Filed 8/20/26 In re Z.G. CA4/2
Opinion on remand from Supreme Court
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re Z.G. et al., Persons Coming Under
the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, E083710
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super.Ct.Nos. J286808 &
J289966)
v.
OPINION
A.G.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Lynn M. Poncin,
Judge. Reversed.
Paul A. Swiller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Laura Feingold, County Counsel, and David Guardado, Deputy County Counsel,
for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
At a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 hearing on April 22, 2024, the
juvenile court terminated the parental rights of defendant and appellant A.B. (mother)2 as
to Z.G. (born May 2020) and A.G. (born July 2021) (collectively minors). On appeal,
mother contended the court erred in removing minors from mother’s custody and that
there was no statutory basis for terminating her parental rights as to A.G. because mother
had never received reunification services with respect to her. Mother further argued the
court erred in declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception to terminating
parental rights.3
The majority panel of this court affirmed the termination of mother’s parental
rights. We held that we lacked jurisdiction to consider mother’s claims with respect to
the May 16, 2023, order at which the juvenile court removed minors from mother,
terminated her services, and set the section 366.26 hearing. We reasoned, based on
previously extant case law, that the failure to file a timely petition for extraordinary writ
from that order barred appellate review of it due to minors’ need for permanence and
stability. We also held that the court was not required to find that reunification services
as to A.G. had been bypassed to terminate mother’s parental rights because the court had
1 All further statutory references are to the Welfare and Intuitions Code.
2 Father is not a party to the appeal.
3 Mother filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that mother’s counsel
had committed several acts of prejudicial ineffective assistance of counsel at the
disposition hearing. (In re A.G., case No. E084563). We ordered the petition to be
considered with the appeal and summarily denied the petition by separate order.
2
determined that A.G. was adoptable and that the court had not erred in declining to apply
the beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights.4
On April 27, 2026, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing our
judgment and remanded the matter to us “with directions to reverse the juvenile court’s
orders terminating parental rights as to [minors] and to remand to the juvenile court for
further proceedings consistent with” their opinion. (In re Z.G. (2026) 19 Cal.5th 373,
393 (Z.G.).) We vacated our decision and offered the parties the opportunity to file
supplemental briefs, which they waived. We reverse and remand the matter with
directions.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND5
On September 28, 2020, personnel from plaintiff and respondent, San Bernardino
County Children and Family Services (the department), received an immediate response
referral alleging severe and general neglect. The reporting party indicated that mother
had taken then four-month-old Z.G. to the emergency room as she was not making eye
contact, her eyes were rolling back, and her body was stiff. Z.G. tested positive for
4 Justice Menetrez dissented, arguing that because it was at least reasonably
probable that mother’s reunification services would not have been bypassed as to A.G.
“but for the juvenile court’s error and counsel’s failure to spot it, we should reverse the
termination of parental rights as to A.G. And because A.G. and Z.G. have lived together
for the entirety of their young lives, it is reasonably probable that the sibling bond
exception to termination of parental rights would apply [citation], so we should reverse
the termination of parental rights as to Z.G. as well.” (In re Z.G. et al. (Jan. 15, 2025)
E083710 [nonpub. opn.].)
5 By order dated May 17, 2024, we incorporated the record in case No. E081423.
3
methamphetamine. The reporting party indicated mother appeared to be under the
influence of drugs.
The responding social worker interviewed mother, who reported she had left Z.G.
with the maternal grandmother; 30 minutes later, the maternal grandmother called and
stated that Z.G. was acting differently. Mother then took her to the hospital.
Mother and the maternal grandmother both denied using methamphetamine.
Mother admitted using marijuana. The maternal grandmother reportedly had a history of
drug use, of which mother was aware. Mother believed the maternal grandmother was
using drugs.
A family friend stated she believed the maternal grandmother and father used
drugs. It was reported that father used marijuana while holding Z.G.6 The social worker
took Z.G. into protective custody. Z.G. remained at the hospital.
On September 30, 2020, the department filed a juvenile dependency petition
alleging parents had substance abuse problems (b-1, b-3, & b-7); that mother left Z.G.
with the maternal grandmother, where she ingested methamphetamine (b-2); that mother
and father engaged in acts of domestic violence in the presence of Z.G. (b-4 & b-5); that
father knew or should have known of mother’s substance abuse (b-6); and that father’s
whereabouts were unknown (g-8). On October 1, 2020, the court detained Z.G.
