In re C.K. CA1/5

BACKGROUND

A.

After a parent’s reunification services are terminated, the focus of dependency proceedings “changes from family reunification to the child’s interest in permanence and stability.” (In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1163.) Children have

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and

Institutions Code.

1 “compelling rights . . . to have a placement that is stable, permanent, and that allows the caretaker to make a full emotional commitment to the child.” (In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 306.) At a section 366.26 hearing, the court is statutorily authorized to order one of three alternatives: adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care. (In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289, 296; accord, § 366.26, subd. (b).) Adoption is the preferred permanent plan. (In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614, 630-631 (Caden C.); In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 573; accord, § 366.26, subds. (b), (c)(1).)

Thus, “the court must first determine by clear and convincing evidence whether the child is likely to be adopted. (See § 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) If so, and if the court finds that there has been a previous determination that reunification…