In re Steven M. CA1/4

Filed 7/7/21 In re Steven M. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

In re STEVEN M., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICIES AGENCY, Plaintiff and Respondent, A160705 v. (Alameda County L.G., Super. Ct. No. JD-029952-01) Defendant and Appellant.

Mother appeals an order terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for her now four-year-old son. She contends the court erred in finding that the “parental-benefit” exception to the termination of parental rights does not apply. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).)1 After the trial court’s order was entered, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 (Caden C.), in which the court provided new guidance regarding the “carefully calibrated process” designed by the Legislature for determining parental rights when a parent asserts that the parental-benefit exception

All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code 1

unless otherwise noted.

1

applies. Given some ambiguity in the record before us, we are unable to conclude that the court’s decision complies with the Supreme Court’s directions in Caden. C. Accordingly, we shall reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand for reconsideration in light of Caden C. Background In July 2018, the Alameda County Social Services Agency (the agency) filed a juvenile dependency petition alleging that then 16-month-old Steven came within section 300, subdivision (b)(1) based on, among other things, allegations that his parents had a history of domestic violence and substance abuse. Steven was detained and placed with his maternal grandmother shortly after his detention. In September 2018, the court sustained the allegations of the petition and ordered family reunification services for both parents. By the time of the six-month review hearing in May 2019, after a slow start, mother had begun participating in domestic violence and substance abuse prevention services but the parents’ relationship continued to be characterized by domestic violence. On four occasions in the preceding five months, the domestic disputes resulted in police involvement. The court terminated reunification services and set a section 366.26 hearing. In the section 366.26 report, dated November 12, 2019, the agency recommended the termination of parental rights and permanent plan of adoption by the maternal grandmother. The agency reported that mother is visiting with Steven twice a week at the grandmother’s home. The grandmother reported that the visits were “very positive” and that mother was appropriate and affectionate with Steven and attended to his needs by feeding, changing, and putting him down for naps and for the night, reading to him, playing with him, and watching cartoons and videos with him.