6 The social worker indicated the parents “may have” engaged in domestic
violence; the information apparently derived from mother’s “having a red scar on the
right side of her chin and several small bruises on both forearms.”
4
In the October 19, 2020, jurisdiction and disposition report, the social worker
wrote that the b-4, b-5, and g-8 allegations were not supported by the evidence.
Therefore, the social worker requested the court find those allegations not true. The
social worker recommended the court find the remaining allegations true, remove Z.G.
from parents’ custody, and provide parents with reunification services. The social worker
further requested the court grant authority to return Z.G. to parents under family
maintenance services within three months as deemed appropriate.
The social worker interviewed mother on October 6, 2020. Mother denied having
a substance abuse problem. However, she admitted using marijuana twice weekly and
drinking once a week. Mother tested negative for all substances on September 29, 2020.
On October 6, 2020, she tested positive for marijuana.
Mother had left Z.G. with the maternal grandmother, maternal aunt, and maternal
uncle, who lived in a different room in the same hotel as her. The maternal grandmother
and maternal aunt were both on probation and required to submit to random drug testing;
however, as far as mother knew, they were not using illicit substances. Mother believed
one of the family members must have used methamphetamine, failed to wash their hands,
and Z.G. ingested it due to a family member’s handling of her bottles.
The social worker referred parents to parenting classes, individual counseling, and
Al-Anon meetings. Parents agreed to random and on-demand drug testing, on the
condition that they not have to complete substance abuse treatment programs upon
negative testing.
5
The social worker scheduled supervised visitation a minimum of once weekly for
two hours. She requested authority to allow unsupervised visits when deemed
appropriate. Parents filed waivers of rights agreeing to submit on the petition and the
social worker’s reports.
At the hearing on October 22, 2020, the court dismissed the b-4, b-5, and g-8
allegations. The department also asked the court to dismiss the b-1 allegation and amend
the b-7 allegation. The court struck the b-1 allegation and amended the b-7 allegation.
The court found the remaining allegations true, removed Z.G., and granted parents
reunification services.
In the status review report filed April 12, 2021, the social worker recommended
Z.G. be returned to parents’ home under family maintenance services. The social worker
noted Z.G. had been placed in the home of her paternal great-grandmother.
Parents completed anger management/parenting classes on January 11, 2021.
They both completed individual counseling. Parents attended eight Al-Anon group
meetings. Parents missed two drug tests in December 2020, which the department
excused. Mother had tested negative seven times. Father had tested negative on six
occasions.
The social worker observed, “The parents share tasks and respectfully request
assistance from one another when engaged in the activities they do with [Z.G.]. The
paternal great-grandmother has reported how lovingly the mother bathed her daughter
and got her ready for bedtime during one of her evening visits. They have also
6
participated in the therapeutic services . . . to ensure that they are meeting and assisting
with [Z.G.’s] developmental needs.”
Parents had not missed any visits. Unsupervised visitation began on February 18,
2021: “Initial[ly] the visits were all day for three . . . days[;] now they have every day,
all-day visits with weekend visits being overnight and an additional overnight visit during
the week.” Z.G. appeared “bonded to both of her parents as well as to her extended
paternal relatives with whom she is placed.”
On April 22, 2021, the court approved the case plan and ordered Z.G. returned to
parents’ home but retained jurisdiction over her. Parents were to maintain contact with
the social worker and inform her within 24 hours of any change in Z.G.’s residence. The
court found parents had made substantial progress toward alleviating or mitigating the
causes necessitating placement. The court authorized the department to request dismissal
of the case if appropriate.
In July 2021, mother gave birth to A.G. On July 20, 2021, family members
reported concerns that father was using illicit substances again and knew how to falsify
test results. They reported father had a history of suicidal and self-harm behaviors.
Mother reported an incident of domestic violence.
Mother had moved out of the family home. Parents had separated. Father had
missed five out of nine drug tests. Father failed to show for a children and family team
meeting and a subsequently scheduled meeting with the social worker. Mother had one
missed drug test. She subsequently tested negative for all substances.
