In re E.M. CA6
M.M. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and the order after the section 366.26 hearing terminating her parental rights to her twin daughters, G.M. and E.M. On appeal, mother argues that the juvenile court erred when it denied her section 388 petition because she established changed circumstances and reunification was in the twins’ best interests. She also argues that the trial court erroneously determined that she failed to establish the parental benefit exception to adoption (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i)) when it terminated her parental rights, and the juvenile court may have considered factors deemed inappropriate by In re Caden C. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 614 (Caden C.). We conclude that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying mother’s section 388 petition because she failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that returning the twins to her care would be in their best interests. We further
Comments on In re E.M. CA6