relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer. If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent’s rights are not terminated.” (Id. at p. 575.) In In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, the stated that a parent’s and loving contact” “frequent with the child is not sufficient to establish the beneficial relationship exception. (Id. at p. 1418.) The court concluded the parents in that case failed to establish the existence of the exception because they not occupied a parental role “had in relation to [the children] at any time during their lives.” (Id. at p. Subsequently, courts have held a parent’s failure to demonstrate he or she occupied a parental role at the time of the section 366.26 hearing precluded application of the beneficial relationship exception. (See, e.g., In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 827 [“the parent must show that he or she occupies a role’ in the child’s life”]; In re ‘parental Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 [“a parental relationship is necessary for the [beneficial relationship] exception to apply” (original emphasis)].) By the time of a section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court has already removed the child from the parent and terminated the parent’s reunification services. (See In re Grace P. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 605, 611; In re Josue G. (2003)
relationship in a tenuous placement against the security and the sense of belonging a new family would confer. If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent’s rights are not terminated.” (Id. at p. 575.) In In re Beatrice M. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1411, the stated that a parent’s “frequent and loving contact” with the child is not sufficient to establish the beneficial relationship exception. (Id. at p. 1418.) The court concluded the parents in that case failed to establish the existence of the exception because they “had not occupied a parental role in relation to [the children] at any time during their lives.” (Id. at p. Subsequently, courts have held a parent’s failure to demonstrate he or she occupied a parental role at the time of the section 366.26 hearing precluded application of the beneficial relationship exception. (See, e.g., In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 827 [“the parent must show that he or she occupies a ‘parental role’ in the child’s life”]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 [“a parental relationship is necessary for the [beneficial relationship] exception to apply” (original emphasis)].) By the time of a section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court has already removed the child from the parent and terminated the parent’s reunification services. (See In re Grace P. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 605, 611; In re Josue G. (2003)
B289023.DOCX