S.F. Human Servs. Agency v. Christine C. (In re Caden C.)

• Decision Date: 27 May 2021
• Docket Number: S255839
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: IN RE CADEN C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. San Francisco Human Services Agency, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Christine C. et al., Defendants and Respondents; Caden C., a Minor, etc., Appellant.

11 Cal.5th 614

486 P.3d 1096

278 Cal.Rptr.3d 872

IN RE CADEN C., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.San Francisco Human Services Agency, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.Christine C. et al., Defendants and Respondents; Caden C., a Minor, etc., Appellant.

S255839

Supreme Court of California.

May 27, 2021

Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, Kimiko Burton, Lead Attorney; Gordon-Creed, Kelley Holl and Sugerman, Jeremy Sugerman, Oakland, and Katie Curtis for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Jennifer Henning; Thomas E. Montgomery, County Counsel (San Diego), Caitlin E. Rae, Chief Deputy County Counsel, and Tahra C. Broderson, Deputy County Counsel, for California State Association of Counties as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.

Deborah Dentler, Glendale, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Appellant.

Janet G. Sherwood, Corte Madera, for Advokids, East Bay Children's Law Offices and Legal Services for Children as Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellant.

Stacie Hendrix and Leslie Starr Heimov for Children's Law Center of California, Legal Advocates for Children and Youth and Children's Legal Services of San Diego as Amici Curiae on behalf of Appellant.

Leslie A. Barry, under appointment by the Supreme Court, and Nicole Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent Christine C.

Sharon Petrosino, Public Defender (Orange), and Brian Okamoto, Deputy Public Defender, for California Dependency Trial Counsel as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent Christine C.

NYU School of Law Family Defense Clinic, Amy Mulzer; Jarvis Legal Services and Michelle L. Jarvis, Huntington Beach, for Professors of Family and Clinical Law as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent Christine C.

Michelle Danley, San Mateo, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Respondent Brian C.

Opinion of the Court by Cuéllar, J.

All too often, children experience harm — and shoulder long-term consequences — because their physical and emotional needs are neglected by their parents. In California, we rely on social services and statutory procedures to strike a delicate balance between protecting children from abuse or neglect and ensuring the continuity of children's emotionally important relationships, especially with their parents. The resulting balance sometimes gives a struggling parent enough time and support to overcome deficiencies and regain custody. When such success is not achieved, the dependency statutes require the court to hold a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.¹ At that hearing, the court determines whether to terminate parental rights, making way for adoption, or to maintain parental rights and select another permanent plan.

When making that fraught determination, a court must sift through often complicated facts to weigh competing benefits and dangers for the child. It must consider practical realities over which it has limited control and envision a child's future under contingent conditions. And it must navigate situations that can change as quickly as the children before the court do.

To ease the court's difficult task in making this important decision, the statute provides a carefully calibrated process. Even if a court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the child is likely to be adopted, the parent may avoid termination of parental rights by establishing at least one of a series of enumerated exceptions. If the parent establishes that an exception applies, the statute sets out additional steps for selecting a permanent plan for the child that preserves parental rights. Going step by step through the prescribed process, the court can somewhat more easily accomplish the statutory goals of protecting the parent and child from an overhasty termination of their relationship while ensuring that the child is expeditiously placed in a safe and stable home.

In this case, the trial court found that the parent had established the first of the listed exceptions, the parental-benefit exception. ²

This exception applies where the parent has maintained regular visitation and contact with the child, the child would benefit from continuing the relationship, and termination of that relationship would impose a detriment on the child. The Court of Appeal reversed. It held that because the parent continued to struggle with substance abuse and mental health issues and because of the risks of foster care and benefits of the potential adoptive home, no reasonable court could find the child's relationship with his parent outweighed the benefits of adoption.

The Court of Appeal did not explain how the parent's struggles related to the specific elements of the statutory exception: the importance of the child's relationship with the parent or the detriment of losing that relationship. Instead, the appellate court treated the lack of progress in addressing substance abuse and mental health issues as a categorical bar to establishing the exception. That conclusion was mistaken, so we now reverse.

