legal news


Register | Forgot Password

In re A.F.
E.F. and B.C. (respectively, Father and Mother) are the unmarried parents of A.F., who is now four years old. The juvenile court terminated parental rights; found the exception to termination of parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i)[1] (the "continuing benefit exception") did not apply; and ordered adoption as A.F.'s permanent plan.
Father appeals, arguing the court issued an unlawful visitation order more than a year before the termination of parental rights; the visitation order led to the diminishment of the bond between A.F. and Father, and the diminished bond led to termination of his parental rights. We conclude Father forfeited this argument, as he did not timely challenge the visitation order.
Mother also appeals, arguing the court's findings are not supported by substantial evidence; the court considered improper factors when determining whether the continuing benefit exception applied; and the court should have chosen guardianship as A.F.'s permanent plan. We conclude substantial evidence supports the court's findings, and the court did not consider improper factors in its determination.
We affirm the judgment.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale