In In re Caden C., the Supreme Court today interprets a statute so as to make it more difficult for a juvenile court to terminate a parental relationship when reunification of the child with the parent is not an option.
The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar holds that the parental-benefit exception to ending parental rights — when a parent establishes that he or she has regularly visited with the child, that the child would benefit from continuing the relationship with the parent, and that terminating the relationship would be detrimental to the child — applies even if the juvenile court finds the child is likely to be adopted. It also concludes that “[a] parent’s continued struggles with the issues leading to dependency are not a categorical bar to applying the exception.”
The court further decides that parts of a trial court’s parental-benefit exception determination is to be reviewed on appeal for substantial evidence, while another part is subject to abuse-of-discretion review. It does so even though conceding that “the practical difference between the standards is not likely to be very pronounced.”
The opinion does not explain why it is being issued more than 16 months after the close of briefing. When the court granted review in July 2019, it said that, because of the statutory priority for dependency cases, it did not “not contemplate entertaining requests for extensions of time to file briefs” and the opinion itself states that “dependency matters should proceed as expeditiously as possible.” Indeed, the case was mooted, the court acknowledges, when, “[a]round the time we heard oral argument in this matter [less than three months ago], the trial court held a new section 366.26 hearing and terminated Mother’s parental rights.”
The court reverses the First District, Division One, Court of Appeal. Also, it disapproves a 2017 opinion by the Second District, Division Seven, a 2016 opinion by the Second District, Division One, a 2016 opinion by the Second District, Division Five, a 2015 opinion by the Fourth District, Division One, a 2012 opinion by the Second District, Division Six, a 2000 opinion by the First District, Division Three, and a 1999 opinion by the Fourth District, Division One.