I.

Caden C. was born in 2009 and lived with his mother (Mother) until he was four years old. In September 2013, the Marin County Health and Human Services Department removed Caden from Mother's custody because Caden and his mother had been living in a car and Mother admitted to recent drug use and suicidal ideation. The court subsequently took and then decided to retain jurisdiction of Caden. It ordered that he remain in foster care and that Mother address her substance abuse and mental health issues and attend parenting classes. Caden was placed in foster care with a nonrelative extended family member, Ms. H. At a review hearing in July 2014, the court adopted the Department's recommendation to retain jurisdiction but place Caden with Mother; Mother and Caden subsequently moved to San Francisco.

By June 2016, Mother had relapsed. The San Francisco Human Services Agency (the Agency) then filed a supplemental dependency petition and removed Caden from her custody. (See § 387.) The petition alleged that Mother had created an unhealthy relationship with Caden, exposing him to "conversations that cause fear and create behaviors that jeopardize his safety, emotional well-being, and education." The Agency placed Caden back with Ms. H., but over the next year he moved through three other foster placements before being returned to Ms. H. The foster parents said they were exhausted by the multitude of services for Caden and expressed concern that visitation with Mother made it difficult for him to settle into their homes. During the same period of time, Mother reentered residential treatment and filed a modification petition to regain custody; the court denied the petition, and Mother disengaged from drug treatment. In May 2017, the court reduced Mother's visits to once per month, limited her educational rights, and set a hearing pursuant to section 366.26. Mother appealed, filed additional modification petitions and appealed their denials, and sought extraordinary relief.

The juvenile court eventually held a section 366.26 hearing from January to February 2018. Over four days the court heard testimony from numerous witnesses for both Mother and the Agency. It also received reports from the Agency; a bonding study from Mother's expert, Dr. Molesworth; a clinical consultation report from the Agency's expert, Dr. Lieberman; and a letter from Caden. Caden indicated that he did not want to come to the hearing. In light of his wishes and to avoid further traumatizing him, the court relied on his letter and statements in the course of the bonding study to understand his feelings. (See § 366.26, subd. (h)(1).)

The Agency argued that Caden was likely to be adopted, that Mother's parental rights should be terminated, and the court should order a permanent plan of adoption. The social worker indicated Mother sometimes discussed the case and her drug treatment in front of Caden, and described reports from caregivers and service providers that Caden talked about alcohol and drug use in detail. She testified that Caden was doing well in his current foster placement with Ms. H., had not been harmed by having fewer visits with Mother, and would be able to form a bond with Ms. H. that would mitigate the loss of his relationship with Mother. And the social worker testified that Caden reacted positively to living with Ms. H. but grew distressed at the prospect of not living with his mother. Dr. Lieberman participated in administrative reviews of Caden's case starting in 2016. Dr. Lieberman testified for the Agency as an expert in parent-child bonding and attachment, with a specific focus in childhood trauma and its impact on children. She agreed that Caden "has a very strong emotional bond with his mother" but emphasized that "the narrowness of the bond poses a risk to [Caden's] ability to devote his attention, energy, investment to developmentally appropriate tasks now of learning [and] socialization." Dr. Lieberman also explained her opinion that Caden would need ongoing support to address the trauma from his early years as well as from separating from his mother, but that Ms. H. could provide him the necessary comfort and security such that termination of his relationship with Mother would not be harmful for him.

What Mother argued is that the court should not terminate her parental rights, because terminating her relationship with Caden would harm him. Numerous witnesses described how they'd observed the relationship. Mother herself testified that "I don't want my son to ever, ever blame himself and think that he did something wrong or feel abandoned because I grew up, I grew up abandoned and feeling those things and I saw to it that my child has known he was loved and that he was a good kid and he had a heart of gold and that his heart resembled god. Like why would you want to take that from him? Because that's exactly what it would do if you were to, if you were to take me out of...