Filed 8/6/26 In re E.M. CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)

In re E.M. et al., a Persons Coming Under the Juvenile C104887
Court Law.
(Super. Ct. Nos. JD242410 &
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF JD242412)
CHILD, FAMILY AND ADULT SERVICES,
Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

I.R. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.

I.R. (mother) and J.M. (father) appeal the juvenile court’s orders terminating their
parental rights and freeing the minors E.M. and M.M. (collectively, the minors) for
adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 The parents contend the juvenile court erred
in finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception did not apply. We will affirm
the juvenile court’s orders.

1 Undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1
 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Case Initiation and Reunification Proceedings
In March 2023, the Sacramento County Department of Child, Family, and Adult
Services (the Department) filed a section 300 petition alleging the newborn E.M. came
within section 300, subdivision (b)(1), due to mother’s substance abuse history and
mother’s positive test for alcohol at the time of E.M.’s birth.2 A similar petition was filed
regarding M.M., who was one year old at the time, based on mother’s substance abuse
and father’s failure to protect M.M. (§ 300, subd. (b)(1).)
The March 2023 detention report stated that mother had come to the hospital in
February 2023 “ ‘passed out drunk’ ” and was admitted. Mother acknowledged to the
social worker that she drank alcohol while in labor with E.M. Father minimized mother’s
alcohol abuse issues. M.R.,3 the father of the minors’ six-year-old half-sibling I.R. (the
half-sibling), offered to care for M.M., explaining he has done so “on and off” throughout
her life.
Later that month, the juvenile court ordered minors detained.
The April 2023 jurisdiction/disposition report stated that mother confirmed to the
social worker that she was addicted to alcohol, and she drank while pregnant with each of
the minors. When she was first pregnant with E.M., mother and M.M. both lived with
M.R. Mother eventually moved out, but M.M. continued living with M.R., and he
remained M.M.’s “primary caretaker.” Father claimed he was unaware of mother’s
alcohol addiction until the February 2023 incident.
The April 2023 jurisdiction/disposition report stated that M.R. first met M.M.
when she was five days old and had been her primary caregiver for the majority of her

2 Her blood alcohol content was allegedly 0.11 percent.
3 To protect their privacy, we will to this individual and the minor’s half-sibling by
their initials. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(1), (10), (11).)

2
life. M.R. became aware of mother’s alcohol addiction in 2015, with her drinking getting
“ ‘real bad’ ” in 2022. Once, in March 2022, mother was supposed to be watching M.M.
and the half-sibling (who also lived with M.R.), but mother was not there when M.R.
returned home at 8:00 a.m., and she did not come back or answer her cell phone for two
days. That summer, mother regularly “ ‘disappear[ed]’ ” and refused to answer her cell
phone. During these incidents, father never came to care for M.M., and M.R. repeatedly
had to take time off from work to care for M.M. In October 2022, the half-sibling
reported that mother left her and M.M. alone in a running car while mother used
methamphetamine at a nearby homeless encampment. Mother and father removed M.M.
from M.R.’s care soon after E.M.’s birth in March 2023. M.R. said he loved M.M.
“immensely,” and held her out as his own child. M.M.’s babysitter noticed that M.M.
referred to M.R. as “ ‘dad’ ” or “ ‘papa.’ ” M.R. asked that the minors be placed with
him. Subsequent paternity testing revealed that father, not M.R., was the biological
father of both of the minors.
In June 2023, the juvenile court placed M.M. with M.R.
Later that month, the juvenile court sustained the petitions and adjudged both of
the minors to be dependents of the court, removed them from parental custody, and
ordered reunification services and visitation for both parents.
A November 2023 progress report noted that mother had one visit with the minors
in April, two visits in October, and two visits in November. Visits had been “going
well.” Father also had regularly visited the minors.
During the March 2024 six-month and June 2024 status review hearings, the
juvenile court continued the minors as dependent children of the court and ordered
additional services and visitation for the parents.
The September 2024 permanency review report noted that E.M. was still living
with the same family that she had been placed with in March 2023, and M.M. was still
living with M.R. Although mother had completed a parenting class, she had been

