In Re PC

Good Law
137 Cal. App. 4th 279·40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 17
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 2006D046406California3,799 words

Opinion

Opinion

Suzanne F. Evans, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, San Diego, for the Minors.

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

McDONALD, J.

Andrew and Jamie C. (Parents) appeal a judgment terminating their parental rights to their children, P.C. and G.C. Parents argue the exception to termination of parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(D) is unconstitutionally vague. [1] Nevertheless, they assert section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(D) precludes termination of parental rights because there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding the maternal grandfather (Grandfather) was willing to adopt the children. Parents further assert there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination of parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) did not apply.

We conclude substantial evidence supports the trial court's determination the exceptions under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) and (D) did not preclude termination of parental rights.

In May 2003 three-year old P.C. and four-month old G.C. were removed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.