7
On July 27, 2021, the department filed a supplemental petition as to Z.G. alleging
that father engaged in acts of domestic violence against mother (b-1 & s-2) and had failed
to drug test on five occasions (s-3). On the same date, the department also filed a
dependency petition as to A.G. alleging that father engaged in domestic violence against
mother (b-1), failed to drug test five times (b-2), and that Z.G. had been adjudged a
dependent of the juvenile court (j-3). The social worker recommended minors remain in
mother’s home with family maintenance services but that reunification services be
offered to father.
At the hearing on July 28, 2021, the court detained minors from father on both
petitions. Minors were to be maintained in mother’s home.
In the August 12, 2021, jurisdiction and disposition reports, the social worker
recommended the court find the allegations in the petitions true, continue minors in
mother’s home with family maintenance services, and provide reunification services for
father. Mother reported she had kicked father out of the home for using
methamphetamine. Mother said “father’s suicide attempts include stabbing himself with
glass, placing things around his neck, and driving reckless[ly].”
Mother had agreed to continue to participate in services. The social worker issued
her referrals for counseling and domestic violence services. Mother said she last used
marijuana in August 2020, and last consumed alcohol on July 16, 2021. Mother said she
had been admitted to the hospital due to kidney and liver issues related to alcohol use
when she was two to four weeks pregnant with Z.G. “As part of mother’s current open
8
[family maintenance] case with the other sibling she was court ordered to participate in
and referred to the following: case management, counseling, parent education, substance
abuse services, and transportation services.”
At the hearing on August 18, 2021, mother submitted on the recommendation of
family maintenance services. The court found the allegations in the petitions true.
As to disposition, the department’s and minors’ counsel requested that mother’s
plan include a requirement that she test for alcohol, and that if she tested positive she be
required to participate in an outpatient treatment program. Mother had “no objection to
those requests.” The court removed minors from father’s legal custody, continued minors
in mother’s home with family maintenance services, and granted father reunification
services. On September 1, 2022, the court approved the modified case plan requiring
mother to participate in a domestic violence program, general counseling, and substance
abuse testing.
In the status review report filed February 8, 2022, the social worker recommended
the matter be continued for 30 days with a recommendation to dismiss the cases as to
mother and terminate father’s reunification services. The social worker had limited
contact with father over the reporting period; he had not been participating in services,
including visitation.
Mother had been attending individual counseling, domestic violence classes, and
had tested negative on five occasions. However, mother had failed to show twice for
testing. Mother had an active bench warrant issued on December 16, 2021, for missing a
9
court date. The department requested the continuance to enable mother to resolve the
warrant prior to dismissal of the dependency matters as to her.
On February 17, 2022, the social worker filed an additional information for the
court reflecting mother had completed her individual therapy and domestic violence
classes. Mother reported that she was unable to go to court to clear her outstanding
warrant due to illness. The department requested a 45-day continuance to allow mother
to clear the warrant prior to dismissal of the dependency matters. At the hearing on
February 18, 2022, the court continued the matters.
In an additional information for the court filed April 7, 2022, the social worker
reported that mother had been in and out of the hospital; she had been referred to a
specialist. Mother missed her hearing scheduled on March 14, 2022, to clear her warrant.
Mother requested another hearing, which was scheduled for April 14, 2022. Mother
continued to test negatively for illicit substances. The department recommended they
continue to provide family maintenance services to mother until she cleared her warrant.
At the hearing on April 7, 2022, mother’s counsel submitted on the department’s
recommendation. The court terminated father’s reunification services. The court
continued minors in the custody of mother under family maintenance services.
In the October 7, 2022, additional information for the court, the social worker
reported that mother was living in the home of the paternal aunt. Mother was sleeping in
the living room with A.G. in a crib and Z.G. on an air mattress. The social worker
10
informed mother “she should not be co-sleeping with the minor.” Mother responded that
the living conditions were temporary, and she was actively looking for a new home.
The social worker noted that records reflected that mother had failed to test on five
occasions. Mother contended she had tested on those dates and would provide the social
worker with documentation. Mother reported “that she took care of her warrant by
completing driving school . . . .” The social worker requested a continuance to allow
mother to find suitable housing and to verify the missing drug tests.