3
released from a sober living facility due to a positive alcohol test and dismissed from
individual counseling and group therapy due to missing too many sessions. She failed to
communicate with the social worker for more than a month, and the social worker
stopped visits with the minors because mother had missed six in a row. Father, on the
other hand, had completed services, secured an apartment, and had stable employment.
He hoped to have extended unsupervised visits with the minors soon. The social worker
recommended terminating services for mother and giving father more time to participate
in extended unsupervised visits.
A December 2024 addendum report noted that father’s visits were going well and
recommended placing the minors with father.
In December 2024, during the 18-month review hearing, the juvenile court
continued the minors as dependents of the court, terminated reunification services for
mother, placed the minors with father, ordered visitation for mother, and ordered that
mother should not be present in father’s home.
B. Section 387 Petitions
In January 2025, the Department filed section 387 petitions alleging the prior
disposition was no longer effective because father violated court orders and placed the
minors at risk by allowing mother to be present and unsupervised with the minors,
despite mother suffering from untreated mental health issues and being under the
influence of drugs and alcohol. In addition, father failed to provide adequate care
because E.M. had what appeared to be a bite mark on her leg and severe and untreated
diaper rash and eczema.
According to a subsequent declaration, on January 10, 2025, father left the minors
in mother’s care while at a store, even though mother at the time was under the influence
of illegal substances and exhibited signs of mental illness. Mother tried to give the
minors away to strangers while at the store. Mother was taken to the hospital and tested
positive for alcohol and illegal drugs. At the hospital, mother acknowledged that she was

4
living with father and the minors. When asked about the incident, father claimed it was a
“ ‘coincidence’ ” that he had run into mother at the store and denied knowing that she
was under the influence.
Five days after the incident at the store, father called E.M.’s former caregivers and
asked them to take the minors for a day because he felt “overwhelmed.” The minors
were “very hungry” when they arrived at the former caregivers’ home and appeared to be
“experiencing emotional distress.” They cried easily, were fussy, and feared being left
alone. The former caregivers also noticed E.M. had a bite mark, “severe” diaper rash,
and “severe” eczema. It appeared that E.M.’s diaper rash was “due to inadequate
hygiene.” An examining nurse practitioner was similarly concerned that the eczema was
“possibly due to neglect and lack of proper care.”
In the January 2025 detention report, the social worker recommended the minors
be detained in out-of-home foster care. M.M. said that mother was also living at father’s
apartment. M.R. also expressed concern about missed medical appointments and the
minors’ hygiene and health.
The juvenile court found a prima facie showing had been made that the prior court
order was no longer effective and there were no reasonable means by which the minors’
physical and emotional health could be protected without removing them from father’s
custody. The court detained the minors and ordered visitation for the parents and
services for father.
The February 2025 section 387 jurisdiction/disposition report noted that mother
claimed that she had shown up unannounced to father’s apartment on January 10, 2025.
When M.M. saw her, M.M. “came out and came into my arms,” and the minors wanted to
show mother their room. When father and the minors decided to leave to go to the store,
mother followed them there. Mother acknowledged she was “under the influence” that
day.

5
 According to mother, M.M. loved father and wanted to be with her and father.
Father similarly reported that the minors wanted to be with him. The half-sibling said,
however, that M.M. was “really happy” living with her and M.R. The social worker
noted that E.M.’s caregivers (who were the same individuals as before E.M. was briefly
placed with father) were “very attentive and engaged.” The social worker asked the
juvenile court to sustain the petitions, remove the minors from father’s care, terminate
father’s reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing.
During the contested section 387 jurisdiction and disposition hearing, father
testified that mother had followed him and the minors to the store on January 10, 2025.
Father acknowledged he had previously told the social worker that it was “just a
coincidence.” When pressed, father said, “I didn’t plan it…. She planned it.” The
juvenile court found that father’s testimony was not credible. The court sustained the
section 387 petition, continued the minors as dependent children, terminated father’s
reunification services, and set a section 366.26 hearing.

