In re C.V. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Parental benefit exception Mother contends the juvenile court erred in finding the parental benefit exception did not apply. 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 juvenile court may order one of three alternatives: adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care. The statutory preference is for adoption. (In re Katherine J. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 303, 316; § 366.26 subd. (b)(1).) If the juvenile court finds the child adoptable, it must terminate parental rights unless one of several statutory exceptions applies. (§ 366.26, subds. (b)(1) & (c)(1)(B).) One exception, 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 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; § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) If the parent meets her burden, then the…