Caden C., In re (2021) S255839 S255839; filed May 27, 2021. ![[Files/CaseFiles/S255839.PDF]] [Opinion PDF](https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S255839.PDF) ## Rule excerpts Supreme Court opinion: Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i), parental-benefit exception. Printed pages 12 and 23 (PDF pages 13 and 24). > From the statute, we readily discern three elements the parent must prove to establish the exception: (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., In re (2021) S255839, slip op., p. 12. > What the appellate court emphasized in Autumn H. is a crucial aspect of the trial court’s responsibility in these cases: in assessing whether termination would be detrimental, the trial court must decide whether the harm from severing the child’s relationship with the parent outweighs the benefit to the child of placement in a new adoptive home. (See Autumn H., supra, at p. 575.) By making this decision, the trial court determines whether terminating parental rights serves the child’s best interests. — Caden C., In re (2021) S255839, slip op., p. 12. > Nonetheless, the parent’s struggles with issues such as those that led to dependency are relevant only to the extent they inform the specific questions before the court: would the child benefit from continuing the relationship and be harmed, on balance, by losing it? The parent’s continuing difficulty with mental health or substance abuse may not be used as a basis for determining the fate of the parental relationship by assigning blame, making moral judgments about the fitness of the parent, or rewarding or punishing a parent. — Caden C., In re (2021) S255839, slip op., p. 23.