C. Section 366.26 Briefing and Hearing
The August 2025 selection and implementation report noted that the minors had
been returned to the same caregivers as before their brief placement with father from
December 14, 2024, to January 22, 2025. Given that E.M. was first placed with her
current caregivers in March 2023, and M.M. had been formally placed with M.R. in June
2023, both of the minors had spent most of their lives with their current caregivers. E.M.
was “doing well” and was “stable” in her placement. The caregivers were “very
responsive” and met E.M.’s emotional, physical, and developmental needs. M.M. was
similarly “doing well” and “stable” living with M.R. She had a strong connection with
M.R. and her half-sibling, and M.R. met her emotional, physical, and developmental
needs.

6
 As for the parents, the April 2023 jurisdiction/disposition report noted that both
parents had regularly attended visits with the minors since May 2025. Still, mother had
only resumed regular visitation in May 2025. In the Department’s assessment, it would
not be detrimental to the minors to terminate either of the parents’ parental rights with a
plan of adoption. The Department asked the juvenile court to terminate parental rights
and free the minors for adoption.
The Department argued the parents could not establish the beneficial parent-child
relationship exception. The Department conceded that the parents had maintained
consistent contact with the minors. However, the parents could not show that either of
the minors had a substantial, positive emotional attachment to them. The minors had
spent most of their lives placed with their current caregivers, and they looked to their
caregivers for support and to meet their daily needs. The minors’ relationship with
mother and father was nothing more than “frequent and loving contact or pleasant visits.”
In addition, the parents could not show that terminating the parental attachment would be
detrimental to either of the minors given that they had stability, love, and support with
their caregivers.
During the September 2025 hearing, mother and father each argued that the
beneficial parent-child relationship exception applied, but neither party presented any
additional supporting evidence, such as a bonding study. Father argued that he had
visited “consistently and regularly.” Combined with the time the minors were placed
with him, he argued he had “established [a] relationship with the children.”
The juvenile court noted that, since reunification services had been terminated, the
focus had shifted to selecting a permanent plan that ensured stability, with adoption as the
preferred plan where, as here, the children were generally adoptable and were
“thriv[ing]” with their current caregivers. Turning to the beneficial relationship
exception, the court outlined the three factors as explained in In re Caden C. (2021)
11 Cal.5th 614 (Caden C.). “The parents have visited for short periods of time. Neither

7
parent has resumed a parental role in either child’s life to the level necessary. And from
what the Court has reviewed and the evidence presented, each child’s comfort and
security [has] looked towards the de facto parents in the first instance certainly and that is
in the child’s best interest.” As such, the beneficial parent-child relationship exception
was found not to apply. The court terminated parental rights and freed the minors for
adoption.
Both parents timely appealed.

DISCUSSION
Mother and father argue the juvenile court erred in terminating their parental rights
because it should have applied the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to
adoption. We disagree.

A. Legal Background
At a section 366.26 hearing, when the juvenile court finds by clear and convincing
evidence that the child is adoptable, it is generally required to terminate parental rights
and order the child be placed for adoption, unless a statutory exception applies.
(§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1); In re Z.G. (2026) 19 Cal.5th 373.) One such exception is the
beneficial parent-child relationship exception, which applies when “[t]he court finds a
compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child,”
because “[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and
the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)
To establish the beneficial parent-child relationship exception, the parent must
show by a preponderance of the evidence three elements: “(1) regular visitation and
contact, and (2) a relationship, the continuation of which would benefit the child such that
(3) the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child.” (Caden C.,
supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 631, italics omitted; see id. at p. 636.) In assessing whether
termination would be detrimental, the juvenile court “must decide whether the harm from