At the hearing on October 7, 2022, mother’s counsel requested a five-week
continuance for mother to obtain housing. The court granted the continuance.
The social worker recommended in the status review report filed November 7,
2022, that minors remain in mother’s custody under family maintenance services.
Mother had moved in with the maternal aunt. Z.G. had been diagnosed with a heart
murmur; the social worker was unaware if mother had followed up for treatment. Since
February 22, 2022, mother had 12 no shows and nine negative drug tests. Mother could
not find drug test receipts for the months of August through October due to moving. The
social worker also noted she did not have verification that mother had attended the
requisite eight Al-Anon meetings.
At the hearing on November 8, 2022, at which mother was not present, minor’s
counsel objected to the department’s recommendation. Minor’s counsel noted mother
had failed to show for a number of drug tests, had not provided proof of attendance at AA
or NA meetings, and it did not appear mother had followed up with treatment for Z.G.’s
11
heart murmur. Mother’s counsel requested a week to contact mother and obtain the
required information. The court continued the matters for 30 days to provide mother time
to drug test and obtain receipts.
In an additional information for the court filed on December 8, 2022, the social
worker reported that mother stated she was advised that she did not necessarily need to
follow up with respect to Z.G.’s diagnosed heart murmur. The social worker advised her
to make an appointment with a pediatrician; mother said she would do so.
The testing center had erroneously failed to place mother on the testing list; the
error had since been corrected; however, mother still needed to test. Mother reported that
she had completed all the required Al-Anon meetings and had been cleared by the
previous social worker. The current social worker could find no evidence in the file
supporting mother’s contention. The social worker noted that mother still needed to
complete four more sessions of individual counseling. The department requested “a 60
day extension, so the Department could provide [the] court through ample [sic] results
with drug testing, individual counseling completed, heart murmur results[,] and Al-anon
meetings.”
At the hearing on December 9, 2022, the department informed the court “that
Mother did attend the doctor’s appointment for the heart murmur yesterday and was
referred to a cardiologist. I don’t know the date of the appointment with the cardiologist,
but we’ll be following up on that issue for the next court date.”
12
Minors’ counsel requested the continuance be limited to 30 days. The department
responded, “My concern is that we had an issue with the drug tests and now that’s sorted
out. I want to get minors’ counsel the drug test result for the next court date and some
attendance sheets. Honestly, I don’t know how quickly one gets in to see a cardiologist.
I think availability of physicians can vastly differ. I’m concerned that we may not have
that in 30 days. Would the Court and minors’ counsel be open to perhaps 45 days, with
the hope that we can at least get some results for some drug tests?” The court continued
the matters to January 23, 2023.
In an additional information filed January 19, 2023, the social worker reported she
“was made aware of [an] error in regard to mother[‘s] . . . drug test results. It is noted
that mother has tested negative (28) twenty-eight times. The Department was unaware of
the errors due to the misinformation retrieved prior to the December 9, 2022, hearing.”
The department also appears to have conceded that mother was not required to complete
any additional 12-step meetings. Mother had an appointment with a cardiologist for Z.G.
on February 23, 2023. The social worker recommended the dependencies be dismissed.
At the hearing on January 23, 2023, minors’ counsel requested a continuance
because mother had moved, and someone needed to check the home. The court
continued the matters.
On February 7, 2023, the social worker filed an additional information for the
court, in which she reported that mother had completed her case plan including
“individual counseling, domestic violence, attended Al-anon[,] and has tested clean for
13
the past two years.” “The case has remained open due to mother having a warrant,
mother has cleared up her prior warrant, mother has completed her case plan. Mother has
expressed her frustration that the case is still open when she has completed the case plan.
The Department does not see that keeping the case open is benefitting her or the
children.” “Mother has benefitted from the services that she had completed in 2022.”
Mother had missed a recent drug test; however, she subsequently tested negative. “The
Department is requesting that the case remain open for three weeks, so the on demand
test results could be provided to the intake worker and the referral could be closed.” The
court continued the matters.
