:

Statutory exceptions to adoption.

Court may reject adoption under sibling relationship exception only where adoption detrimental to C whose welfare at issue; it may not prevent C from being adopted solely because of effect it may have on a sibling.

No error in requiring mother to prove a "compelling reason" why termination of her parental rights would be detrimental to C in light of the plain language of W&IC 366.26, its purpose and history, and prior case law.

Termination of mother's parental rights affirmed where juvenile court reasonably concluded she failed to show her relationship with Cs outweighed the benefits of adoption.

Juv. court properly terminated F's parental rights and found C adoptable as F failed to meet his burden of showing the parent-child beneficial relationship exception was applicable.

Mother failed to show beneficial-relationship exception where visits with Cs always supervised, she was only beginning to work on the effects of DV, and there was still dysfunction in relationship with F.

No error in finding beneficial parental relationship did not apply where relationship between parents and Cs did not show positive emotional attachment and was marked by parental indifference to Cs' core needs for structure and stability.

When weighed against the benefit to Cs of a secure, permanent home, termination of parental rights would not substantially interfere with Cs' sibling relationship with baby.

Termination of mother's parental rights affirmed where she did not show giving her custody would be in C's best interest and she failed to prove parental benefit exception to adoption applied.

No abuse of discretion in finding any detrimental impact from severance of the limited relationship C had with mother was outweighed by the benefits that would come from adoption.

While younger Cs had a generally pleasant relationship with older C, he did not show termination of the sibling relationship was sufficiently detrimental to Cs to preclude termination of parental rights over them.

Juvenile court properly terminated parental rights and permanent selected plan of adoption where mother failed to meet either prong of the beneficial parent-child relationship exception.

Even if adoption would interfere with Cs' sibling relationships with sister, benefit of continuing the relationships was outweighed by benefit of adoption and sibling relationship exception did not apply.

In determining parent-child relationship exception applicable, court cannot then terminate parental rights based upon an unenforceable expectation the prospective adoptive parents will voluntarily permit future contact.

Under any standard of review, mother's parental rights should not have been terminated where parent-child relationship exception applied and legal guardianship rather than foster care should have been ordered.

Parental relationship exception inapplicable where mother's relationship with C based solely on supervised visits with a child in foster mother's custody his entire life-frequent and loving contact insufficient.

Sibling relationship exception inapplicable where evidence did not compel finding half-sister and C had a sibling relationship that was beneficial to C, and the relationship was not a compelling reason to find adoption detrimental to C.

Half-sister failed to show juvenile court's failure to accord her party status, even if erroneous, had any prejudicial impact on her opportunity to present evidence and argument at hearing.

Substantial evidence supported finding insufficient benefit from continuing parent-child relationship—a friendly relationship not enough to outweigh sense of security and belonging an adoptive home would provide.

Neither W&IC 366.26 (c)(1)(B)(i) nor Autumn H. requires proof that C has a "primary attachment" to parent or that noncustodial parent has had day-to-day contact for beneficial relationship exception to apply.

Although record did not indicate transition to an approved adoptive placement for sibling group of 5 would be completed within a reasonable time, court should have considered sibling relationship exception [now moot as Cs adopted].

Sibling relationship exception did not apply and trial ct. did not err when it found Cs were adoptable and no exceptions precluded termination of parental rights; mother had standing to appeal re (c)(1)(E) exception.

Termination of parental rights in a juvenile dependency case does not sever sibling relationship between child and his/her biological brothers or sisters for visitation purposes.

Sufficient evidence supported juvenile ct.'s conclusion parent-child relationship did not rise to level required under beneficial relationship exception and properly found adoption as permanent plan.

Though mother regularly visited C, she did not show C would suffer great harm if she did not have continued contact with mother, or that benefit of continued contact would outweigh benefits of adoption.

Substantial evidence supported juvenile ct.'s finding that C stated preference for adoption and the finding that mother did not meet her burden to show C objected to termination of parental rights.

As juvenile court had no sua sponte duty to consider sibling relationship exception, mother's failure to raise exception at W&IC 366.26 hearing forfeited issue on appeal; ineffective assistance claim also failed.

Peculiar facts of case showed compelling reason for finding that termination of parental rights would be detrimental to C and exceptional circumstances warranted legal guardianship as permanent plan.

Trial court erred in excluding older, adopted half-sister from definition of "sibling" for purposes of admitting evidence re sibling relationship exception.

Parental relationship exception inapplicable where mere affectionate closeness between mother and C during few visits outweighed by C's close bond with primary caregiver and need for stable, permanent home environment.

Mother's argument sibling relationship would be at risk b/c MGM was merely C2's legal guardian and he could be removed was speculative where C2 unlikely to be adopted and no evidence MGM could not continue as guardian.

Evidence supported trial court's finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception under W&IC 366.26 (c)(1)(A) did not apply to preclude termination of parental rights of special needs child.

Substantial evidence supported juvenile court's conclusion that all requirements met to justify application of sibling relationship exception to termination of parental rights.

W&IC 366.26 (c)(1)(D) exception cannot apply to person with whom C does not live and who is not a relative or foster parent; there is also no "best interests" exception to terminating parental rights.

Because juvenile court found it in C's best interest to have visitation with mother, it abused its discretion in terminating dependency jurisdiction.

No W&IC 366.26 (a)(1)(D) consideration where only exceptional circumstance suggested was all family members preferred guardianship rather than adoption, and "mere family preference is insufficient."

No error in finding W&IC 366.26 (c)(1)(A) exception didn't apply where mother didn't present evidence M's relationship with her was so significant that its termination would cause M any detriment.

Child could be freed for adoption to parents who operated residential treatment facility without violating Welf. & Inst. Code §366.26 (c)(1)(C) exception.

Although mother may have met 1st prong of Welf. & Inst. Code §366.26 (c)(1)(A) exception, 2d prong not proven where no evidence C would benefit from continuing relationship with mother.

Mother did not meet burden of proving W&IC 366.26 (c)(1)(A) exception that benefits of permanent, adoptive home are outweighed by detriment Cs will suffer if parental rights terminated.

Juvenile court must balance benefits of permanent adoptive home against benefit of continuing parental relationship. Abuse of discretion is appropriate standard.

Welf. & Inst. Code §366.26 (c)(1)(A) exception to termination of parental rights inapplicable where friendship of mother and child did not resemble daily nurturing of a parental relationship.

F failed to meet burden of proving Welf. & Inst. Code §366.26 (c)(1)(A) exception to termination of rights where he could not show he occupied parental role in child's life.

No error in not finding mother maintained regular visitation with Ms where substantial evidence in record showed her relationship with them more peer than parent.

Breakdown of actual amount of visitation F spent with M would not resolve question whether M would benefit from continuing relationship with F.

F’s relationship with Ms, evaluated alone or weighed against adoption, did not pass Welf. & Inst. Code §366.26 test for benefit exception to termination of parental rights.

Mother’s rights properly terminated where her visitation with M sporadic; even though visits once consistent, mother occupied not a parental role but merely a pleasant place in M’s life.

Court properly terminated parental rights despite regular visits: Frequent, loving contact not enough to establish benefit to Ms from continuing relationship.

Exception to terminating parental rights, where M benefits from continuing relationship, applies where there are regular visits and significant emotional attachment; statute not vague.

Sibling visitation and contact (Welf. & Inst. Code §366.26 (c)(1)(B)(v)).

Caselist: Exceptions to adoption.