In re L.F.A. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

The parents contend the juvenile court erred when it failed to apply the parental-benefit exception to bar adoption as the permanent plan. We disagree. After reunification services have been terminated, the court sets a section 366.26 hearing “ ‘to select and implement a permanent plan for the child.’ ” (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 630 (Caden C.).) The court has the options of adoption with termination of parental rights, guardianship, permanent relative care, or foster care. (§ 366.26, subd. (b).) The statutory preference is for adoption. (§ 366.26, subd. (b)(1).) The parental- benefit exception allows the court to choose an option other than adoption “ ‘in exceptional circumstances.’ ” (Caden C., at p. 631.) The parental-benefit exception has 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; § 366.26, subd.

3 (c)(1)(B)(i).) The parent must establish these three elements by a preponderance of the evidence. (Caden C., at p. 629.) The juvenile court correctly…