On February 6, 2023, the social worker went to the home of the paternal aunt, who
informed the social worker she had asked mother to leave the residence due to mother’s
drinking. The paternal aunt said she did not see mother drinking, but she could “‘identify
the signs of drinking.’” She saw a bottle in the home but could not identify the type of
alcohol it contained. The paternal aunt stated mother would pinch minors and tell them
to shut up.
The social worker reported that mother had missed eight drug tests since
December 2022, and had tested negative once. The social worker wrote that mother had
a history of missing drug tests. “As of the writing of this report the mother has completed
the services in her court ordered case plan but has been re-referred for attending 12 Step
meetings and testing.” Mother was not making the minors available for the social worker
to check.
14
On March 13, 2023, the department filed supplemental petitions alleging mother
was not cooperating with the court ordered case plan; she was also not drug testing or
advising the department about her and minors’ whereabouts. On March 14, 2023, the
court ordered minors detained from mother’s custody on the supplemental petitions. On
March 16, 2023, minors were taken into protective custody.
In the April 3, 2023, jurisdiction and disposition report, the social worker
recommended the court find the allegations in the petitions true, remove minors, and
grant mother reunification services. The social worker noted, “Mother has had the
children in her care since August 18, 2021.” “During this review period mother has been
uncooperative with the Department. [The social worker] reviewed the case plan with
mother [on] October 27, 2022, November 21, 2022, and December 22, 2022. Mother had
stated that she had completed the case plan but was unwilling to attend 12 step meetings,
retain a sponsor, agreed to test and proceeded to test once since November 21, 2022.”
According to the social worker, mother did not have stable housing, was abusing alcohol,
and was evasive about her location. The social worker had requested mother complete
three on-demand tests, all which mother missed.
At the hearing on April 4, 2023, the department requested “a brief continuance as
the recommendation is legally inappropriate. Mother is out of time for further services.”
The court continued the matters.
In an additional information for the court filed April 11, 2023, the social worker
recommended the court terminate mother’s services and set the section 366.26 hearing.
15
At the hearing on April 12, 2012, at which mother was not present, the department
requested a continuance because “[m]other was sick in the hospital with jaundice.”
Mother’s counsel was unaware of the circumstances. The court continued the matters to
May 12, 2023.
On May 8, 2023, the social worker filed an additional information for the court in
which she reported that they held a children and family team meeting at the hospital with
mother on May 2, 2023. Mother agreed to complete outpatient and substance abuse
testing. Nonetheless, “the Department recognizes that legally mother’s services are to be
terminated.” The social worker reported that “mother and children have a strong bond.”
At the hearing on May 12, 2023, at which mother was not present, mother’s
counsel requested the court strike the s-1 allegation, or, in the alternative, strike the
language indicating mother had not advised the department about her and minors’
whereabouts. Counsel requested services be continued.
The court found the s-1 allegation true as amended to strike the language
regarding the whereabouts of mother and minors. Minors’ counsel believed “these
children are adoptable and I do not want them to linger in foster care any longer than they
have had to.” The court continued the disposition hearing. In the May 16, 2023,
additional information for the court, the social worker recommended the court set the
section 366.26 hearing to establish a permanent plan of adoption.
At the hearing on May 16, 2023, at which mother was not present, mother’s
counsel reiterated his request that the court continue services for mother. Minors’
16
counsel submitted on the recommendation for the setting of a section 366.26 hearing on
adoption. The court asked, “Isn’t the mother out of time statutorily for services to be
provided?” The department responded, “Correct, Your Honor.” The court removed
minors from mother, terminated her services, and scheduled the section 366.26 hearing.
On May 30, 2023, mother filed a notice of intent to file a petition for extraordinary
writ as to both minors. On July 5, 2023, this court dismissed the case for petitioner’s
failure to timely file a motion for relief from default for having failed to timely file the
writ petition.
On June 25, 2023, the social worker filed an additional information for the court,
in which she reported that the paternal great-grandmother said that mother’s liver was
failing. The paternal great-grandmother wished to adopt minors.
In the section 366.26 report filed December 4, 2023, the social worker requested
additional “time . . . to transfer the case to the adoption’s unit and for the adoptions unit
to complete [a] home assessment.” The department had placed minors with the current
caregivers on June 28, 2023; they wished to adopt minors. “The placement is stable[,]
and the children are doing well in the home.” Mother had supervised visits with minors
twice weekly for two hours. The visits were reported to be “great.”
At the hearing on December 5, 2023, the department requested a 120-day
continuance. Minors’ counsel requested a shorter continuance: “The children have been
with the caregiver, I think, now between around seven months and they’re doing
extremely well. My experience has been that the caregiver has been very cooperative[,]
17
and I’m satisfied that the placement is not only appropriate, but very beneficial to the
children.” The court set the contested section 366.26 hearing for February 6, 2024.
The department requested that mother’s visits be reduced. Mother’s counsel
observed, “The report indicates that Mother’s been having visits twice a week, for two
hours, supervised, and that visits have been going well. So I would ask that . . . if the
Court is inclined to grant the request to reduce visits, I would ask visits remain twice a
month, Your Honor.” Minors’ counsel noted, “I’m fine with authority to increase, but at
this juncture, we want the children to settle in. I don’t want them—given their ages . . . to
have . . . conflict or confusion issues. There’s also the fact that the caregivers have to
facilitate [visits].” The court ordered mother’s visitation reduced to “two times per
month, for two hours, county agency has authority [to] increase as to frequency, duration,
and delegate supervision.”
On February 5, 2024, the department requested an additional “continuance to
allow adoptions to complete a thorough assessment of [the] family.” At the hearing on
February 6, 2024, the department requested an additional 75 days. The court set the
matters for April 22, 2024.
On April 10, 2024, the social worker filed a first addendum section 366.26 report,
recommending the court terminate parents’ parental rights and implement a permanent
plan of adoption. The social worker reported that minors were generally adoptable and
were likely to be adopted. They were “very bonded” to the prospective adoptive parents,
who were relatives, as well as other children, an adult uncle, and a grandfather, all of
18
whom also lived in the home. The prospective adoptive parents were interactive with
minors and kept “up with their energy.”
At the section 366.26 hearing on April 22, 2024, mother testified that she had been
visiting with minors. During her latest visit in early April, minors came into the house
and “said, ‘Mommy,’ and then we continued to proceed, started coloring.” They gave her
a hug. “Then we did go outside. They like to be outdoors and ride their bikes.” At the
end of the visit, Z.G. “was kind of sad. I told her she would be seeing me again soon.
And then [minors] walked down and gave me a hug. I put them in the car[,] and they
said they love me and that’s it.”
At her March visit with minors, they went outside and played; they had snacks.
Minors addressed her as “‘Mommy’” and “Mom.’” Z.G. “usually is sitting on top of me,
[A.G.] is sitting on the side. [A.G.’s] more affectionate toward my boyfriend. So
[A.G.’s] very close with him. So me and [A.G.] have a bond, too.”
Mother’s bond with Z.G. was stronger. “I mean, when I first came over, she’s
like—starts to cry a little bit, when she sees me and stuff. When she leaves, she kind of
throws a fit or tantrum, but lately we are working through it, talk to her, tell her she’s
going to come back and see me.” “[W]e have a bounce house. We put that up, play with
balloons, color, blow bubbles.” When the visit ended, Z.G. was upset; “she started to
cry.”
Mother’s counsel argued that mother and minors “are bonded.” “They look
forward to seeing her at the visits and the children refer to her as Mom.” “I do think there
19
is evidence of a bond such that severance would not be in the children’s best interest—
severance of that relationship, that is. So we would ask the Court find that it would not
be in the children’s best interest to follow the recommendation to terminate parental
rights. Instead, Mother requests the Court order a lesser plan of legal guardianship.”
Minor’s counsel requested the court follow the department’s recommendation.
The court noted that minors “have been out of [mother’s] care for more than a year
at this point.” “They have been in their current placement for over six months. They’re
bonded to their prospective adoptive parents. The prospective adoptive parents are
willing and committed to the needs of the children on a permanent basis, and they desire
to keep them with family, keep them safe and loved.” “The social worker reports that the
children appear to be emotionally bonded to the prospective adoptive parents.” “The
children have been placed with the prospective adoptive parents since [sic] March 16,
2023.”7
“In the [section 366].26 report of December 5th, 2023, the social worker reported
the children are doing well in the home.” Z.G. “presents as a happy three year old, and
there’s no indication that she is in need of therapy, based on comments by the caregiver.”