8
severing the child’s relationship with the parent outweighs the benefit to the child of
placement in a new adoptive home.” (Id. at p. 632.) When the parent meets this burden,
the exception applies such that it would not be in the child’s best interest to terminate
parental rights, and the court selects a permanent plan other than adoption. (Id. at
pp. 636-637.)
We review a juvenile court’s ruling on the application of the beneficial parent-
child relationship exception using a “hybrid” standard. (Caden C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at
p. 641.) The substantial evidence standard applies to the first two elements of regular
visitation and existence of a beneficial relationship. (Id. at pp. 639-640.) As a reviewing
court, we do “ ‘not reweigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or resolve
evidentiary conflicts’ ” and will uphold the juvenile court’s determinations even when
substantial evidence to the contrary also exists. (Id. at p. 640.) The juvenile court’s
decision as to the third element—whether termination of parental rights would be
detrimental to the child—is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Ibid.) “A court abuses its
discretion only when ‘ “ ‘the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by
making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination.’ ” ’ ” (Id. at p. 641.)

B. Analysis
Neither mother nor father has established that the juvenile court erred in
determining that each had failed to offer sufficient evidence to establish the applicability
of the beneficial parent-child relationship exception. On the first element, while there is
evidence that mother and father visited the minors, it is questionable whether mother’s
visitation could be characterized as regular. She failed to visit with the minors from May
through September 2023 and missed six consecutive visits in 2024, leading the social
worker to stop visits in August 2024. Mother did not resume visiting regularly with the
minors until May 2025. Regardless, the Department conceded the issue during the
section 366.26 hearing, so we will assume that this element is met as to both parents.

9
 However, there is a lack of evidence that either mother or father established the
kind of bond required to satisfy the second element. E.M. was a newborn when she was
removed from the parents’ care, and she had lived with her same caregivers for almost
her entire life, except for the five weeks that she spent with father. M.M. similarly had
spent the majority of her young life with M.R., except for the five weeks she spent with
father. Moreover, the minors appeared to be “experiencing emotional distress,” after
their five-week stay with father. After leaving father’s home, the minors cried easily,
were fussy, and feared being left alone. Yet, after being returned to their respective
caregivers, they “stab[ilized]” and “d[id] well.” To the extent the Department’s selection
and implementation report could have described the visits in more detail, this negative
response to living with father for only five weeks indicates that, even if the minors were
affectionate or friendly with the parents during visits, there is no substantial evidence that
they looked to either of the parents as anything more than friendly visitors. (See Caden
C., supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 632 [whether minor has a substantial, positive, emotional
attachment to a parent involves numerous factors, such as the child’s age, portion of the
child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, the positive or negative effect of interaction
between parent and child, the child’s specific needs, and how the child feels about and
interacts with the parent].)
We disagree with parents that the trial court erred in explaining that, with respect
to the second element of the beneficial parent-child relationship, “[n]either parent has
resumed a parental role in either child’s life to the level necessary,” with the minors
looking toward their caregivers for comfort and security. As courts have explained, in
analyzing the second element, it is not error for a juvenile court to consider whether a
parent fulfils a “ ‘parental role.’ ” (In re Katherine J. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 303, 309.)
As the Katherine J. court explained, Caden C. “prohibits juvenile courts from finding
against a beneficial relationship solely because a parent has failed to surmount the issues
that initially brought the child into dependency care.” (Katherine J., at p. 309.)

10
However, nothing in Caden C. “prohibit[s]” a juvenile court from considering whether
the “negative impact of [the parent’s] unresolved issues on [the minor] were antithetical
to the kind of beneficial parental relationship required by section 366.26.” (Katherine J.,
at p. 309.) Under the circumstances, we find no error.
As to the third element, given the limited bond between the minors and parents, it
was reasonable for the juvenile court to conclude that terminating the minors’
relationship with parents would not be detrimental when balanced against the
countervailing benefit of a new, adoptive home.

DISPOSITION
The juvenile court’s orders are affirmed.

\s\
KRAUSE, J.

We concur:

\s\
EARL, P. J.

\s\
HULL, J.

11