In re N.M. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Mother asserts the juvenile court erred in finding the parental-benefit exception inapplicable because it inappropriately considered her struggles with substance abuse and that she would have post-adoption contact with the children. 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.).) If a child is adoptable,3 then the court must terminate parental rights absent “‘exceptional circumstances.’” (Id. at p. 631.) One exception, commonly called the parental benefit exception, exists if the parent establishes by a preponderance of evidence: “(1) regular visitation and contact, and (2) a relationship, the continuation of which would benefit

3 Mother has not challenged the juvenile court’s

determination that her children are adoptable.

3 the child such that (3) the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child.” (Ibid., italics omitted; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) If the parent meets her burden, then the exception applies because it would not be in the children’s best interest to…