“In the addendum report submitted for today, it also reflects a bond between the children
and the caregivers.” The court found minors “both generally specifically adoptable.”
The juvenile court expressly mentioned In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614
(Caden C.) as the applicable law in determining whether to apply the beneficial
7 The department took minors into protective custody on March 16, 2023. The
department placed minors with the prospective adoptive parents on June 28, 2023.
20
relationship exception to termination of parental rights. “In this case, the children have
been removed from the mother for over a year and have been in . . . their placement since
March 2023.[8] The Court is finding that the mother has met her burden of proof as to
regular visitation and contact between the children.” The court also found that mother
and minors were bonded.
“As to the third element, whether termination of parental rights would be
detrimental, the Court is finding that the mother has not met the burden of proof. While
[Z.G.] may cry and get upset at some point in the visits, the mother described the last visit
at the beginning of April. At the end of the visit, the children were kind of sad. There
was no testimony as to the visit in April that there was any distress.” “It does not appear
[Z.G.] is distressed at the end of every visit. There’s been no evidence presented that
she’s not able to be comforted or has ongoing issues after the visit. Mother’s own
testimony was that [A.G.] has a stronger bond with Mother’s boyfriend.” “[T]he Court is
finding that the mother has not met the burden of proof as to third element. Court is
finding it would not be detrimental to the children to terminate parental rights.” Thus, the
court terminated parents’ parental rights as to both minors.
8 See footnote six, ante.
21
II. DISCUSSION
“[A] juvenile court may not terminate parental rights merely by finding a
likelihood of adoption.” (In re Z.G., supra, 19 Cal.5th at p. 377.) “[A] juvenile court at a
section 366.26 hearing may terminate parental rights only when it makes both a
likelihood-of-adoption determination and one of the additional findings referenced in
section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1). And if the juvenile court finds one of the exceptions
in subdivision (c)(1) applicable, it may not terminate parental rights even when it has
found a likelihood of adoption and one of the additional findings.” (Id. at p. 387.)
An appellate court may review final orders by way of petition for habeas corpus,
where trial counsel “provided ineffective assistance of counsel by not asserting the
mother’s statutory right to services as to one of her children and by failing to challenge
the termination of services and setting of the permanency planning hearing.” (In re Z.G.,
supra, 19 Cal.5th at p. 377.) “[C]ounsel’s failure to object when the juvenile court
purported to terminate Mother’s reunification services as to A.G. and set the section
366.26 hearing, as well as counsel’s subsequent failure to seek writ review of the setting
of the section 366.26 hearing, were ineffective assistance.” (Id. at p. 391.) “Where, as
here, a parent files a habeas corpus petition concurrently with a timely appeal of the
termination order, her ineffective assistance of counsel claim should not be denied for
lack of diligence, even if the alleged ineffective assistance occurred at earlier stages of
the dependency proceedings.” (Id. at p. 392.)
22
“Mother received ineffective assistance of counsel when her trial counsel failed to
assert her statutory rights to reunification services as to A.G. at the disposition hearing
and on writ review of the setting of the permanency planning hearing. Accordingly, we
vacate the portions of the juvenile court’s May 2023 order that terminated Mother’s
reunification services as to A.G. and set a section 366.26 hearing for A.G. And because
services as to A.G. in all likelihood would have affected Z.G.’s trajectory given their
sibling relationship, we vacate the setting of the section 366.26 hearing for Z.G. as well.”
(In re Z.G., supra, 19 Cal.5th at p. 393.)
Here, our Supreme Court has concluded that the juvenile court erred in
terminating mother’s parental rights without offering her reunification services as to A.G.
Moreover, the Supreme Court has determined that mother was not barred from raising
issues of ineffective assistance of counsel at the disposition hearing despite that order’s
finality. Thus, the Supreme Court directs us to reverse the juvenile court’s orders
terminating mother’s parental rights and remand the matter for a new dispositional
hearing.
23
III. DISPOSITION
The orders terminating mother’s parental rights are reversed. The matter is
remanded to the juvenile court with directions to hold a new disposition hearing for Z.G.
and A.G. to determine an appropriate remedy consistent with the court’s opinion in Z.G.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ
P. J.
MENETREZ
J.
24